Leaderboard

No, it wouldn't be great. If someone doesn't want to be alone with the bishop, why would they want to be alone with the bishop and his wife? (Maybe you haven't seen the accusation against the Miles couple?) Let the person being interviewed choose their own second person to come with them - if, by fluke, that happens to be the bishop's wife, fine, whatever - but it seems unlikely. The whole point is to have someone you trust more than the bishop / to protect you against the bishop - his wife ain't that person. When it comes to keys? Of course not. The bishop isn't even allowed to talk to his wife about the counseling he does with people, and there's good reason for that - for her, for him, and for those he counsels. Yep. And apparently so do the leaders of the Church, and presumably the Lord. Then you'd best stop trusting every bishop and stake president and all their counselors (and presumably all the authorities above them).

Voices in a child's life that urge chastity, and abstinence until marriage: - Parents - Church Imma have a problem with crossing either one of those of the list, thank you very much.

Made me think of something Vort showed me a few years ago.

Brother Benevolence: “A specific promise of protection and revelation for those who strive to repent and keep their covenants.” Sister Stalwart: “Further light and knowledge about how to minister effectively to our sisters and brothers, both in our families and among others.” Brother Believing: “Instructions on what it really means to love as the Savior loves and how we can actually do that today, right now.” Sister Starry-Eyed: “A divine promise that if we take our ministering responsibilities seriously and really live by the Spirit, we can bring again Zion in our generation.” The Great and Spacious Membership: “TWO-HOUR CHURCH! SHORTER GARMENTS! EASIER TEMPLE WORSHIP! FEWER MEETINGS! QUIT WASTING OUR TIME AND PATIENCE WITH ALL THIS CHURCHY STUFF!” John 11:35 As a wise man guy once wrote: I am embarrassed for much of the membership of the Church that their idea of a monumental and joyous change inspired by heaven to bless God's children is to cut our communal Sabbath day worship by a third.

I was legitimately surprised, I did not think the choir would have it's name changed.

Poor Lehi. Sometimes we remember him for the stuff he did, but a lot of the time we just remember Laman and Lemuel beating the crap out of Nephi and trying to turn him into fish food and all.

This thread has given you more than enough to understand the problems of a bishop's wife being required to be in on interviews performed by the bishop (ditto for others conducting priesthood interviews). If you cannot see why it's not a good idea, no more words will convince you. ETA: There are a lot more details that could be mentioned, particularly logistical issues, but it seems pointless. As for abuse by parents, there's only so much that can be done unless the children reach out, or someone witnesses. The notion that the Church could, in a million years, require that parents not be in the room with their children would be railed against by the entire planet. They'd protest about parents' rights, and they'd claim the children were being set up for abuse by the bishop (and his wife, in your scenario). There simply is no bulletproof solution, so the Church does its best to allow for the interviewee to select the option that is most comfortable for them, and yes, the Church respects the role of parents.

This is one of those "either the church is true or it isn't" moments. If it isn't, it makes little sense to have a priesthood leader with the stewardship to help you through the repentance process in ways that often require you to describe in explicit detail and precise descriptive language, your sexual sins. So hey, might as well drop that thing all together. If the church isn't true, that is.

Hello Anon - I trust you’re familiar with the site rules; and beyond that, I would simply note that in Mormonism very often how you say something is at least as important as what you actually say. With that in mind, ask away—and welcome!

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/new-guidelines-for-interviewing-youth Requiring a second adult to be in the room would often decrease the likelihood of confession.

That would be absurd. I, for one, would be far less likely to talk openly to my bishop if his wife were in the room with him. He holds the Priesthood keys of leadership, not his wife.

I thought this was all done and over as I hadn't heard anything from the owner of the other car for a couple of weeks. I got a call from my insurance this morning telling me that they had just got off the phone with me and was demanding them pay for all of his damages. They refused because under no fault law he is required to have his own insurance cover the damages. So he got irate with my insurance company and my insurance company hung up on him. Shortly after, I got a call from the guy demanding that I pay for the damages to his car or he is going to take me to court. I told him that I won't pay. That is what insurance is for. So he stated again that he is taking me to court. So I guess we will see if I am going to court or not. The law is pretty clear here that he is entitled only to a maximum of $1000, which my insurance has already paid him. It is not my fault his insurance won't pay for his damage. The reason his insurance won't pay is because he had been lending his car to his brother and while insurance will cover that if it is for a short time, if it is for an extended time the brother needed to be on the policy, which he was not. So his insurance denied the claim. That is not my fault. That is his. So life may become a bit more interesting. We shall see.

