247 replies to this topic

[gtaggart]

USU78, on Nov 22 2005, 09:53 AM, said:

This:

Quote

The Church recognized his calling (from God) to be a father, and in performing official capacities pertaining thereto, necessarily placed him in such proximity to his victim to enable him to perform his nefarious criminal acts, report of which to the Bishop (acting as an agent for the Church) was not immediately relayed to the appropriate civil authorities, as the D&C stipulates it must.

is nonsense.  The Church is not "placing" any parent anywhere, and any parent who is abusing his children is doing so against the multifarious and constant counsel of the Church to fathers.  The father is not the agent of the Church, and any imputation of liability for intentional, criminal acts of members to the Church is a travesty, overturning centuries of legal precedent.  But of course that matters not at all to "outcome oriented" persons who care not a lick for due process.

Quote

Perhaps in addition to counseling fathers as to what constitutes appropriate behavior with their children, the Church should pay more attention to training her Bishops not to fall back on "seat-of-the-pants inspiration" in the performance of their own responsibilities.

This is a mean-spirited and unwarranted slam.  Knock it off.  You have no idea what you're talking about and are parroting RfM bigotry when you say this.

You know, because of posts like this, I may never tell another Aggie joke much less use the phrase "The L_ _ _'_ U_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _".  In short, I agree compelely.

[Confidential Informant]

It's an interesting and extremely sad case to say the least.  The really sad thing is that if this happened today the chances of it turning out this way would be siginficantly lower.  Since approximately 1994, the Church has instituted policies that make it much clearer to Bishops and Stake Presidents what their duties are in these situations.

Furthermore, many states (Utah included) have amended their laws to clarify the penitent/clergy privilege (when it exists, when it doesn't).  For example, as I understand the Utah law, if the Bishops receives the information from any source beside the abuser, he is required to report. (Thus, if the victim says it happened, he must report).  However, if it comes from the abuser himself, the Bishop is not required to report.  However, many bishops have now taken to urging abusers who confess to turn themselves into to civil authorities and face the music as a part of their repentance process -- a move with which I heartily agree in most cases.  But even if the abuser confesses, it's my understanding that the Church requires the Bishop to take prophylactic measures regarding the victims such as arranging for children to be removed from the home and kept safe, etc.

Its actually a fine line to walk because, as a religious organization dedicated to repentance and forgiveness you don't want the threat of legal action to derail the desire of a penitent abuser to confess and get help.  By the same token, his eternal soul must be weighed against the immediate temporal safety and welfare of his victims.  In most cases, I think it should favor the victim and his/her safety and the abusers spiritual issues should take a backseat to any such concerns.

However, from a legal standpoint I think USU78 is dead on.  This is a travesty in that the man was not acting as a church officer when this abuse happened. This represents a jury that felt bad for the victim and decide that "somebody" had to pay.  At law, that's usually the folks w/ the deepest pockets.

I suspect an appeal is forthcoming.

C.I.

[Observer]

Confidential Informant, on Nov 22 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

Since approximately 1994, the Church has instituted policies that make it much clearer to Bishops and Stake Presidents what their duties are in these situations.

I wonder what events inspired these changes. Revelation or litigation? The Lord certainly does work in mysterious ways.

[thesometimesaint]

CI:

Here Any actions a Bishop could take to remove the children would have to be on the permission of at least one of the parents. Bishops have no legal authority to do it. Here it could be considered kidnapping.

[BMD]

Expecting that the bishop take immediate steps to remove the offending priesthood leader from the home is not "nonsense", USU78. His non-removal is tantamount to placement.

Neither is the suggestion that LDS bishops receive explicit, non-intuition based instructions for dealing with this ever-increasingly common situation "bigotry", as you suggest. Your suggestion that i "knock it off", however, could be interpreted thusly.

ys,
BMD.

[Observer]

Confidential Informant, on Nov 22 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

This is a travesty in that the man was not acting as a church officer when this abuse happened.

The "travesty" is the fact that molestation of children occurs. The second "travesty" is that big, strong, grown up adults either knew or had reasonable suspicion sufficient enough to warrant action. Some sort of action. Any sort of appropriate action --- and yet did nothing to help this child.

You may be able to argue that the non-church officer was not legally culpable, but good luck arguing that this Bishop should be free from moral culpability. Anyone who is aware that a child may possibly be molested must do something - period. Otherwise they are culpable. If not legally, then morally.

