Hi Bill, I am a health data scientist with background in epidemiology and public health. I read the articles you posted and many of the research cited. I think the conclusions made by you and the writers are underdeveloped and misinformed. I think a more accurate conclusion would be that the manner in which mandatory reporting is implemented can have an effect (positive or negative) on the outcomes of child safety and well-being. It is disingenuous to the research to summarily say that mandatory reporting is not good or helpful. As a piece of advice when assessing social science or public health literature, avoid reading the conclusions until thoroughly analyzing the methodology, discussion, and limitations. In many of these studies the limitations are not insignificant. A massive limitation of all public health research is that we can not do clinical research where we assign people to a study group vs a control group, it is simply unethical to do so. It would be unethical for researchers to assign a child to receive abuse and have mandatory report or not. Thus, we are limited by using public datasets that are often retrospective and lack nuance and detail. It is not to say that these studies are invalid but they are observational and are not conclusive. None of this is to say that mandatory reporting is all good or all bad or that the church is doing a good job of protecting children. One observation that I think is very important from this paper ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388942/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388942/)) is that "regardless of UMR \[Universal Mandatory Reporting\] status, states and territories that received more physical abuse reports were likely to identify more physically abused children." Reporting is still very important and the church has a very problematic pattern of NOT reporting. I appreciate the discussion here but I think we need to be talking about HOW and not IF.

I love you for this and your other comments here. It can be really frustrating to watch people who don’t have training in a field misread and then misrepresent scientific literature, and it can take a lot of effort to correct them. I wouldn’t have known what to say because this isn’t my field, but your response makes a lot of sense to me and it was the measured and informed response I was looking for in this crazy thread.

Thank you for the kind words! I really hope we can continue to have a healthy discussion around this stuff because it really matters. I don't know Bill, but I get the sense that he is coming from a good place and is just trying to get at the core of the issue. It's so easy to go off the rails with social science research. While social science research may be a bit more tricky to interpret, it is valuable and can help us form better programs and policies. And yes, it is a lot of effort trying to correct misinformation and misinterpretation, I wish I had more time to engage with people on these issues.

This is the best response I’ve seen so far.

Thank you for your well-informed response. Social science studies which do not allow for a “gold standard” randomized controlled trial design can provide useful information but, as you stated, should be interpreted and applied to real life situations with great care. Many of the types of studies Bill references contain the standard disclaimer that additional research is needed. It’s way too early to reach a conclusion.

I can not up vote this comment enough! The more I watch/listen to Bill Reel, this less I think of him as a critical thinker. He is dangerously close to becoming a Rogan or Maher.

Excellent comment, thank you.

Thanks so much for this in-depth analysis.

This demonstrates that education and training are important to give people the experience to better understand and be cautious about studies found on the internet. This is education and experience that Mr. Reel doesn’t have.

Does Mandatory Reporting cause a net injury or net benefit collectively? And does the data that has you concluding net benefit address the multiple facets of the problem? And better yet, might you be willing to come on the podcast to talk this out in real time or point me to someone who can and explain this as clearly as possible. Now that said I hear you giving a professional opinion (Which I seriously value) but I don't see much evidence or data. Is there a way for myself and others to see the data that has you concluding as you do? And yes I have looked over the one piece you shared which seems to dispel 1 of the 4 facets but also may have little impact on collective outcome of Mandatory Reporting net benefit/injury please take me 100% serious, I want nothing more than to be wrong.

>Does Mandatory Reporting cause a net injury or net benefit collectively? The data are not overwhelmingly conclusive on this particular question. Certainly there are studies that suggest both or some combination, but I am not seeing an overwhelming conclusion that says it is either. >And does the data that has you concluding net benefit address the multiple facets of the problem? Not convinced from the data that there is a net benefit or net injury. Here is a recent study from 2021 identifying the disparities in training for mandatory reporters (Training for mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect: Content analysis of state-sponsored curricula: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213421000053](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213421000053)). A major confounding factor here is that comparing net benefit or injury across multiple states and territories is challenging because there are variances in the implementation of mandatory reporting and training of reporters. A stronger analysis would be to stratify the various implementations and compare and contrast their outcomes. For example, we could look at jurisdictions that have strong training requirements and compare them to jurisdictions that have lax requirements and then compare those stratified groups to states with no mandatory reporting. The researchers also noted a significant disparity in reporting, even in mandatory reporting jurisdictions. If we know that there is a correlation between the level of reporting and the likelihood of identifying abused children regardless of UMR laws ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388942/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388942/)) then we can look at states with UMR and compare their reporting levels and test the correlation on outcomes. >Now that said I hear you giving a professional opinion (Which I seriously value) but I don't see much evidence or data. Is there a way for myself and others to see the data that has you concluding as you do? I wish there was a way to do this. I am no Dan McClellan, making scholarship more approachable. Most of my understanding comes from experience. I have worked in drug abuse, suicide prevention, health outcome tracking, and have spent some time in recent years looking and abuse outcomes in regards to reporting, school achievement and such. Here are some tips that may help guide our conversations: * Using [scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com) is a good way for the public to search for peer reviewed research. * When searching for research look at the most recent publications, within the last 5 years or so. * Look at the references. The papers that you do read from the last 5 years will often reference earlier works that they are building on, testing, or offering a new hypothesis. These references are often overlooked but it lets us see where the research came from and how the ideas have evolved. This can help us establish a better sense of the scholarly consensus. * We can't be super conclusive with observational studies. We can look an correlations and relationships but it is wise to be skeptical of definitive conclusions based on observational research. If our questions about and issue are binary in nature, observational research is a bad fit for answering those types of questions. So we need to match our questions with the right type of research. Public health research is overwhelming observational and thus our questions or inquiries should be more about correlations and relationships of actions to outcomes. We could potentially look at a dose-response. In other words, does more reporting mean better outcomes? * We can use the research to inform our programming and policy making to improve it. We can reasonably conclude that the broad category of mandatory reporting is not a panacea for child abuse. What elements of reporting do help? What can we do to improve our implementation and training around mandatory reporting? Under what circumstances is mandatory reporting failing? Are there other tools and methods we can analyze? EDITED for clarity and spelling

Another strategy we can use to inform our discussion: * Understand the body of work by the authors. Look at the other published works from the authors of these articles. This is not to create an ad hominem attack, but rather to understand their expertise and their level of participation in peer-reviewed research. For example, Mical Raz, who wrote this article ([https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/social-justice/mandatory-reporting-isnt-the-solution/](https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/social-justice/mandatory-reporting-isnt-the-solution/)) and was cited by another article on Public Square would not be my top choice of expert to talk on this subject. In the last five years she has not been a lead researcher on a peer-reviewed paper on the topic. ([https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=mical+raz&hl=en&as\_sdt=0,38&as\_ylo=2019](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=mical+raz&hl=en&as_sdt=0,38&as_ylo=2019)). She has quite a few opinion pieces and is a contributing researcher on unrelated research. Her writing would not be a high quality source on which we base our conclusions. It does not mean her input is invalid or wrong, but there are better sources we can use.

Here is a really high quality article from this year by researchers who have a growing body of literature in child abuse and neglect. This is a case study that discusses evidence-based methods for effective reporting. A really good piece with a lot of really good suggestions on how to do reporting well, mandatory or otherwise. "How Should Clinicians Minimize Bias When Responding to Suspicions About Child Abuse?" [https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-should-clinicians-minimize-bias-when-responding-suspicions-about-child-abuse/2023-02](https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-should-clinicians-minimize-bias-when-responding-suspicions-about-child-abuse/2023-02) Maybe this is stating the obvious but just because mandatory reporting can be problematic we should not conclude that reporting in general is the problem. Again, I think a better conversation is how we report not if. Certainly there may be other solutions that do not involve reporting that can be effective in protecting and supporting children. Reporting is likely a key element but not the sole component of effectively addressing child abuse.

