![\"SLC](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2016\/10\/mormon-church-administration-building-salt-lake-763248-gallery.jpg\")
<\/a>The information that I\u2019ve reproduced immediately below \u2014 drawn from an official release from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<\/a> \u2014 is easily accessible online at \u201cPreventing and Responding to Abuse.\u201d<\/a> \u00a0(\u201cThis document summarizes current Church policies and guidelines on abuse. All priesthood and Church organization leaders should be familiar with and follow them to help protect God\u2019s children.\u201d). It\u2019s well worth a look, for those who hold opinions on the subject or hope to do so:<\/p>\n The Abuse Help Line<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/header>\n For some years, the Church has operated a free and confidential abuse help line (1-800-453-3860, ext. 2-1911), established for bishops and stake presidents in the United States and Canada. In other areas, bishops who learn of possible abuse should contact their stake presidents, who will seek guidance from the Area Presidency. (See General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<\/cite>, 38.6.2.1<\/a>, ChurchofJesusChrist.org<\/span>.)<\/p>\n The following information will help bishops and stake presidents use this help line:<\/p>\n This help line is available for bishops and stake presidents to call 24\u00a0hours a day, 7\u00a0days a week, when addressing situations involving any type of abuse.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The bishop or stake president should promptly call the help line about every<\/em> situation in which he believes a person may have been abused or neglected or is at risk of being abused or neglected.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n When bishops or stake presidents call the help line, legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions and provide instructions about how to assist victims, comply with local laws and requirements for reporting abuse, and protect against further abuse. For more information, see General Handbook<\/cite>, 38.6.2.1<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n I have a specific reason for reproducing the information above in this blog entry: \u00a0I\u2019ve posted items over the past two days, here<\/a> and here<\/a>, regarding the Church\u2019s \u201chelp line,\u201d assuming that people reading those items knew what it is. \u00a0Apparently, though, I was wrong. \u00a0In at least one case.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve often referred here to an anonymous detractor of mine whom I\u2019ve designated (with clinical accuracy) my \u201cMalevolent Stalker.\u201d \u00a0He\u2019s been closely monitoring me for something on the order of fifteen or twenty years now, commenting day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, year after year after year, on my depraved buffoonery, my mean-spirited cruelty, my incompetence, my venality, my dishonesty, and my general wickedness. \u00a0So, of course, he\u2019s been very critical of my posts here about the \u201chelp line.\u201d<\/p>\n Something that he posted yesterday, though, strongly suggests that he doesn\u2019t even actually know what the \u201chelp line\u201d is<\/em>.\u00a0 In his post, he says that, were I<\/em> to find out that a loved one of mine<\/em> was being abused, I would surely call the relevant legal authorities rather than dialing up the Church\u2019s \u201chelp line\u201d and depending upon its \u201cbureaucrats\u201d for remedy.<\/p>\n And, of course, he\u2019s right. \u00a0(Not about my being a hypocrite on this subject, but that I wouldn\u2019t call the Church\u2019s \u201chelp line.\u201d)<\/p>\n The \u201chelp line\u201d isn\u2019t intended<\/em> for everybody and anybody out there who knows of abuse or who suspects that abuse is occurring. \u00a0It certainly isn\u2019t intended as a universal substitute for relevant legal procedures. \u00a0It is, as the passage cited above clearly and repeatedly says, \u201cfor bishops and stake presidents.\u201d \u00a0Specifically, as should be obvious, it\u2019s \u201cfor bishops and stake presidents\u201d who learn of abuse or form suspicions of abuse in the course of carrying out their ecclesiastical duties. \u00a0If, for example, while interviewing a member of his ward, a bishop hears a confession of abuse or of experiencing abuse, or begins to worry that abuse might be happening, what is he to do? \u00a0(Such interviews are typically conducted with the expectation of privacy or confidentiality, so the question arises \u2014 for example \u2014 when something comes up in the course of the conversation that could potentially entail intervention by law enforcement or by child protective services.)<\/p>\n As someone who is currently serving neither as a bishop nor as a stake president, I\u2019m under no expectation of \u201cclergy-penitent confidentiality\u201d and, thus, in that regard at least, my path to calling in the proper government authorities in a case of real or suspected abuse is clear and unproblematic. \u00a0The Church is absolutely not telling concerned parents or grandparents to contact their bishop or call the \u201chot line\u201d in lieu of<\/em> contacting law enforcement or child welfare agencies.<\/p>\n My Malevolent Stalker is usually more cunning and clever than this. \u00a0Candidly, I\u2019m a bit disappointed; I expect more from him. \u00a0His mysteriously implacable, comprehensively distorting, and obsessive personal hatred for me is, of course, a given. \u00a0It\u2019s invariable. \u00a0But not fundamental incompetence.<\/p>\n On a somewhat related topic: \u00a0Browsing through the Christopher Hitchens Memorial \u201cHow Religion Poisons Everything\u201d File<\/em>\u2122 this morning, I came across an interesting article, written by Jacob Hess<\/a>, Stephen Cranney<\/a>, and Shima Baradaran Baughman<\/a>, that originally appeared in this morning\u2019s issue of Salt Lake City\u2019s Deseret News<\/em>: \u201cSeeking a more comprehensive understanding of sexual violence in Utah:\u00a0To reducing sexual violence, it\u2019s crucial to consider all available data to understand this tragic problem with greater clarity.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 I share a passage from it here, and I encourage you, if the subject interests you, to look at the entire piece, as well as at its predecessor in what will eventually be a four-part series:<\/p>\n While generalized, statewide numbers for Utah get frequent attention, more specific analyses can raise new insights. For instance, if membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made someone more vulnerable to sexual assault, we would expect to see elevated rates of sexual violence in more Latter-day Saint heavy areas, all other things being equal.<\/p>\n That\u2019s opposite of what available comparative data across Utah\u2019s population centers suggests. . . .<\/p>\n In Utah, for instance, the rate of reported rape per 100,000 inhabitants in the more Latter-day Saint-heavy Provo\/Utah\/Orem metropolitan area is 40.8 per 100,000 people, lower than the Utah average. The Salt Lake City\/Murray area is 65.3, the Ogden area is 48.7, and the St. George Metropolitan area is 44.3.<\/p>\n This data suggests that more Latter-day Saint-heavy metropolitan areas have lower rates of sexual violence in Utah.<\/p>\n In a similar way, if there is something about membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that prevents sexual assault, we would expect to see lower rates of sexual assaults at the Church\u2019s universities, compared with other campuses.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
<\/a>
(Image from the BYU website)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n