For those confused, this article is easier to keep straight who is accused of doing what to who: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900034840/bountiful-couple-denies-decades-old-allegations-of-abuse.html As far as I can tell the people involved are as follows: Plaintifs 1-3 (Jane Doe 1&2, John Doe 1) Children Of Perpetrator Plaintifs 4-6 (Jane Doe 3&4, John Doe 2) Step Children of Perpetrator Perpetrator - some random guy who had kids and lived in the Bountiful area who may or may not have abused his children and step children. (no relation to president Nelson or the Miles as far as we know) Brother and Sister Miles - Daughter and son-in-law of President Nelson, accused of taking part in events with perpetrator sometimes at large public molest fests involving several others according to the allegations. Babysitter - 16 years old at time was allegedly both a victim and a predator. Exhibits 7-9 - the mothers of the children involved and psychiatrist (who planted false memories that some children don't recall, but others assure them did indeed happen?) President Nelson: associated by relation to the accused and rumours stiring of being involved in some kind of high-power church cover-up to hide facts from law-enforcement. Elder Maxwell: purportedly gave a blessing to help victims heal and forgive - somehow suggesting that indeed wrong was done. Although such a blessing could be given for much more benign reasons if it was given at all.

I just read this on Facebook. I don't know the author or the person who posted it before it was shared by my friend. But it hits the nail on the head of the original OP question: Written by a Female Physician who was wild in college. "This is not Justice. This is Wrong... I was immersed in the party scene in college. I drank to excess. I had black out nights. I WAS GROPED AT FRAT PARTIES. If advances were unwanted I pushed the person away and set personal boundaries. I chose to be a part of the party scene. Because of this I had fun and I have regrets. I HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED AND NOT RAPED. I could replay a scenario like Christine Ford described as very similar to things that happened when excessive drinking occurred in my own experiences. At the age of 25 I settled down and now my idea of excitement is Netflix and yoga pants. If any of my current patients saw my behavior back then, I could understand why they wouldn’t want me to care for them. I feel like being a physician is every bit as important as being a Supreme Court Justice. The decisions we make over the span of our careers could change the lives of thousands of people and their descendants for years to come. The same can be said for the Supreme Court or any other political office held. The thing is, poor choices in the past does not, and should not disqualify them. I chugged bankers club whiskey in a cornfield and peed behind a dumpster 25 years ago. But Friday I used tiny instruments to remove infected bony partitions from the ethmoid sinus a few millimeters away from the brain. Should I have a right to operate on humans despite my past? You are damn right I do. You know why? Because I spent 20 years educating myself and sacrificing countless hours to get there. I gave up so much to be good at what I do, to be confident enough in myself to put myself out there to care for people who put their lives in my hands. My hands are capable in spite of my weaknesses of the past. Character is built partially on learning from mistakes. Brett Kavanaugh has devoted his life to public service and the past 20 years of his life is the definition of integrity. He deserves this appointment. I AM AGAINST THE WEAPONIZATION OF VICTIMHOOD. Believing unequivocally the woman is right every single time no matter what is giving women power to take out anyone in their path. That is not equality. This radical position is not the answer to gender discrimination and victims rights. No one can even place Brett Kavanaugh and the Christine Ford IN THE SAME ROOM at a party that zero people recollect except for the woman making the accusations. If every single woman must be believed every single time, we all know there will be circumstances by which someone will use this power for selfish reasons. It sets women back so far. This is not breaking the glass ceiling. THIS IS NOT JUSTICE. THIS IS WRONG. (Please Note: The author of this testimonial is not me. The doctor who wrote this is a friend of my medical friend, so I can vouch for its authenticity. -- Marjie Lewis)

Yes, we Mennonite & Amish are anabaptist cousins, some live old order, some have adopted everyday technology, such as the use of power grid services. Stylin