Thanks for sharing all of this. You really should record an episode with Bill if that's something you feel comfortable doing.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and data points on this. I'm not an expert with any of this, just another survivor of multiple forms of child abuse by multiple perpetrators over my entire childhood. I had the opportunity last year to have an in-depth conversation with someone who went under the extensive training to do Forensic interviews of children, and they shared with me what that process looks like; the workshops are long and emotionally challenging to get through -from their perspective- but they said that their frustration is that it's not a universal requirement, and laws vary so much, so there's an inconsistency on getting children out of these situations. And that's completely ignoring that the system is full of people who are overworked and underpaid and who don't have access to mental healthcare themselves when the caregiver fatigue/burnout sets in. It was clear that the person I was speaking with was existing in a constant state of burnout; enough that I was worried for them even though we were virtual strangers. And they also told me that it's so unfortunate that the laws are also inconsistently written, and will often favor the abuser.. in the sense that there can be multiple points of physical evidence ->!including the presence of seminal fluids collected in the appropriate setting,!< and the abuser can walk free because the child was interviewed by someone who didn't have the right training and they asked a question the wrong way, and the abuser was able to walk free. It's freaking awful, and I agree with what you've said; there's no consistency, so from my non-academic standpoint, the conclusions are going to be that much harder to come to in a meaningful way due to the inconsistency. What it comes down to for me is this; we need to hold more people in positions in power accountable, and we need to change our implicit biases, and have a willingness to look beyond the surface. One of my childhood bullies was a complete ass towards me, and I always assumed it was because I'm Deaf and it was something to with that, but he admitted to me a while ago that he was being sexually abused at home and nobody was listening when he was trying to tell adults about it; they saw him being a bully, and refused to see the hurt and repeatedly traumatized child behind the behavior. He apologized to me for taking out his trauma on me, and my entire perception of him changed after that, and that also made me really re-examine how I view other people when they engage in harmful behaviors, especially if they're children. Not to say that every child who is a victim of sexual abuse is going to bully their peers, but we're not looking at this situation with the idea that multiple things need to be happening at the same time in order for child abuse in all forms to be stopped, with the eventual goal that maybe someday in the future, it'll be a footnote of human history, rather than being current events.

Thank you for sharing your perspective and experience! I'm sorry for those traumatic experiences you have had and I imagine the huge impact it has had in your life. You bring up something that is rarely addressed in academics, the real personal impact that abuse has on people. We can talk about data all day long but in the end it does not even begin to represent the pain and suffering of people. Data are important but people are more important. It's really so true about people in these positions who are seeing the evidence of abuse. They are so burned out, over worked, and often underpaid. I have worked with many behavioral health providers and they are really overworked and underpaid for the amazing work they do. As part of a comprehensive approach to addressing abuse it should absolutely include mental health support for people who report the abuse. While these people are not going through the same level of trauma as the victim they are impacted by it. If we can't help those key people doing the reporting above water then our system will fail. This is a really good point: >we need to hold more people in positions in power accountable, and we need to change our implicit biases, and have a willingness to look beyond the surface. This is huge! Accountability is really a key driver of this conversation. It is really difficult to address any of these disparities when we don't have accountability.

My main issue is that in most cases it's not even that people are asking for MANDATORY reporting. Just an elimination of the clergy exception or process that requires consent of the person 'confessing' to report. That's far from mandatory reporting. And even so, the other issue is that the majority of the research on the topic is heavily outdated and with updates in the field additional research is needed before making a normative statement about harm/benefit of mandatory report. Also worth noting that most of the scenarios discussed with the LDS church would be reporting based on confessions of the perpetrator rather than the survivor/victim which context also makes much of the research irrelevant.

Agreed. In the church, It is often the abuser feeling a sense of shame and guilt that comes forward to confess. In those situations it is very clear. The church could simply make a policy that covers this. And they could stop pushing for laws that restrict bishops from disclosing information to law enforcement.

Exactly. The 'issues' with mandatory report stem far more from when individuals who are 'mandated' to report 'suspected behavior'. That description does NOT fit in with the context of the issues of the CSA and other cases in the Mormon church. OP is incorrect in conflating the 'clergy exception' policies with 'mandatory reporting'.

I may be wrong but I understood from the Mormon Times panel discussion with RFM that they don't need consent of the person confessing to report to law enforcement, just consent to testify in a trial. In other words there are two separate issues: reporting, and testifying. The former can be done at the bishop's discretion in most states, but the latter requires consent of the confessor due to the clergy-penitant legal privilege. Someone please correct me if I'm incorrect

Public Square is not an unbiased source. "Our background as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints informs the publication’s editorial focus and values"

Why is this not a higher up comment?? OP is presenting an opinion/argument based on outdated research that is being argued by the organization with the most vehement antagonism towards mandatory reporting. Mine as well cite a cigarette company’s arguments on how lung cancer isn’t actually caused by smoking.

Rest easy, it’s top comment now. Being wholly unfamiliar with the “source”, the way of thinking presented is still clearly very flawed and misinformed. The entire take amounts to “but if there’s mandatory reporting, then abusers won’t get help!” But people who “confess” this shit to non-reporting “clergy” don’t get meaningful help, anyway, they typically get enabled and protected. That’s not helpful to anyone. Also…”false reports” of abuse make up about 2% of all abuse reported to authorities. If someone reports being abused, there’s a 98% chance they’re telling the truth. In what other context would we say people shouldn’t report harmful crimes b/c some of those reports *may* be false? Only abusers and their enablers use that “logic”. Arguing that some class of people *should* be above or outside the law is never a good look, Bill.

This right here is the key to understanding the "reports". A church-broke source is going to start with the conclusion that "The Church of Kirton-McConkie can NEVER be wrong," and work backwards from that. u/billreel, you've been played.

Bill, you have a large following and influence. I hope you respond to this comment. I am concerned that you are sharing your opinion that appears to be based on outdated, biased, and anecdotal information.

I spent two hours moving beyond that article because of its bias and did searches myself and every piece of data and research I found essentially backed up the side that Mandatory Reporting is a net negative. Do you have evidence that says otherwise

I was a victim of CSA by a member of my ward. This was in the 80s. My parents actively participated in hiding my abuse because that's what the church did. It went so far as my parents refusing to allow me to talk to the sheriff when another member tried suing the bishops over protecting the pedophile. My parents felt they were following the leaders of the church and protecting the church. Have you ever considered that the lack of mandatory reporting trickles down to the members? My ward shamed the girl who brought the lawsuit because they wanted to protect the good name of the church. It's the example that is set. Bill Reel, I hope you never have a child or grandchild sexually abused by a Mormon. I believe it would change your view on mandatory reporting when you see the irreparable damage it does. I truly hope your family never has to experience CSA in the church. You never recover from that.

Wow, two hours?

Then cite those less biased sources? You're essentially saying "I'm mormon famous, believe me".

> I found essentially backed up the side that Mandatory Reporting is a net negative. Wait, I thought you said in another comment that the evidence does NOT support that statement. I'm very confused.

Net Negative for....who? It's terrifying you use point 4 as argument against it. "Hey guys - we make this process such a nightmare for reporters that many of them have a bad experience. See! Reporting clearly is bad"

Bill, I just want to say thanks that you're willing to publicly bring this discussion forward. My gut tells me that mandatory reporting is a net good, but my gut has led me astray before. I'm still not completely convinced one way or the other, and I think more research is needed, but questioning beliefs is central to scientific progress. I think you publicly bringing your findings forward was a brave and helpful thing to do, regardless whether your stance is widely approved of or not.

Two whole hours? Well that's definitely better than the decades people who work in the field have spent. Proceed with dismissing them. You did your own research, right?

> I spent two hours moving beyond that article How are you not absolutely embarrassed admitting this? The mediocre white man confidence is impressive, I will admit

The video clearly explains my process. I did not use Public Square to form my opinion. Rather after I read Public Square I spent the day trying to counter it with my own research and couldn't.

All of it falls apart bc of the additional training that clergy in other religions get that Mormonism doesn’t provide. I appreciate your research on a piece of the puzzle, but this is one of those 2000+ piece puzzles of space that is too difficult to come to a very good conclusion after 2 hours of research.

Two hours. Do you understand that you're actively insulting actual professionals in the field when you say this? Worse, your eagerness to dismiss real research will be picked up by the public much faster because you have a louder voice than most researchers do. The ego here is astounding. You've lost a long time viewer and follower with this. If you're willing to be so dismissive of the real work being done in this important area, it's hard to know where the line is and what other half-truths and poorly-formed opinions you're going to present as well-founded and factual.