Supposedly, Jesus loves children VERY MUCH. He showed the CHILDREN His particular favor while on Earth. I doubt very much that Jesus' primary concerns would be "legal culpability" and jargon and technicalities in instances such as this. I personally think Jesus' WRATH will come down on those who abuse, molest and ruin innocent children. I'll bet Jesus isn't too happy with ANYONE who knows of such abuses and does nothing...or rationalizes their own inaction.

Perhaps President Hinckley should pray for inspiration regarding a possible 11th commandment against the abuse of innocent children. If there ever was an "unpardonable sin", raping and sexually abusing and ruing little kids is IT for darned sure.

Edited by Observer, 22 November 2005 - 10:31 AM.

[Donald]

And yet this woman get's no jail time.....NONE. While I don't know the details of the case, my instincts tell me if this had been a male teacher abusing a 14 y.o. student the outcome would have been much different.  It's confusing.

No Jail Time for Florida Teacher in Sex Case  
Tuesday, November 22, 2005


�?¢â?¬�?¢Teacher Claims Insanity in Sex Case�?¢â?¬�?¢Teacher Charged With Having Sex With Teen
TAMPA, Fla. �?¢â?¬â? A Florida teacher charged with having sex with a minor pleaded guilty on Tuesday to two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior as part of a plea deal that does not include any jail time.

The deal provides that Greco Middle School teacher Debra Lafave, 25, will not serve one day in jail in connection with multiple sex acts with a 14-year-old student unless she violates the terms of the plea agreement, which includes three years of house arrest and seven years' probation.

"I accept full responsibility for my actions," Lafave said during Tuesday's trial in Tampa.

"To place an attractive young woman in that kind of hell hole is like putting a piece of raw meat in with the lions," Lafave's attorney, John Fitzgibbons, said in July of the possibility of jail time. "I'm not sure she would survive."

On Friday state Circuit Judge Wayne Timmerman ordered attorneys not to talk publicly about the pending prosecution of Lafave amid worries of seating an untainted jury. The gag order was a major setback for the defense, which appears to have led to today's resolution.

"I don't see what the harm is in telling these guys from this point on, in order to get a fair and impartial jury you guys keep your mouths shut," the judge said last week.

[thesometimesaint]

observer:

What would you have the Bishop do?

[Donald]

Incidently, will the parents of the 14 y.o. boy now sue the Tampa City Schools for millions?  If not, I'm sure there are many lawyers ready and willing.

[Confidential Informant]

thesometimesaint, on Nov 22 2005, 10:24 AM, said:

CI:

Here Any actions a Bishop could take to remove the children would have to be on the permission of at least one of the parents. Bishops have no legal authority to do it. Here it could be considered kidnapping.

But at the very least trying to take the steps removes the Church and its representatives from legal liability.  But that's not the major issue.

Moreover, I wasn't suggesting that the Bishop send over the Elder's quorum to snatch the kids and wisk them away to an undisclosed location.  I was suggesting that he go to the mother/guardian and explain the situation and suggest possible courses of action.

C.I.

[Homestar Runner]

Observer, on Nov 22 2005, 11:18 AM, said:

Confidential Informant, on Nov 22 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

Since approximately 1994, the Church has instituted policies that make it much clearer to Bishops and Stake Presidents what their duties are in these situations.

I wonder what events inspired these changes. Revelation or litigation?

A premonition about what the Catholics would go through a decade later?

Seriously folks, we're living amongst the first generation of humans living on planet earth that ever figured out this was a problem.  It's not a mormon thing, it's a 1st world nations coming down a learning curve thing.   Revelation or litigation aren't the only choices - there's also coming to grips with a problem that nobody had come to grips with before.

Of course folks will take potshots at the church.  "If you're so inspired, how come you didn't do this back in the 1800's?"  I believe that there are things God lets his children learn for themselves.

My heart goes out towards the victims.  My confidence is with the church, who has instituted policies and practices to handle this sort of thing when it is made aware of it.  My warning is to those who would consider this a mormon thing.  Make sure you take a look in your own back yards as well - you're not immune.

HSR

[Observer]

thesometimesaint, on Nov 22 2005, 10:29 AM, said:

observer:

What would you have the Bishop do?

Ponder these things and ultimately convince himself that there is nothing he can do.    What a sad world.