No. Children of "Perpetrator" (not Brenda or Richard Miles), also step-children of Perpetrator. They allege Brenda and Richard Miles were in on it, but these weren't the children of Brenda and Richard Miles. A babysitter - doesn't appear to be any of the children/step-children of Perpetrator. No. See my first quote of you and reply to that. The mothers of the abused children are unnamed.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is now 171 years old. That's long enough for its name to become a household word world-wide. Now, the choir is getting a name change. It will now be called "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square." The new name goes well with that of the Orchestra at Temple Square. The new name is the most tangible and significant change made yet to comply with President Nelson's August announcement that the church will drop the nicknames "Mormon" and "LDS" in most uses and employ either the full name of the church or the phrases the Church of Jesus Christ, restored Church of Jesus Christ or Latter-day Saints (Deseret News). Although members of the Church should be able to make the adjustment quickly (except that now MoTab won't work as a nickname), it might take the general public quite a bit longer. Rebranding the choir outside the Church could take years. The process will look messy. For instance, the Church and choir will retain ownership of the classic name. The Christmas... View the full article

Searching, there seems to be a serious problem with miscommunication here. Specifically, you keep moving the goalposts. Let's examine this. You claimed it would be a good idea for a bishop's wife to be present when the bishop was interviewing people: I replied that this would be a horrible, disastrous thing: You then opined that such an attitude was deplorable, that I must not value my bishop's marriage, and that I was advocating for couples to keep secrets from each other: I disagreed with your take, except I agreed that couples should keep their mouths shut when talking with each other if the subject of privileged information comes up: Then, you COMPLETELY changed the conditions and accused me of not wanting to be alone in the same room with my bishop's wife: I called this out as false and wondered where you even got such an idea: And now you respond with the most non sequitur, bizarre, and strangest accusations yet: For the record, I hold my bishop's wife in very high esteem, and I think married couples should indeed council together and (when appropriate) (<--note the parenthetical addendum) should try to help people together. But when either member of the couple receives privileged information intended for them alone, including from their own children, then of course they should keep mum about that. Uh, well...yes. Of course. If we're talking generic "problems", I talk to my wife. If I cannot or dare not talk to her but need to talk to someone, I might go to a brother or a sister (like a blood relative). In general I'm much more amenable to talking with close male friends about personal issues than with women, even friends. I assume you are the same in preferring to confide in women. If we're talking about issues of repentance, that's a far different subject. I prefer to talk with my bishop, even if I don't know (or particularly like) the guy, because he's the one who holds the Priesthood and the keys of judgment over such issues. Why on earth would I want to talk to my bishop's wife?! She has no Priesthood keys and no authority to counsel me or help me repent. Talking to her would be like talking to my quorum president or sister or the guy next door. I think you don't understand the roles that the Priesthood and those who hold keys to Priesthood leadership play in such matters. I see that you have opened up just a bit about your own personal demons, including the feeling that you were somehow abused by a now-jailed Priesthood holder. I am very sorry to hear it. You also mention that, in (I presume) your role as a counselor: This is fine. It's appropriate. It's what I would expect. But of course, you are not a holder of Priesthood keys with divine responsibilities in counseling. And even in your case, if you were married, I presume you would not go home and tell your husband all about the problems of the couples you counsel. I certainly hope you would never commit such a breach of ethics and morals.

Moses 1:35 .... For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, Adam and Eve brought a new era to an old world in my opinion...

It would not change the fact that giving the interviewee the options of: 1) Don't come at all 2) Come alone 3) Bring someone you trust ...is the best possible way to ensure everyone is as comfortable in the process as possible while still obeying the Lord's commands.

I guess I am new here - am a struggling member, and am struggling because a high priest abused his position of authority (this HP is now in jail). Judas was an apostle - apostles and priests are not perfect... it is ok not to expect them to walk on water... better not to expect too much of them it seems.... When I talk to someone who is married, I let them know that I treat it as talking with both people in the marriage - I would never want anything I say or share to be a wedge between two people who are married. I view them as one flesh, united in heart and in mind, and treat married people in a way that attempts to strengthen their marriage. I feel very uncomfortable talking to anyone of the opposite sex, alone in a room - it feels just feels very wrong to me.... you are supposed to be close to your own spouse, not close to other people's spouses.... just coming from a few... painful experiences...

I'm going through "SafeColleges" training right now. Among undergraduates, 23.1 percent of females and 5.4 percent of males experiences rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence or incapacitation. 21% of transgender, gender queer and nonconforming (TGQN) college students have been sexually assaulted, compared with 18% of non-TGQN females and 4% of non-TGQN males. Only 20% of female students age 18-24 who have experienced sexual violence make a report to law enforcement About one in six college-age female survivors received assistance from a victim services agency. Abuse is a HUGE problem. That is great to talk to abusers - encourage repentance. Care and help for those who are victims needs to be addressed in real, tangible ways - with counseling services, support groups... victims are not getting the help they need.