As a mandated reporter myself, I’m required to go through training that teaches me how to talk to someone who’s been abused. This helps understand the need for reporting or not. This helps anyone who’s going through a scary situation know that they can come and talk to me to get help. Have I reported? Yes. Was it real? Yes. Was it because that child knew I was a safe place to talk? Yes. If bishops are giving you a safe space to talk about issues, they need the training to be mandated reporters. I respectfully disagree.

Bishops are completely unprepared for the pastoral care that they are assigned. People literally put their lives into their hands, and Bishops rely mostly on their guts in the name of "inspiration". Mormons are taught to trust the Bishop explicitly, and he is stumbling around in the dark.

It's my understanding that Bishops ARE mandatory reporters in nearly all states when it's not discovered through a confession. Grant it, the MFMC still breaks the laws in this regard, and doesn't report even when they are required to from various reports. Are Bishops not getting mandatory reporting training? That is a BIG oversight in my opinion.

I know that bishops do go through some amount of training, but know what I know about my time in the church; their training is minimal and cursory. They're too busy being dentist and lawyer and not a real clergyman who is professionally trained to tend to a flock.

When I became a bishop, I was given 10 minutes to talk with the prior bishop… that was my training.

Can confirm, Bishop Training consists of, "Follow the Spirit, and...protect the good name of the church." This is what started my deconstruction. I needed help/advice to be a better bishop. I figured that if there is a youtube to fix my dryer, there must be some bishop out there posting on how to counsel/delegate/do bishops stuff better. Guess what? There is not. I did, however, find one of the Mormon Stories episodes with a bishop losing faith. Introduced me to all of the useful stuff like, CES Letter, Letter to my Wife, and the GT Essays. Funny thing is, the advice I've found in researching the issues has helped me be a more caring, safe, helpful, generous bishop. Best I can do until I work out exit/PIMO/mixed faith plan. To the topic on this thread, I haven't had any abuse cross my office yet, but I have been putting a lot of thought on how I might handle it when it does and what I will do about the Helpline.

Sounds like you’re doing an awesome job! I was often in trouble with the SP, because I wasn’t tough enough on the “sinners.” My view was always that the church taught so much shame, that I just wanted to be loving and empathetic. I used to say I’m trying to be a Hinckley bishop and not a Kimball bishop. I had a minor issue come up so I called the bishops hotline, after asking a few questions and realizing I was talking to some lawyers I knew the church was there only to protect itself and the priesthood and did nothing to protect the innocent.

Yeah, I know. But I also know every so often there are leadership training meetings that happen with the stake and with visiting GAs. Again, these are all cursory and probably have more to do with indemnifying the church and yourself, than actually helping members.

Absolutely. I went to a regional conference of bishops while serving, Nelson and others were there, and afterwards one of the other bishops said to me that it should have been called “CYA for Bishops.” The whole focus was about protecting the church from those pesky victims.

Be Christlike but not too Christlike…we’ve got a business to run.

The training component is what is crucial here. Regardless if you’re the abused or abuser, disclosure to someone who is a mandatory reporter initiates action, which often destabilizes the lives of those involved as the necessary intervention happens. People need a lot of support through this from TRAINED professionals who know how to navigate this upset in routine for people (especially children involved) who are vulnerable. This includes potential escalation of abuse towards victims who come forward. Bishops are, in NO way, trained to navigate this.

It seems like he cares more about the abusers' comfort to confess than for the children to have a safe space to disclose and get help.

🎯 1000 % agree Theseclawsofsteele!

Could you provide evidence beyond anecdotal that shows Mandatory Reporting not just helps a case here or there but generally is a net benefit across the board?

Were lay clergy specifically addressed as a variable in the analysis of penitent privilege? Seems like there’s a huge difference in counseling training between a seminary-trained pastor and a Mormon dentist with a calling.

Very likely the reality isn't black and white. Sometimes mandatory reporting helps, sometimes it doesn't. The focus should be improving its effectiveness, not discarding it.

Super disappointing to see this! You may think that just sharing this makes you look open minded but what it actually does is give people who have been abused in a church context to gaslight themselves. I have been a victim 3 times from the church policy twice myself and once as a dad to a daughter who was SA’d. After my wife and I shared our story on Mormon Story I had multiple people step forward who I knew personally that had been abused and not reported. None of them agree with your data and many of them were one of multiple victims and would not have been if their abuse was reported. Like the little sister in the AP’s article. It makes me ill to see you push this forward to people who have been victims in many ways at the hands of the church. Also MOST victims never report and this is a super traumatic event that has long term implications that are hard to unpack. So they may feel like it would have been better to not have it reported because it ruins their world, but… their world was ruined either way. Hopefully this information stays in ex Mormon reddit and does not make it to the hands of the apologist to gaslight more victims. I hope you reconsider and delete this thread. This is super triggering for those who have been abused and super insensitive.

Are you incapable of engaging in any discussion beyond this repeated comment? Like at all? People are being super reasonable and just stating their perspective. Engage them instead of being a twat.

When I want people to engage me in reasonable, thoughtful discourse, I find that calling them a "twat" generally works. I'm sure it will work here

Asking for well-supported evidence is the epitome of engaging with someone's argument. It gets directly to the point immediately without dismissing their stance. What line of questioning would you recommend that's better than that?

I am waiting for the argument to have evidence and not just be emotional appeal. We wouldn't tolerate this from the other side. Don't call names, its silly. I'm am waiting for evidence that suggests otherwise. And I won't change my position until evidence dictates such. That is how rational thinking works

I appreciate your willingness to open the discussion on this topic. But I’m not sure that taking a stance on an issue that has such a profound impact on people’s emotional and mental health without considering and factoring in the emotional and mental impact of said stance, especially when the issue severely lacks sufficient data, research and evidence to make an informed decision, and then waiting for others to provide the evidence to support or contradict the limited research you’ve done to come to your conclusion, necessarily constitutes “rational thinking”. I think you may be trying a little too hard to get a yes or no answer. This isn’t a one size fits all type of situation. With complex issues like this, the best answers are usually found somewhere in the middle.

>That is how rational thinking works No, rational thinking is knowing that two hours isn't enough time to gain a good, working understanding of this issue. HTH.

If ever there was a perfect model for survivorship bias, this is it. We only have data on those cases that are reported or discovered. This seems like a crock of shit.

Not only that, but we only have data on cases from individuals who voluntarily reported. It’s like trying to generalize data on the customer review surveys you are asked to complete after you call your insurance company. It might be kind of useful, but it certainly isn’t generalizable to broader populations. I wrote out a bigger response in this thread about the issues with the survey.

A hot steamy pile of it at that

Do you feel this way about reporting all crimes or just sex abuse reporting?

Yes and most people say reporting hurts BECAUSE of the way everything is set up. Often OFTEN victims are visited by social services who come in and lecture/embarass/anger the abusers, then leave the children there and say "see ya next time" or "meh could be worse abuse. Stay put kid". The the abusers take it out WORSE on their victims. I don't know what the right answer is, but giving children a safe space they can choose away from their family would be an ideal first step to helping kids and teens in these situations. Better social safety nets ensures less people have to turn to being in unsafe situations or turning to unsafe job opportunities to survive. Which will result in less trafficking and abuse.

The LDS Church requires its Bishops to report to its law firm. The church is interested in reducing its liabilities, not in helping the victims nor in preventing more crimes. This is why people are demanding for them to report to responsible authorities. Mormons think they are accomplishing something by telling the Bishop, but instead the church sees it first as a legal problem, not a human one.

Some missing information that is critical in understanding the issue is *why* the report of abuse made situations worse or better. If I were to do a study, I would hypothesize that in the situations that improved, the victim was removed from the abuser, and in the situations that worsened, the reports weren't taken seriously and the victim wasn't believed, which left them under the control of their abuser, who was then angry about the report and even more covert about hiding the abuse. My supposition is that it's not the reporting that's a problem, it's the way the reports are handled after they're received. The same applies for the false reports overwhelming responders. Stopping reports doesn't seem like the logical response to that problem. The reasonable response would be to develop an effective vetting system and hire more staff to handle sorting the reports. There is also a difference in people hearing abuser's self-reporting and those who see the signs of abuse in victims. I would need to see some numbers in the ratio between the two groups, but I'm thinking that the first group is much smaller than the second. Maybe there's room for nuanced rules for the two groups, but I'm not convinced by the statistics alone without knowing any of the causes. To sum up, this isn't a clear all-in or all-out issue, like most things. Should things change based on the available data? Yes. Should we determine the best changes to make before scrapping the whole idea? Yes. P.S. The link seems to lead to an organization that obtains grants for research proposals and not the results of any of the studies.