[Confidential Informant]

BMD, on Nov 22 2005, 10:25 AM, said:

Expecting that the bishop take immediate steps to remove the offending priesthood leader from the home is not "nonsense", USU78. His non-removal is tantamount to placement.

Neither is the suggestion that LDS bishops receive explicit, non-intuition based instructions for dealing with this ever-increasingly common situation "bigotry", as you suggest. Your suggestion that i "knock it off", however, could be interpreted thusly.

ys,
BMD.

You know BMD, just when I think you've said the dumbest thing ever...you keep talking.

C.I.

[USU78]

Quote

Expecting that the bishop take immediate steps to remove the offending priesthood leader from the home is not "nonsense", USU78. His non-removal is tantamount to placement.

What authority does an LDS bishop have to remove an abused child or an abusive parent from a home?  None at all.  Your initial insistence that such authority exists was made in ignorance.  Your refusal to give up your unsupportable position is bigotry.

Quote

Neither is the suggestion that LDS bishops receive explicit, non-intuition based instructions for dealing with this ever-increasingly common situation "bigotry", as you suggest. Your suggestion that i "knock it off", however, could be interpreted thusly.

Your bigotry is in your implicit assumption that the LDS Church, when the problem became known, has done nothing about this.  Moreover, your bigotry is in your implicit slam at inspiration to which all persons are entitled within their various bailiwicks.

[Confidential Informant]

Homestar Runner, on Nov 22 2005, 10:32 AM, said:

Observer, on Nov 22 2005, 11:18 AM, said:

Confidential Informant, on Nov 22 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

Since approximately 1994, the Church has instituted policies that make it much clearer to Bishops and Stake Presidents what their duties are in these situations.

I wonder what events inspired these changes. Revelation or litigation?

A premonition about what the Catholics would go through a decade later?

Seriously folks, we're living amongst the first generation of humans living on planet earth that ever figured out this was a problem.  It's not a mormon thing, it's a 1st world nations coming down a learning curve thing.   Revelation or litigation aren't the only choices - there's also coming to grips with a problem that nobody had come to grips with before.

Of course folks will take potshots at the church.  "If you're so inspired, how come you didn't do this back in the 1800's?"  I believe that there are things God lets his children learn for themselves.

My heart goes out towards the victims.  My confidence is with the church, who has instituted policies and practices to handle this sort of thing when it is made aware of it.  My warning is to those who would consider this a mormon thing.  Make sure you take a look in your own back yards as well - you're not immune.

HSR

Homestar is actually quite right.  This case in particular came at a time when we, as a society, we just really beginning to grasp the depth and scope of the problem.  In the Bishops defense (assuming the story we got is correct and not simply the representations of one side) to him, the notion of a father sexually abusing his kids may have been quite foreign and utterly unfathomable.  

Of course, we know now this is not the case and it is actually far more common than we wish to admit, but there you have it.  

Then again, Observer doesn't really care about any of this.  He is more interested in scoring rhetorical points against the LDS Church and this simply makes a handy brickbat which can used to beat us over the head with.  Basically, he's abusing this child again by making her his weapon of choice against the Church.

And THAT is pretty sad and pathetic also.

C.I.

[thesometimesaint]

CI:

I don't believe that the church had any legal responsibilty here to begin with. Just a case of sympathic jury making sure "someone, anyone " pays.

[Observer]

Homestar Runner, on Nov 22 2005, 10:32 AM, said:

Observer, on Nov 22 2005, 11:18 AM, said:

Confidential Informant, on Nov 22 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

Since approximately 1994, the Church has instituted policies that make it much clearer to Bishops and Stake Presidents what their duties are in these situations.

I wonder what events inspired these changes. Revelation or litigation?

A premonition about what the Catholics would go through a decade later?

Seriously folks, we're living amongst the first generation of humans living on planet earth that ever figured out this was a problem.  It's not a mormon thing, it's a 1st world nations coming down a learning curve thing.   Revelation or litigation aren't the only choices - there's also coming to grips with a problem that nobody had come to grips with before.

Of course folks will take potshots at the church.  "If you're so inspired, how come you didn't do this back in the 1800's?"  I believe that there are things God lets his children learn for themselves.

My heart goes out towards the victims.  My confidence is with the church, who has instituted policies and practices to handle this sort of thing when it is made aware of it.  My warning is to those who would consider this a mormon thing.  Make sure you take a look in your own back yards as well - you're not immune.