The scriptures appear to disagree with your interpretation. Alma 34 is a prime example, and includes the specific injunction, "Yea, cry unto him against the power of your enemies." Not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that bishops no longer interview youth for temple recommends because some mentally ill person or antiMormon might claim they're abusing the child? Why might we expect (or even want) our individual responsibilities for charity to be socialized? Programs are fine, but that's not likely to be a huge announced revelatory change in General Conference. We have those places. They're called gospel doctrine and gospel essentials. In what way would these other classes you're proposing operate? Again, how is this any different from what we now have? We accept those who abuse drugs, who abuse their own sexuality, who abuse their covenants, who abuse others. As long as they behave themselves at Church, we welcome them. Again, what exactly are you suggesting or expecting?

Dick Van Dyke is in the remake. And what's really impressive is when you compare the old banker from the original (also played by Van Dyke) with the actor playing an old man in the remake. All the advances in the makeup department have made it so less makeup is required to make him look like an old man!!!!

Just back from the temple. Everyone is pumped!

TChaTS! (Said like "tee chats".) (Instead of MoTab.)

It works for me. My daughter is 2 months out from finishing her mission at Temple Square.

Easy. Just go to http://www.ag.org, enter your zipcode into the church directory, find a church, then raise your hand and say, "How do I join?" 😀

A Star Is Born (rated R) Skip It. There's nothing redeeming about it except for the vocal prowess of Lady Gaga and the surprising vocal skills of Bradley Cooper. You can always just watch both of those people sing off of YouTube. I watched this R rated movie because I'm a sucker for Love Stories and the trailers looked super sweet. Seems like Hollywood doesn't know how to write love stories anymore. Pro-tip Hollywood: There's nothing good about a love story where one part of the relationship is just a complete loser throughout the story. You can't empathize with a loser so whatever happens to him you would care zero about so the story doesn't make me cry it just makes me roll my eyes, "yeah yeah, he's a loser, what else?". And in today's movie business... why does the complete loser have to be the guy, huh? I wanted to like Bradley Cooper! Oh... and here we are in the MeToo era and you're still flashing don't-add-to-the-story female nudity? So how did that go exactly in the casting couch... "oh hi, Gaga, I know you really want to be an actress so we'll give this role to you. But you're gonna have to flash your breasts, ok?". And they grandstand all over the place about how woke they are???

Well no. But let’s give it a try!

Maybe this has been mentioned already, I bailed on page 5 or something like that. I was listening to a Mormon podcast on Spotify (I won’t say the name cause it was utter garbage). They we’re talking about things they feared would happen and expected to occur 1) 2 hour block 2) “Canonizing” of the proclamation to the family 3) starting to a member run bible study type options for members 4) Options for young adults to choose length of mission and if it would be proselyting or service 5) official name changes for church affiliated entities And other rumours that were just garbage and not worth repeating in a forum of faithful members.

I am really hoping for a two hour block. My bets: Pres Nelson will be smiling throughout his talks. He seems to enjoy speaking. I am awfully looking forward to seeing his reassuring face. Such a kind man. He makes me feel that we can overcome anything. Bro Holland will be profound. Who bets for pilot references from Bro Uchtdorf? Heartfelt childhood reminisces from Bro Soares. Anyone want to open a book?

There can be SOLs on civil matters. And at least in my state, the fifth amendment doesn’t really apply to civil cases. (Well, it does; but basically what happens is that for purposes of the civil case the court can treat invocation of the 5th as an admission against their interest. So for example, in a case where DCFS is trying to bring children into state custody and we ask a dad “Sir, did you hit your child with a belt, causing bruising?”—he can claim the 5th, but the court will presume for the purposes of this case only that his answer would be “yes”, and at the end of trial the court may use that to find by “clear and convincing evidence” that the child is an abused child. The court can’t convict the dad of a criminal offense and put him in jail (because the standard for criminal conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is higher than “clear and convincing”). But it can put the child into DCFS custody. (Note: in four years of child welfare law practice I have *never* seen a parent take the 5th on the witness stand. Usually, people just lie.)

Yes.

I believe @Just_A_Guy, that makes 3 examples so far.

The plaintiffs and the Perpetrator are not named. Only the 2 defendants have been named. M.