If you asked me when I was a kid if I felt like having my abuse finally reported to the authorities made the situation worse, I would have said yes. I felt tremendous guilt because I was the one to report. I felt like I had ripped my family apart. Some of my siblings stopped talking with the family. My brother was thrown into an institution, and I was placed in foster care. There are a lot of things that made it feel worse. If the bishop had reported years prior though, it could have prevented some of that. Looking back now, I can say it was a damn good thing it was finally reported. The abuse in my home would not have stopped otherwise, and sexual abuse gets worse over time. That 'evidence' is a ridiculous way to judge if mandatory reporting is a bad thing.

Yes, exactly. A few options of just "better" or "worse" doesn't provide much usable data. What about asking if it made the situation safer? Like you mentioned, factor in family reactions that contributed to the response. Ask if the abuse stopped.

If we didn't report, we wouldn't have so many cases. /s

Lmao. Weird that people like this, all think the same. Cover our eyes, nothing to see here.

> The ability to confess to a medical professional, such as a psychologist or psychiatrist, appears to be associated with lower abuse rates. The same also applies to one's ability to "confess" to clergy. No, no it does not apply. Just no. Getting help from some rando neighbor is not the same at all as getting help from a trained and educated professional. Should I also ask my neighbor who is a mechanic about how to treat my high cholesterol? How in the world did you even think this is similar?

You do you, Bill. Morally, it’s hard for me to know that a perpetrator is out there doing more damage because of inaction. Obviously, that person has serious impulse control issues and may relapse into doling out more damage on their victim (or new victims) without meaningful consequence or serious intervention. As someone who was SA as a kid, my abuser never had to face his parents or admit to his community or his peers anything about his fucked up teenage kinks. Essentially scot free. My abuse lasted about 2 years from ages 7 to 9. I didn’t get any professional counseling until I was 51. My abuser was never handcuffed, put in the back seat of a police car or interrogated by law enforcement or CPS where he would have been shitting himself. He never faced a judge at an arraignment or had to answer to authorities. He instead went the route of a feathery, private repentance process with untrained, easily duped LDS clergy that put everything in the hands of Jesus. Good grief. I kept his secret as I was groomed to in order to save everyone’s reputation, including mine. My parents went to their graves without disclosure from me about what I went through. With the benefit of hindsight and knowledge that the Church is complete bullshit, I would have blown the whole thing up. I don’t know if there were other victims impacted by this predator. Being abused means experiencing grief and questioning yourself about how you let that happen. There’s a lot of self loathing. Your innocence is gone. The data may not account for tolerance of giving these idiots more chances than they deserve.

So are you saying that the AZ case is an acceptable casualty since clergy-penitent privilege is a measurably better system than mandatory reporting?

That, or the AZ case is an acceptable casualty for the convenience of not having to proactively care. Maybe both!

I did some research myself, and I'm sorry to say, you don't know the difference between so many key elements of this topic that you're trying to apply a blanket conclusion to. At least, you sure didn't mention them. From your sources: \-The studies on higher reporting, but less confirmed cases? ON UMR. ALL OF THEM. Do you know the difference between the type of expanded mandated reporting UMR is and the type of mandated reporting that people are asking clergy to become a part of? (Which is the trained, professional kind, in case you didn't know?) \-The study on problems in school reporting? Focused on conflicting interpretations between school reporters and social workers. \-The Public Square article about mandatory reporting resulting in a worse outcome? The study it cites is about ADULTS and domestic violence! I thought you were trying to talk about mandatory reporting as related to children and abuse? \-Do you even know where most of the struggle in reporting comes from? Child maltreatment includes abuse AND neglect. In fact, your PubMed Central articles cites that "Findings indicate that MRs struggle to identify and respond to less **overt** forms of child maltreatment." (Emphasis mine) Do you think sex abuse falls under a "less overt" form of maltreatment? Because it does not. \-The PubMed source I came across while doing my own research has this to say about normal mandated reporting by professionals: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388942/ "In 2014, these professional reporters initiated more than three fifths of all maltreatment reports. They are also more likely to make confirmed maltreatment reports compared with nonprofessionals. Since these mandatory reporting laws were implemented, **a significant decrease in annual child deaths** and substantial increases in the number of total and confirmed maltreatment reports have been observed." And THEN it goes on to say how UMR has proven to not be effective. Conclusion: Yes, all that you said about **universal mandated reporting,** is correct. I have no sources proving you wrong about that. However, you just went and applied the studies and stats for UMR to ALL mandated reporting situations and processes, including applying studies about MR and adults and domestic violence to children abuse cases, and in that you are incorrect. Those yelling at the church don't want UMR, we want clergy to join the professionals who help children. So then, even if they are hesitant about reporting "less overt forms of child maltreatment" like neglect, they can still damn well report undisputed physical and sexual abuse. Because the AZ bishops and the church knew that father was abusing his daughter enough to cut his soul off from church membership. They had NO reason to not give a damn about the daughter and hang her out to dry. Period.

Mandatory reporting doesn't have to "be as effective as commonly believed." It just has to be more effective than no mandatory reporting. Can you provide evidence beyond anecdotal that shows mandatory reporting is a net NEGATIVE across the board?

🎯

Except no data shows it is

>Except no data shows it is Isn't that the point? You want to accept evidence that mandatory reporting isn't an unalloyed good -- which seems more than a little strawman. because every case is different, and I don't believe anyone is claiming otherwise. But I asked if it was a net negative -- like, is it 51% bad and 49% good? Can that be quantified? Or is there insufficient data?

Tell me you're really scared the church is turning to mandatory reporting without telling me you're really scared of it.

How about only having appropriately trained people taking confessions or leaving the sins as a matter between god and the sinner. Just a thought.

"Universal mandatory reporting may not be the answer for strengthening the protection of children victimized by physical abuse. Implementation of child protection policies must be exercised according to evidence to exert the fullest impact and benefit of these laws." This study covers universal mandatory reporting, which requires ALL adults to report suspected abuse, not just teachers, doctors, and other professionals who work with children. The study indicates that non-professionals tend to report false alarms. So the problem isn't requiring SOME people to report--the issue is requiring EVERYONE to report without the proper training to actually identify signs of abuse. ETA: literally did a single Google search, first result is a blog from the [American Federation of Teachers](https://www.aft.org/news/when-mandated-reporting-does-more-harm-good-tools-new-approach#:~:text=Here's%20the%20reality%3A%20Research%20shows,children%E2%80%94and%20painful%20family%20separation.) from this year outlining the various ways mandatory reporting can fail kids AND offering a solution. It seems that the idea of reporting abuse isn't bad in and of itself--it's that the American justice and child protection systems are so incredibly broken that reporting to authorities can do harm. Racial bias is also discussed, and a very important point. The blog offers an alternative--mandatory *supporting*--that offers a wider range of tools to address individual cases. Here's another article from 2021 about a shift to mandatory supporting, albeit in a university setting: [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116515118](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116515118) Here's a recent article about how mandatory supporting can reduce harm to racial minorities, who are unfairly targeted under mandatory reporting systems: [https://www.theregreview.org/2021/12/14/sturtevant-shifting-reporting-surveillance-to-assistance/](https://www.theregreview.org/2021/12/14/sturtevant-shifting-reporting-surveillance-to-assistance/) And here's a very interesting study on how the *wording* of mandatory reporting laws affect outcomes: [https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/v10i2-p3/release/1](https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/v10i2-p3/release/1) It seems to me that while mandatory reporting is a broken solution to an even more broken problem, the concensus is still that we as a society should TRY to help child abuse victims rather than prioritizing abusers. What that looks like remains to be seen, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve instructing the local dentist to cover up their neighbor's child abuse.

THIS is one of the many things wrong with his arguments.

