When I was younger, sexual abuse of children was cause for immediate excommunication with no rebaptism without first presidency review and a long process.
Over and over again I keep seeing reports of abusers who aren’t excommunicated and are allowed access to church meetings unsupervised.
I’m curious if anyone know when the policy changed and why?
When did bishops get the discretion to keep sexual abusers of children in full faith and fellowship?
If they don’t have that authority what is the process for releasing them for violating their duties and authority?
I’d appreciate feedback from anyone who knows.
Thank you.
Postscript:
For the current official policy.
Just needs a place to report non-compliant local leaders
Wheat & Tares 
I suspect that their has not, in fact, been any substantial change in either policy or practice and that there were many abusers “back in the day” whose abuse was ignored and who were coddled by local leaders. We just didn’t hear about it. Social media has allowed victims a platform from which to speak out and tell their stories.
I’d expect if u are seeing what you are describing you’re only getting a small glimpse of the story. I was a stake clerk a few years ago and sexual child abuse was delt with very seriously and quickly. NOONE definitely found to be guilty of it were able to retain membership and it was reported to police. If someone is accused it is not necessarily assumed they are guilty.
I am not in a position to know any policies that aren’t openly available, and I claim no expertise on this topic, but from my memory the policy requires, and has required for as long as I’ve been aware, a formal disciplinary council, or its equivalent withdrawal of membership council or whatever it is now called, for cases of child sexual abuse.
It’s often forgotten that the outcome of the council is not predetermined. The council can determine that the person is repentant and take no action. People have often confused the idea that the council is mandatory with the false idea that the excommunication or other disciplinary action that results from the council is also mandatory. I not aware that excommunication has ever actually been mandatory for any behavior whatsoever. If excommunication is required explicitly for any certain behavior, then there would still probably have to be a council to determine that the behavior did actually occur. For cases that are prosecuted in the legal system, they could require excommunication for those convicted, and in practice I hope they do.
All that said, I would hope that leaders take whatever action is necessary and appropriate to protect their congregations from predators.
Picture unrelated? I’m confused.
I am only familiar with the details of one child abuse case in the church, but that was much more in line with your second paragraph. This was within the last ten years.
The abuser pled guilty and accepted a plea deal that the parents of the victim fasted and prayed about. It was the minimum that they felt was necessary, and was offered solely out of love for the abuser’s family. The parents of the victim were told that they would probably be asked to present information to the disciplinary council, but that never happened. To the best of their knowledge, no council ever happened. Based on comments from the abuser’s wife, he never even lost his temple recommend. In fact, he was not even asked to attend a ward in another building (the two families were in different wards that both met in the same building) until the victim’s parents threatened to report him for violating a no contact order, which would have sent him back to jail for the portion of his sentence that had been suspended.
At the time, at least, the official policy was excommunication for convicted child abusers. Not only is that not what happened, but the victim’s parents were portrayed in the abuser’s ward’s council as hysterical and irrational, blowing things all out of proportion in order to smear the name of an innocent man. Between that and regular comments in Sunday School and Sacrament Meeting from the abuser’s wife about supposed friends who stab you in the back (that were never reined in or addressed in any way), I felt like it was pretty clear who the church valued.
My takeaway from the whole experience was that official policies are there just to make us look good, but aren’t actually followed. It began a shattering of my faith in the church and its leaders that completely altered my relationship with them both. Still not sure how that will all work out.
Sexual abuse of a child should be reported to the local constabulary, not to the local LDS bishop. That will largely solve the problem. If the offender is in jail, and the matter is on the public record, it doesn’t much matter whether the church conducts a council promptly.
A penitent member may confess his or her sin to the local LDS bishop, and that confession is likely privileged — but the bishop can annotate the membership record that assignments to children or youth are inappropriate.
A police report of abuse, while important, is, in these cases, a partial solution that assumes most reports of sexual assault/abuse end up with convictions. Too many don’t.
Annotating a membership record doesn’t necessarily stop victims from seeing their perpetrators at church. For victims to heal they need to feel safe; removal of the perpetrator from their environment helps in this process.
The line “children are resilient” is a myth. Damage to child victims of sexual assault/abuse has been shown by research to be greater than the damage adult victims experience.
The New Testament makes clear that anyone seeking to follow Jesus must protect children from predators.
I am not typically a fan of excommunication/involuntary membership terminations. But it does seem that if we are going to continue the practice this is the one of the most obvious cases for it.
In reviewing comments here and in a discussion group I’m convinced we have a social problem rather than a policy problem that requires a social engineering solution rather than a policy one.
I would invite suggestions.
A restraining order from the local court is more likely to provide the desired result than a local bishop’s management of who attends where.
Stephen, If the matter really is child sexual abuse, then the victims or witnesses need to treat it like a crime by involving civil authorities. If a child tells a trusted adult about sexual abuse, that adult needs to call the police — not the bishop. To me, it is simple — report crimes to police, not to bushop. The civil authorities can handle appropriate matters like jail, restraining orders, and so forth.
I wonder if we’re talking about the same thing? I have no idea what you mean by a social engineering problem.
JI—to get things to change it isn’t a matter of changing policy—instead it appears that the issue is the people who apply policy and the social aspects of that.
So to change things it appears it won’t take changing the official policy but changing how people relate to the policy, exercise discretion and make choices in individual cases.
That will also affect members willingness to seek restraining orders and how they are treated by fellow members when they do that.
I hope that explains my comment that it appears to be a matter of social engineering rather than policy change.
Sorry that wasn’t clearer. I was too terse.
And, in case anyone missed the bottom line. It appears I was wrong about an official policy change.
Instead we have had a culture shift in many areas.
That is a completely different issue—though just as significant with just as much harm.
Though it occurs in spite of policy rather than because of policy, which is why policy isn’t the solution.
Obviously I need better education and thought on the subject.
Thanks to everyone who commented here or in social media discussions on this post.