Step-Children, children, and friends of those children of Brenda and Richard Miles. For obvious reasons, the names of the victims are not given out. Richard and Brenda Miles were not given out in the court documents, but by the attorney for those individuals. From the case, it appears the Father of the children from the first marriage was most likely the perpetrator. In addition, when one of their children was 16, they were also a victim, but also became a perpetrator on children they were babysitting. The Father apparently (at least how it is phrased) was the one committing the abuses. The Mother divorced the father (the Mother is the one who is related to General Authorities) and the Father then remarried another woman. The Step-Father/perpetrator committed suicide/died. The step-children of that marriage also joined in the case. Both mothers appear to have filed police reports that were not followed up on. The case alleges that the church helped them cover up the crimes of the cases and this is why the police did not pursue the case. The reason it states is because of the daughter and son-in-law's connection to an apostle in the church. It also is trying to enforce that the church is legally required to take church action in such cases (from what it appears to say in the article) and because the church did not, it should be forced to (or something similar to that effect). I'd put the onus on the police having to take action regardless of any outside entity.

Can someone explain to me exactly who are the alleged perpetrators and victims? I read the link but I am confused as to who is who and who are the alleged victims. Sorry, my brain is fried today.

One of just 2 or 3 artists I missed in the 80's. I'm finally going to see Ozzy! .\m/

You've already mentioned this before, but it bears repeating for our younger readers. In the late 80's to mid 90's sex abuse scandals came to the forefront of media attention. The Catholic Church was front and center, but the Church got caught in the crosshairs also. Policies were updated or clarified, trainings (including General Conference) used the strongest wording to denounce all forms of abuse and reminded bishops to include women and their opinions in leadership councils. (this context is also worth keeping in mind with the Catholic scandals rising again. @anatess2 has detailed some of the changes that the Vatican made as a result of this period. New (or old) allegations making claims of this era need to be kept in this context - that the accusations are being leveled against a church 30-years ago, not the current one). Something else young folk might not remember is the fear that satanism was on the rise. Dungeons and Dragons was going to claim our youth for the devil, even Lord of the Rings with it's wizards was satan-lite (what, we didn't have Harry Potter to punch yet. Don't worry it got punched hard when it came on the scene a decade later). Counter-cult ministries spoke out against anything and everything occult. At the cross-roads of these two controversies was the satanic sex ring. Daycares and other trusted groups were subjecting our youngest children to sexual rituals for satan. When it all came out in the wash, it turned out that most, if not all, of these abuse allegations were actually "implanted memories". @Just_A_Guy has mentioned in the past about the training child psychologists receive who specialize in abuse and trauma. This is specifically because during this period children and adults were encouraged to bring to light repressed memories, and in a number of cases what came to light was variations of the prompts from the psychologist. The defendants' arguments already included in the article points out that the police already looked into this matter in the 80's, and also traces the accusation to the faulty practice of psychologically implanting memories. The motion to dismiss (cited in full at the end of the article) also frames the allegation to the satanic sex ring scare from that period.

Indeed.

We all know the only reason Ben wasn't punched for saying that was because he was already a force-ghost. Since we all keep referencing the same verses, I'll quote them for any lurkers. I'm with you on this. "in the heart" is a big part of this teaching. It's not like under Moses a man could lust all day and not commit adultery in his heart, but under Jesus this was the new expected standard of conduct to follow God. And for that last statement, I can fully understand why a woman would look at her husband and say, "I feel like every time you view pornography you're cheating on me." And if that's how she feels, I would encourage her to share that as well as listen and try to understand her husband's position. But I don't think it's terribly productive to say, "Jesus says you're an adulterer." First, because Jesus has actually said, "Whoa dude, keep me out of this!" when people tried to drag him into a domestic dispute; and second, if that's how they want to apply that verse, then they are murderers.

You know I don't think you and I are as far off as it might seem. Actually, especially since we seem to agree on my primary cause of concern in this thread, mislabeling the sin, I think we are closer than you may think. I did not intend to say that we should sugar coat or say a sin is not a sin. Hearkening back to my original post, I said that someone struggling with pornography needs to focus on fixing it as their number 1 priority. I just believe that along with teaching the seriousness of sin, we need to not overshoot the mark in an attempt to hedge up the law. I would tend to agree with you that it is common sense that pornography abuse is not as serious as full blown adultery, but I found that not to be the way this problem was tackled. Due to it's addictive nature, it's better, in my opinion, to do our best to focus on the hope of overcoming the sin that Christ provides, than of the hellfire awaiting unrepentant sinners in the next world. But my personal experience may color it some. For what it's worth, I appreciate the conversation brother.