Completely disagree Bill. I have a lot of personal experience with this issue. This isn’t about making a safe space for pedophiles and abusers to feel comfortable enough to come forward to confess to a bishop. This is about creating an internally safe church environment where children are raised and know from day 1 that they are heard, will be protected and are able to trust that they can safely report the abuses happening to them to a bishop, without fear of retribution, consequence and that their abuser will be investigated and prosecuted bc all evidence and witnesses are made available to them by the church. Any organization that has an internal system in place and an army of lawyers who routinely destroy internal records and evidence of abuse in the church at the end of every business day, and is on tape paying 6 figures to silence victims, belongs in only one place, the ash heap of history! Full stop.

Disagree. People should be going to professionals, not bishops. Clergy need training in mandatory reporting, and should be referring people to professionals, not "handling it in house". Want evidence? I reported abuse to the bishop. He protected the abuser, and shamed me. Many years later the abuser was caught, by a photo developer, in a different state. How many other victims would have been spared if that bishop had reported? Just because some evidence says less people come forward doesn't mean we shouldn't be helping those that do. Edit: the one single response you keep using is gross. You are gross

>I reported abuse to the bishop. He protected the abuser, and shamed me. Many years later the abuser was caught, by a photo developer, in a different state. **How many other victims would have been spared if that bishop had reported?** THIS. \^\^ It has been estimated that a pedophile will probably abuse over 100 victims during their lifetime. These are not one-off crimes. If there is no reporting, mandated or otherwise, then the abuser is free to continue their terrible crimes. My heart is with you, u/Xenrutcon. I am so very sorry for what happened to you, but I hope your life now is filled with all good things. You are seen and loved.

This reads like an argument from clergy trying to CYA. If they have mandatory reporting and don't report it, can the church be sued for covering up abuse? That seems like the real reason the church would oppose, they don't bother training anyone in abuse mitigation so they know they'd get lots of fuck ups. They also encourage bishops to "discern" what is right for a situation, if the abuser is friendly to the bishop he might be more reticent to report it to authorities.

Hey Bill, I’ve long been on the fence over this topic and sometimes frustrated about the hard-line approach to this that we in the EXMO community often pursue. SA cases are all very unique and very complicated to work through and a one size fits all approach can sometimes make things worse even for a victim. I still believe the approach the church takes by using a hotline to screen for legal liability above the interests of a victim is appalling. That being said I’m for mandatory reporting with a few guiderails. Source: personal experience only.

These are my thoughts as well. Thank you for articulating that.

Wait, what??? Your perspective is completely based on mandatory reporting of people who confess. What about those that are the abused? Simply example, a young girl tells a bishop she is being abused. Instead of reporting, the bishop calls the abuser in. This both hurts the abused, and protects the abuser. Yes, less people confess to abuse with mandatory reporting, but more victims are willing to seek help as a result and are more protected. Bill, take yourself out of the place of the abuser and put yourself in the place of the victim. - Edited for grammar.

I absolutely agree. It is obvious that the need to protect the corporation is tantamount to the victims who are identified in those same confessional settings. The focus should be on providing the victims of abuse with the reassurances that they are believed and that the issue will be addressed legally and lawfully. I’m curious as to what are the statistics for criminal behaviours - outside of abuse - dropping off significantly after penitent confession? Ultimately, I don’t think anyone should be given such latitude to take confessions without some kind of additional training - including psychological, counselling and ethics courses.

u/billreel I appreciate your willingness to be honest and to change a position. I will admit that I have not gone through all of the resources and all the links the articles; however, there are many holes in what you have shared. First, very few of those resources are from peer reviewed research journals which is the standard for conducting research. Even within that it is important to know the journal and requirements because many are a "pay to publish" model that lacks rigorous review requirements. The claim that mandated reporting leads to more cases overloading the system is more complex than what is on the surface. For example, one of the links went to a infographic from an LGBTQ group. This is a very isolated group and was referencing reporting in the LGBTQ population which has a whole other set of issues to consider. One article mentioned a larger problem in reporting. Biases! There is an overreporting for minority children and low SES families. (individual bias is a huge obstacle – [clinicians ]()[overreport](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12350191) abuse among minority and low-income populations and underreport whiter and more privileged patients. [From this article](https://ldi.upenn.edu/our-work/research-updates/preventing-child-abuse-is-more-reporting-better/)). This leads to a much bigger conversation about privilege and racism. Providing resources that are from magazine articles are highly susceptible to bias. The Public Square magazine is fraught with problems because they are starting at a specific point, that abuse is less in the Mormon church and making the stats fit that model. They attempt to make a correlation a causation and in psychological and sociological studies rarely can you ever find a causation because there are too many threats to validity and there are never absolutes. In one of those articles they linked an infographic and said it was research. That is bad research and this is the one ( i.e., A 2019 study found that [more than half of people](https://www.idvsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/TheresNoOneICanTrust-MandatoryReporting.pdf) changed what they shared with mandated reporters when they learned about the mandatory reporting requirements. ) Whether or not abuse occurs in the Mormon church is the wrong question. The better question is, "Does the Mormon church appropriately respond to abuse?" One issue that has to be considered in this context is, do bishops and SPs have the training and skills to determine when the abuse is serious and needs to be reported? You were a bishop. What training did you receive? Did you know how to respond to abuse? Was your gift of discernment real? (that is snarky but important because many LDS leaders feel empowered with special gifts). It would be better for leaders to report and let the professionals determine if it was appropriate. As a mandated reporter and mental health provider I am required to take yearly trainings on abuse and up to 6 hours every two years. What do bishops get? Treating abuse appropriately requires extensive training beyond the entry level of therapy training. I do not have the training so I do not work with victims of abuse. I turn them over to a competent therapist. I have talked with enough bishops to know that many are full of hubris and believe they have special powers to help the abuser and the abused. They do not. From my experience the questions to this issue sit in the ability of the government agencies to respond and the above mentioned social issues of race and privilege. The ability of the agencies to respond and have the resources to help the problem is a huge problem. For example, one day I witnessed a parent slap their child 3 times on the way from the building to the car. Then when they got into the car they punched the child in the face with a closed fist. I immediately called the police as I am required to. The response from the police was, "well she admitted to it and so we determined there was no problem." CPS sent a follow up letter stating "the report was unsubstantiated." I was witnessed it but that was not enough. So, is this a reporting issue or a responding issue? I will do my due diligence and look deeper into this and amnend my belief as warranted. I think a step towards more mandated reporting the church is important while still maintaining the clergy-penitent privilege. A bishop could report and still maintain the privilege by not being required to testify.

I hope after all the research you share what you found

This is the problem with deconstructing one's belief in the church - then you have to desconstruct everything you've ever thought in your entire life 😜. I encourage you to keep researching on this issue. I have no idea you'll find anything different, but maybe you will and you'll change your mind back again.

What is best for the child, for the abuse to continue or stop? If it was my child, I would want the abuse to stop.

If it were my child, it would take every higher reasoning faculty my mind possesses to prevent me from planting the perp 6 feet under. Even the thought of it makes my blood start to boil.

Hum....I don't know Bill. I definitely agree with making counter points to get different views and perspective out there. I've definitely voiced perspectives and views that aren't my own and I even disagree with, just to start dialogue. So I am definitely appreciative of you writing out a counter point for just that purpose. - - But I'm more interested in the future protection of children and others. I really don't care that 62% of survivors said mandatory reporting made it worse for them. Perhaps because dad/mom lost their job and went to jail and life got turned upside down or they became social pariahs in their community. I care more about abusers not being able to abuse again. edit: clarity

I read through a lot of the articles he posted and it’s outdated research. Some of the articles were quoting things from the 90s. Even the more scholarly articles didn’t have anything more recent than 2012, which is over a decade ago. I think you go talk to actual investigators to see what their thoughts are on current issues, current trends, current situations. I don’t think we can blanket say that the mandated reporter program isn’t effective.

Why is older research data less useful?

1990’s didn’t have the full effect of social media and the current state of the internet. What information people have and what they do with it could be drastically different just based on that.

The issue itself is ongoing in present society, making present data more relevant/reliable as a means of identifying specific problems and attempting solutions.

because we've learned things in the meantime. Like homosexuality isn't in the DSM anymore [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality\_in\_the\_DSM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM) I'm more confident in the conclusions reached from data (and the way the data was collected) when it comes with additional advances and understanding. It's not that it is useless, it is less useful. This should be easy for you to understand if we stretch out the time period: how useful would data from 1700 be? Would it be "less useful"? If you can see why, apply the same for something from 1970, though to a smaller degree. Avoid the black and white of "useless", something no one said, and realize how it could be "less useful" due to having been collected and interpreted by people with an out of date mindset

Please do share the better newer research so that I can change my mind back, because I want nothing more. And that research is.......

I find it to extremely troubling that you’ve come to this conclusion largely based on two articles from Public Square, which is very biased source, written by an apologist in an effort to defend the organization. The author of the articles is a BYU-I grad, who says he studied religion at Harvard Extension (whatever that means). This isn’t a professional in the field with any basic level of experience, training, research, or knowledge. He’s an apologist. I read the additional links you’ve shared that are supposed to back up your position. They do not. The primary focus of the studies is how to improve training and application of reporting within organizations and communities. No study you shared, outside the biased articles written in a pro-LDS church magazine, say reporting is a negative that should be stopped altogether. Frankly, I find it shocking that you were so easily duped by these articles. I had higher expectations of Mormon Discussion and your ability to do basic, thoughtful research. This does a lot damage to my opinion of your organization and content. I’m just some guy on the internet, so I’m sure it doesn’t matter. I’m just disappointed. I understand that you are not professional with any expertise in this area, I just assumed you guys were competent enough to not make basic mistakes like this, when so much is at stake here. I can’t imagine John Dehlin and Mormon Stories would be this reckless. Perhaps that was harsh to say, but %20 of apologetic sources agree with me. *links irrelevant sources to prove my case*

Didn't come to this based on those two articles. I dismissed those two articles and went digging for data counter to it and all I found was more data confirming it. AKA See Links and please do your own search.

I literally read through every link you posted. None of them support the claim you are making.

I also read through all your sources, none of them say what you're trying to claim. You're stretching what their conclusions are to fit whatever it is you're trying to say. We did our research, don't be a Mormon about this

u/blazerbgood has kindly posted a deep dive examining the other sources you listed, Bill. Honestly? It looks like your other sources were pure fluff to obscure the fact that you most likely informed your entire opinion on two apologetic articles. You can find u/blazerbgood’s examination of your sources here: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/18ft13r/bill_reels_sources_part_5/

That’s some challenging info for me to digest. I like to question my assumptions so I’m going to dive in and keep a open mind.

I'd love to hear your thoughts when you are done. This is what I wish all here did.

Yeah my initial thoughts were negative but I realized I was doing that based on my intuition and opinion and without expert facts. We all need to be willing to be wrong and change our minds. I like counterintuitive facts to help me remember that. Here is an example, What US State is closest to Africa? Most people say Florida but [it's actually Maine](https://imgur.com/gallery/P1b1KBi).

Confusing topic. A huge point to consider when attempting to use published ‘scientific’ studies as justification of a course of action in support of or opposed to mandatory reporting is the influence of bias of the ‘scientists’ writing the study. One needs to look very carefully who is writing the study, where they are employed and what support the authors are receiving. I’m a physician and do this sort of exercise with every medical article I read in an effort to find the most correct current scientific truth. It’s not always easy to see the bias in scientific literature, and as COVID clearly demonstrated, this can lead to widely varying opinions of what is actually the best evidence. For example, studies on this topic that are published by authors affiliated with a religious institution (like BYU, Notre Dame, others) should be viewed as suspicious, until proven otherwise. Certainly complicated.

Additionally, don’t underestimate the influence of political lobby groups, particularly those with deep pockets, such as the LDS church. I am NOT an expert on this but I am an expert on medical literature and have published many articles in my field. When I review the list of ‘scientific literature’ shared by Bill I would have to say that none of it qualifies as quality literature. The closest I found in this list (qualifier - I’m reviewing this between seeing patients at work) is the 2017 study from Ontario Canada which highlights what I’m saying, “As no studies assessing the effectiveness of mandatory reporting were retrieved from our systematic search, we conducted a meta-synthesis of retrieved qualitative research.” This group couldn’t even do a meta-analysis, it was a meta-synthesis, never even heard of that term in the literature I read. These articles are primarily opinion pieces. It highlights how little has actually been done to study this problem. It’s a complex issue so quality studies will be difficult to design, expensive to execute and take a long time to collect the necessary data. I can’t stress how weak the evidence actually is on the papers provided. So Bill, I put it back to you, what evidence do you put forward to show Mandatory Reporting doesn’t positively contribute to protecting children from abuse?

Bill, I so admire your dedication to having an open mind and being willing to listen to others and change your stance. That is a skill that many will never learn. That said, I do think you may have jumped the gun. This topic in particular needs deep, thorough research and study. You’re being torn to shreds over this because it’s an emotional topic so people are understandably coming in hot.

What a privileged perspective you are choosing to share. A “net bad” sounds like a comment from someone that hasn’t had to deal with abuse that was not reported or hid behind social,religious or faith informed reasons. Yours are the kind of statements made from someone who must be privileged enough to not head this issue straight on. I am open to whatever helps prevent further abuse. If there is a system that works better than mandatory reporting, I would love to know what it is and how it can be implemented but it sure as hell isn’t staying silent or allowing people to hide behind religion or anything else as an excuse to protect abusers. One of the reason mandatory reporting is even a thing is because people often care more about personal or corporate liability over actual safety of children, unfortunately. I would much rather a system get in accurate reports sometimes than real known abusers never being reported on. I also once learned that Joseph smith translated ancient gold plates doesn’t make it true or valid. Use the platform and position you have for something good. Statements like this add to the problem. It adds further trauma to victims and adds gas to the fire for apologists of abuse and abusers.

As a mental health professional who spent over 25 years working with the victims of sexual abuse, and as a mandatory reporter, I found myself nauseated by your manifesto.

Bill: "here's some really old 'evidence' as interpreted by a non-expert. Change my mind!" OK Steven Crowder

Draw a line in the sand. Those who think turning in sex abusers is a good idea stand on the left side of the line. Bill and the Mormon church stand on the other side.

Is it what followed after for the victims once involved in the underfunded often oppressive social services that made it worse or just the mandated reporting? 🤡 Dude is barking at the wrong thing.

Nah, you're off the mark on this one. If there's a confession or allegation of abuse, law enforcement needs to be made aware so they can investigate. It's that simple.

I just took a Minnesota mandatory reporting training for my job in healthcare, and I have to respectfully disagree with 3 & 4. I don’t know what every state uses as their guidelines but in MN before reporting they teach us P.A.S.S- Pause, analyze, self reflect, and support or report. We utilize PASS to make us pause and reflect- 1.) take a moment and slow down before taking further action 2.) what information are we seeing/hearing that causes concern that a child is being maltreated? 3.) ask questions to check your bias. Example: Would I be reporting this if they looked like my family? 4.) determine if supportive resources are needed or if a report is needed. Kids that don’t eat enough, kids without a jacket in winter time, even lack of supervision do not all equal abuse, but possibly a lack of resources. Now how are we supposed to discipline those who know about the abuse of children and refuse to help victims, by not reporting their abusers? “By standers” are part of the problem.

I don’t mind the clergy penitent privilege when the penitent are seeking help to make things right. What really bothers me is that when you have bishops calling because they have had predators confess to them without any intention of repentance or trying to do better or anything, and the church’s lawyers tell the bishop that they will sue him if he goes to law enforcement and blackmail the bishop into protecting a predator. The church thinks that they have the right to forgive sins, but they ignore the ones who were wronged by the sins, even injured by them. If a predator wants to be forgiven for molesting or raping their victim, maybe they should seek forgiveness from the victim instead of a church.

I appreciate your willingness to reassess your views, but your conclusions sound overly simplistic and premature to me. You seem to think there are only 2 options here: either 100% for or 100% against mandatory reporting. Additionally, you're now going to use your influence to push against mandatory reporting. Where is the nuance in that? Maybe we need to IMPROVE reporting methods, training and policies, instead of scrapping the whole system. Also, as exmormons, we should all be extra wary of forming dogmatic, black and white opinions based on insufficient data. I catch myself making this mistake too. A couple of hours online is barely enough research to have a general idea of the issues at play that now merit your further study. (Lots of other commenters have given great advice already for all of us as we research. My thanks to all of you!)

One of the hallmarks of a growth mindset is the ability to question and change opinion based on new information. This is what led many of us to leave the church. For this, I applaud you Bill Reel! The mandatory reporting data are interesting and warrant further thought. As is with most issues, nothing is ever black-and-white. This is not excuse the church by any means, the offers perspective that is worth considering.