This is a difficult subject for many, but I think we need to be careful when we say pornography is the same as cheating. It's not. It's bad, unwholesome, sinful, and overcoming it's use by someone who is addicted to it should be a number 1 priority. But it is not cheating. If it was the same as cheating, the punishment would be a church disciplinary council, followed by the probable excommunication of the offender. The fact that the Lord does not punish this sin, and it is a sin, this way leads me to believe that is an over statement. When we overstate these sins, we drive people further away from Christ by causing more people to hide their sins rather than confess them. After all, technically everyone who has ever lusted after a woman or man in their heart would be guilty of adultery by that definition. I don't think that was the Savior's point. We are not trying to hang a huge Scarlet Letter on a person, we are trying to get them to come back too, or more fully too, Christ. However, I completely understand why a wife would be devastated to learn of this after it was kept secret. That is a betrayel of the marriage covenant, the promise to be honest and true with each other, and claiming that a woman "just doesn't understand" how a man feels when their trust has been violated is disingenuous.Any man who is trying to overcome this needs to be fully honest with his wife throughout his repentance process if he wants to have his wife on his side and if he wants to be fully forgiven.

There's a flaw in the theory in my opinion. Home teaching was never, ever a "rule" in any way similar to the Mosaic law. Didn't do your home teaching? What was the consequence? Any different at all than not doing your ministering? Yeah...I don't buy it. We are, have been, and will continue to be a gospel of obedience. We're already living the higher law that Christ brought. The idea that home teaching was a lower law and now ministering is a higher law... I don't buy it. Nor do I buy that anyone who faithfully did their home teaching has now slacked off because ministering isn't as structured. Maybe one in million. But those who were faithful didn't suddenly abandon faithfulness because of the change. So yes, I think we may see some separating the wheat from the tares. But I don't think it will be through the easing of programs. If we see easing of programs it will be, in my opinion, to help people re-focus/re-think about what these programs exist for. The point of home teaching was to minister. Renaming it ministering points to that more directly. I also consider this paragraph... "As the Meridian of Time moved ever closer, the Jews of ancient Jerusalem became more and more focused on the “doing” part of the commandments. When Christ came on the scene, He ushered in the higher law. He emphasized being good rather than just doing good. Most people freaked out. “What about our precious rules and traditions?!” For others, the message resonated and they embraced it." ...mistaken in several regards. The law of Moses was always focused more on doing (but to the end of being), and the "higher" law had more "doing" if anything -- a la turn the other cheek (doing), walk a second mile (doing), give your coat also (doing), etc., etc. The Jews (particularly the Pharisees, Sadducee, Scribes, etc.) didn't have the problem of being too focused on doing. They had the problem of being too focused on doing the wrong things...things they made up and then prioritized over doing the things of God. Moreover -- we "be" good by doing. To separate the two is flawed. Ministering doesn't take away the importance of "doing" in any regard. If anything, it puts more focus on the doing.

A Kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child's work. As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was. The girl replied, "I'm drawing God." The teacher paused and said, "But no one knows what God looks like." Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, "They will in a minute."

This; I don't know where you are, but every place I've been, therapists are about as common as nail salons, and most of them got that psych degree in an unsuccessful attempt to figure themselves out. Shop around.

There is a large body of evidence that shows that women don't come forward when the abuse happens because of a variety of reasons. These range from fear of being blamed, blaming themselves for being in a situation to be assaulted, not wanting to admit that it happened, and even fear of being blamed. You don't have to like the situation, you don't have to believe her. But to claim, "if it really happened, then they would have reported it right away" is dead wrong. Anyone who believes and perpetuates that idea is insufficiently educated in matters of abuse to have an opinion worth listening to.

People who say this are lying. If people didn't care what other people think of them, they wouldn't be Christians. Love others (ministering) as yourself requires us to care about what others think. Being agents of Christ require us to care about what others think. Reverence is about caring what others think. Applying for a job requires us to care about what others think. "I don't care what others think" cannot survive in marriage. Or the survival of the species.

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-4-11-the-patriarchs?lang=eng#title10 FWIW. https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng ...might be useful.