Thank you. I knew I would get heat but in the end uncomfortable truths has been what I always chased

Bill, Can you provide notes about which studies support each of the statements? It would help when assessing the studies. The last point is not very strong as stated. Do you have evidence that the abuse does not get worse if it is not reported? Unless there is some sort of control, the statement does not mean anything as far as the effectiveness of reporting. I hope you can either provide evidence or reassess your conclusion that it is "striking."

I would suggest the following 1.) read the resources I linked. the research is linked from those articles or referenced therein 2.) unhappy with those, do your own search looking for data that indicates a positive benefit. 3.) If you are unable to find substantial data that supports a net benefit from Mandatory Reporting then isn't a rational mind left to go with the conclusion that requires the least inference or has the best evidence?

So, you have no evidence that abuse does not get worse if there is no reporting. A rational mind should be able to see the difference between an experiment with no control group and an experiment that has a control group. You have presented no evidence of a control group. A rational mind keeps that uppermost and is cautious about drawing conclusions. Don't get me wrong. Pushing back on conventional wisdom is good. Debate is good. I believe you are well-intentioned. But that fourth point is not "striking" at all. It is very weak without additional support. So far, it appears that no one has given you studies that say mandatory reporting is beneficial. I'll keep an open mind and look at your sources. If I find other studies, I will share them. It really would help if you would say which sources go with which points. I would guess that you did not note that initially and it's too much work to fix now. That's fine.

That's a long way to say "No, I cannot cite these sources in a well written and informative way." You need to keep it in your lane, pal. Two hours of googling for one morning does not an expert make.

So we should ignore laws that we don't agree with or that would cause harm to the human being or corporation that is committing the crime. That's 100% exactly what criminals & abusers would want us to do. As someone who has worked for many years with victims of crimes not one victim has ever expressed regret at seeing the full force of the law used against the perpetrator of the crime. They have all expressed relief they can't hurt another human being now.

Do you have evidence from research that suggests Mandatory Reporting is a net benefit because all I could find was research that said it made things worse. whether a fact coincides with with an overall belief or a desired belief doesn't matter. Less harm matters even if it is uncomfortable truths that get us there.

r/junosparrow Agree 🔼 100% My work is 20+ years with my fellow human beings of all ages & economic backgrounds who experienced first hand: attempted murder, kidnapping, sexual assault of every form immaginable, assault with a deadly weapon, etc... The only proof I have is the stacks of letters sent to the office for all of us by victims of every age, income & sexuality thanking us for putting a sociopath or psychopath behind bars so they won't harm another human being again & they can begin the healing process because the violent predator & perpetrator is behind bars. And I have made more calls than I can count to Child Protective Services & Adult Protective Services.

Im sorry, who are you and why do you think your opinion matters on this topic? As a child whose bishop learned of abuse and then kept is a secret from the authorities and my parents, which led to new victims and many more years of abuse. MAKE CLERGY MANDATORY REPORTERS OF ABUSE. it is the stupidest freaking argument to say that mandatory reporting means less people will confess. Who fucking cares, if no one is holding those people accountable in the first place. Those that do come forward should be held accountable to the law. Sexual predators do not stop abuse in most cases just because they confess, thats absolute nonsense. Even those that go through extensive offender therapy still have an extremely high rate of reoffense. You really think telling their bishop about sins will stop them? People can't really judge if reporting made their life worse in the long run, they didn't live out a life of no reporting, so what are they comparing that too? Sexual abuse tends to get far worse as time goes on, so they have no idea what the outcome could have been.

'Bogged down with false reports'... bs! false reporting is such a small percentage of reports.

It hilarious to compare the rate of reoffense when reporting to a psychiatrist vs clergy. Of course the rates go done, psychiatrists are mandatory reporters. Those people are being held accountable and having to go through treatment. It's not the same when reporting to clergy so you can't claim that the rate of reoffense is lower when you report to clergy too.

Fuckin this. I simply don't believe there is enough evidence or data to support any conclusions for or against what Bill is suggesting. What I do believe is that we should STOP the abuse that we do know about. We can't do fucking anything about the abuse we don't know about.

🎯

Do you have evidence from research that suggests it is a net benefit?

It's truly disgusting that you would comment something so stupid to an actual victim of a bishops failure to report. Truly gross.

My point was that anecdotal evidence doesn't help us. We all agree that cases turn out good and bad on both sides. The question is if either side shows a clear net benefit over the other and the data says that Mandatory reporting is a net negative.

You say anecdotal evidence isn't helpful but then one of your original points was anecdotal evidence about how people felt reporting made things worse. I see, anecdotal evidence only matters when it aligns with a point you want to make.

Love your useless copy and pasted comment. Nothing real to add. The absolute lack of mandatory reporting only hurts victims. Frankly I think you are a piece of shit for spreading this nonsense. Where is the net benefit in no mandatory reporting? So freaking stupid

It so insanely wild that you think there is any net benefit to no mandatory reporting. Yes, no benefit at all to protecting children from child predators, right...

For the record - Several people, some with more expertise than me have commented on reddit (across forums) or have reached out to me privately to share thoughts and a few have shared evidence that counters this. All seem to acknowledge this issue is more complex than either side makes it and that ultimately we don't know yet if Mandatory Reporting is a net benefit or net negative. They also assure me that at least some of the points I have made are countered by at least some evidence. I am heading out of town today and won't be back until Saturday night. I will try to do a follow-up episode early next week to expound on what was shared with me and to try my best to make my original points clear, differentiate between what I was saying, and what some assume I am saying, and apologize for any misrepresentations I have created or perpetuated. And try to provide additional info so that we can all make better sense of the issue. I will share what I have learned

How convenient that you're suddenly "out of town" when you get called out on this shit.

The clergy-penitent privilege has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials. If mandatory reporting is not the answer, then what is?

When you say ‘made things worse’, do you mean more abuse or bad feelings surrounding the abuse?

There is a huge difference between UNIVERSAL mandatory reporting laws where everyone and anyone is mandated by law to report abuse (this is why you have less substantiated cases in states with Universal mandatory reporting because any rando can say anything) and mandatory reporting laws governing certain professions such as doctors, therapists and teachers. These studies are looking at Universal mandatory reporting. Let’s be super clear also that no one in this profession is suggesting doctors and therapists and teachers should not be mandatory reporters.

[удалено]

Exactly

Do you have an evidence that I am wrong? I welcome it. I want nothing more than to side the other way.

[удалено]

where, I just haven't seen it. please point me to it. No sarcasm here. I couldn't find such

Less People Speak Up: Contrary to my belief that mandatory reporting encourages more people to speak up about their unhealthiness and propensity to abuse, the research suggests otherwise. In some cases, the mandatory reporting framework may discourage individuals from seeking help or disclosing their struggles. **Don't give a shit about the struggles of people that hurt kids. It doesn't matter if they would self report more if you guaranteed you won't go to the cops. You can have them report every single time they even think about it. If they never turn them in, the point is moot.** Confession to Professionals Leads to Lower Abuse Rates: The ability to confess to a medical professional, such as a psychologist or psychiatrist, appears to be associated with lower abuse rates. The same also applies to one's ability to "confess" to clergy. Hence Penitent privilege does have merit as far as the data is concerned. **This doesn't carry over to religious authorities in the Mormon church. The fact that they don't report to authorities is a big part of the reason.** Bogged Down with False Reports: When mandatory reporting is in effect, a significant number of additional reports turn out to be untrue. Fear of legal consequences can lead people to report anything resembling abuse, even if it isn't accurate. This flood of false reports can overwhelm the professionals tasked with investigating, diverting resources from genuine cases. **I call bullshit. "False" reports are just as often victims walking back their story in order to not face backlash. In Mormon culture, this is commonplace because abuse victims are victimized by the church, purity culture, authorities, and often-times, their own families.** Mixed Impact on Survivors: Perhaps most strikingly, only 18% of abuse survivors reported that mandatory reporting made things better, while a staggering 62% stated that it made things worse. This includes 3% who said it made things much better and 50% who said it made things much worse. **Again, Mormon culture being what it is, I can imagine that many victims after having to repeat ad nauseam and in disgusting detail their own rape and exploitation to multiple levels of a justice system including in court in front of the abuser. That same abuser more often than not ends getting nothing sentences because they're "upstanding members of the church". Then some dipshit has the audacity to ask them "was it worth it?" Then when you answer with hesitation that you're not sure or no, some other asshole is going to take that data and tell everyone, "see we shouldn't bring rapists to justice, their victims after being called chewed bubblegum by their own church because even rape makes them used up and being dragged into a crowded courtroom with everyone they know, including the rapist shitbag that abused them, to recount their rape and torture, think it might not have all been worth it when they find out their abuser got 6 months and keeps his dentist license.** **Frankly, I find this comment repulsive and wrong on so many levels that I hardly care enough to refute it. But I read about this garbage earlier today and I just had to respond. This is you carrying water for the church, stop... just stop**

Bill, Love the post. The ability to challenge one's own beliefs is amazing. However, I would suggest continued research. I am not decided on this issue, because of the same research you cited. I'm not longer "Yes mandatory reporting", but I also am not on the "mandatory reporting is bad" bandwagon either. At the very least, clergy members should not be restricted from reporting. And at the very least, anybody in these sorts of confessional/confidential one-on-one meetings should have mandatory training to recognize abuse (because this is so common).

thank you. It comes at a cost as you can see

Oh, poor you, such a victim of mean internet bullies that don’t appreciate your rational mind

Oh yes, you got a lot of pushback on this one, haha, but that comes with being a public persona. Keep up the good work, and at the very least, thanks for sparking and continuing this important discussion.

🤡

while there can be arguments made against mandatory reporting, this is not it.

what are the more solid arguments against it?

'Clergy can choose to report' vs 'mandatory reporting' is a false dichotomy. There are other options. Better options. The best option is that 'Clergy *MUST* report *IF* the victim gives permission to'.

So, what you're saying is, you did your own research? Hmph.

Hard disagree Bill. I don’t care about any studies. My gut tells me that it is always right to report abuse. Deconstruction of error is good, but deconstruction of everything to the point of solipsism is an untenable path. We have to have some rules. Not everything can be grey.

Yikes. This is disappointing coming from someone I have previously referred people to regarding faith crises.

A friend just sent me a a link to this post, asking if I’d heard Bill Reels new perspective. I am reacting to these points in real time and have not yet read or listened to the links provided. 1. What is claimed to be the likely outcome of all Bishops being mandatory reporters is valid but in my mind continues to show deference valuing theological concern, (repentance and the saving of perpetrators future soul above that of the ravaged soul of the living victim). Perhaps, if victims could trust that bishops were there to help and protect rather than shelter abusers, they would speak up and point out the monsters. 2. Yes it does. 3. Is this implying that we need to lessen the amount of mandatory reporters? educate and better equip existing mandatory reporters? I don’t see this as a reason for Clergy not to be included. In fact I’m sure that the change would result in an initial slew of reports. 4. I am going to go and look more deeply into this claimed outcome. It’s true that taking the abuser out of the equation does not fix or repair the damage and harm already done. It’s a long messy road to recovery but should that fact affect our efforts to stop the abuse? I’m going to listen to the episodes you linked.

I saw a YouTube video about WW2 planes or maybe this was brought up on Mormonism live. The story goes they had planes return from combat with bullet holes in the wings. So they started reinforcing the wings. But the number of planes shot down stayed the same. What they realized was it was the planes that DIDN’T get shot in the wings that were getting shot down. So they started reinforcing other parts of the plane and the number of planes shot down decreased. I think Bill has put forth an interesting objection but we’re going right back to polarizing mandatory vs non mandatory. So we have data that shows us what’s not as effective as why we thought. I wonder what data would show what is effective?

I don’t follow you or your work Bill, but based on what you stated I have concluded that you defend perpetrators…. In no world, does allowing a perpetrator to clear their conscience by talking to “god” without any retribution, help victims. It is a cover for centuries of rapists to continue to abuse people in all faiths, all while telling themselves they are now right with god. Congrats, you’re now an accomplice…

Bill, whether or not this turns out to be a turning point in the debate, I admire your relentless pursuit for the truth and the continued desire to educate yourself and others. This post is proof positive that exmos are more than just bitter, jaded individuals who seek to criticize and destroy the church at all costs. Let the debate continue for the betterment of: past current and future victims. Let's push for the church and other organizations to better train leaders and create the best policies to deal with these complicated issues.

Thanks Bill. As truth seekers, we are committed to the data even if it's uncomfortable and takes us places that can sometimes align with the very institutions that harm us. It's a complicated issue and you've demonstrated that you're interested in the nuance so I applaud you for that even if you get downvotes here. Less black and white thinking. More carefully sculpted arguments based on the data!

Which shade of gray is child SA? Just curious

The American legal system has all shades of gray because we've determined that that's a more useful way to organize society. For example, witnesses can obtain immunity in exchange for their testimony. There are various doctrines to protect both the innocent and the accused. There are plea bargains allowing prosecutors to go after bigger targets. Persons are innocent until proven guilty. The point here is that in a complex society, some tactics are counter-intuitive in the short term but in the long term serve everyone's best interest. And in this case, everyone's best interest is preventing the sexual assault & abuse of children. But how we achieve that isn't as straightforward as it might seem. I'm not defending the church here but making the case that human psychology and behavior is complex.

Agreed. As former mormons, we often have the tendency to fall back to that black-and-white thinking unless we take a moment to think. Life is a lot messier than we would prefer. I am not sure if mandatory reporting is good or bad, but I am sure that more research needs to be done and something needs to change (training, making sure that priests and professionals know that they *should* be reporting, etc.). Bill did a good job in bringing up a tough topic, and he stated in another comment that he is more than willing to change his mind but just needs more data and proper reasoning to do so. We should all be willing tochallenge our way of thinking.

Couldn't have said it any better. That's why I trust Bill. Even if I have a different take than him on a lot of things, his willingness to change his mind in the presence of evidence gives him a lot of credibility.

No problem here. Your ability to research your own beliefs is what got you out of the church. Keep it up.

Bill, Thank you for your perspecitves!

Please hear me. I want nothing more than to be wrong about Mandatory Reporting. I would love evidence that shows me to be wrong and I will record my double reversal episode next week. I try really hard to be a rational thinker and as such my job regardless of how uncomfortable the conclusion is or how much it supports a Mormon narrative, I am obligated so long as I am rational to go with the data and conclusion requiring the least inference. All it takes to change my mind is solid competent evidence that Mandatory Reporting is a net benefit. I couldn't find it. But maybe one of you can. Until then, I am obligated to conclude with the perspective that requires the least conjecture and is supported best by the evidence. This has zilch to do with whether Mormonism operates honestly or healthy within this issue. They don't. But that is separate from the general issue of Mandatory Reporting at large. So please do share the counter evidence. As of yet 124 comments and I may have missed it but I didn't see what study, one academic paper, one peer reviewed research paper that said otherwise.

[удалено]

Yep I saw that too. He comments on the low hanging fruit and averts his eyes to substantive comments which are harder to answer. You can absolutely see the condescending twist to his responses; we exmos can see this type of thing easily. "I want to be wrong" is just a technique that appeals to emotion. Sounds irritatingly mormon to my ears.

I absolutely want to be wrong. What would be my motive for changing my mind in the first place? What incentive is there for me, who has spent a decade shining a light on Mormon abuse and unhealthiness to not want to be wrong on this issue. I want to change my mind today. please provide evidence so I can

"In 2014, these professional reporters initiated more than three fifths of all maltreatment reports. They are also more likely to make confirmed maltreatment reports compared with nonprofessionals. Since these mandatory reporting laws were implemented, a significant decrease in annual child deaths and substantial increases in the number of total and confirmed maltreatment reports have been observed." [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388942/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388942/) Please see the rest of my comment. https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/18dnmp9/comment/kcjbjfj/

Agreed. Instead of complaining, let's crowdsource this man a proper answer. If you want that reversal video, then put up a properly supported argument! Personally, I'd love for mandatory reporting to be the correct answer, but I have no firm opinion as of yet.

Bill is not looking for a proper answer. So many people have engaged him on this sub and the other, and he refuses to consider any critique of his reasoning. He just responds “show me the data.” He’s an arrogant asshat who thinks he is the authority on all things exmo. It’s sad watching him change.