HSR

My point was more along the lines that many here demonize the lawyers and litigants, and yet it seems that these lawsuits are the only way and only reason large corporations or religious groups are prodded to do the right thing. It's a shame the church (or any church) couldn't come up with common sense policies in the first place, all on their own.... but don't be too quick to place all of the blame in these situations on the attorneys while arguing that most all organizations and religions function like this --- action and appropriate policies due to lawsuits...usually after the fact.

[USU78]

Observer, on Nov 22 2005, 10:26 AM, said:

Confidential Informant, on Nov 22 2005, 10:12 AM, said:

This is a travesty in that the man was not acting as a church officer when this abuse happened.

The "travesty" is the fact that molestation of children occurs. The second "travesty" is that big, strong, grown up adults either knew or had reasonable suspicion sufficient enough to warrant action. Some sort of action. Any sort of appropriate action --- and yet did nothing to help this child.

How does one go about removing the possibility of true tragedy from the world?

"True" tragedy is the situation where one is prevented from taking actions he wishes to take because of forces outside his control.

In our instant case, the Bishop in question had the unenviable task of deciding whether, in the case of conflicting reports from various sources, to report only those whose proven veracity would be too horrible to contemplate.  So he dragged his feet, unsure what to do.

No Bishop today would be unclear.  This should please us all greatly.

As for the $4 Mill.

{ahem}

The doctrine that, in the absence of fault, he who can best afford to bear such a burden must bear it, is tyranny.

[KevinG]

I want to know what year the events in this case occurred?  I notice it was neatly neglected in the initial report.

There are a couple of salient points here.

The Church has reaffirmed their policy that there is any report of abuse the local priesthood should call and get legal guidance from the Church on their abuse hotline.  Their is no client privacy priveledge in most areas that will prevent the leader from reporting to legal authority if abuse occurs or is alleged.

In the case of this Bishop and Stake President was their inaction during or after this policy had been clarified by the Church?  If so the Church has a good appeal, because they can prove that the training was done, the policy was to report, but the individuals in this case did not follow procedure.  That places the responsibility on the negligent persons where it belongs, not on the Church.

Even then the responsibility is that of failure to report the abuse.  Any talk that the Church somehow has authority to remove a father because we consider parenthood a calling is silly beyond reason.

[Dear Mee]

The "glass" is no longer dark, it is clearing by the moment! How tragic that some have to suffer abuse while we the lucky cannot even imagine the depth of their pain or the effects upon them attempting/pretending normalcy.

"The sins of the fathers visited upon ??? generations." Little did we imagine...

AUTEUR55:

Quote

It is hard for us to expect common men, who are volunteering there personal to fulfill a calling to always be smart enough to handle issues as heavy as sexual abuse.

You are absolutely correct! And the reason why THE church must advance to a more "Professional Ministry". Not that that will solve all problems, but it would at least make for a heightened degree of credibility and responsibility.

To depend upon part-time amateurs to attend to parishoners in the 21st century, as they did in the 19th, is unreasonable if not unconscionable when considered in our advancing state of social-emotional hygiene.

My personal 50+ years of LDS experience, in maaany "callings", has left me with sure knowledge that we have not always been well served by "leaders" attempting to administer out of a hand-book in subject areas they barely understood the terminology of. Or by "leaders" who would "spin" their way around details to avoid and deny the reality of serious offences to escape public ridicule.  

Two cases in point: When an EQP was accused of molesting a 14 year old baby-sitter, the prime question of the GA who investigated, in my presence as the BRP, was, "... was there penetration?..." The EQP was disfellowshipped for several months and the girl wasn't even questioned, or comforted, to the best of my recollection.

As a verrry-mature student at BYUH, called as ExSec in my Ward, i was privy to goings-on in the area. It was a time of considerable attacks on women and B&Es. At a specially called meeting of municiple (Honolulu) and church officers, i was appalled by church officials not wanting municipal involvement in the remedy! Tax paying citizens were denied the benefit of tax paid for police protection giving way to volunteer street patrols by LDS Vigilante types organized under Stake Leader?ship!! It was a "revelation" that was an "awakening" very "disillusioning" and consequently "enlightening"!

I think this investigation and judgement should be cheered by responsible LDS. This is not something to lament or attempt to deny, under-rate or find excuses for. It is house-cleaning and a call for institution examination all too long in coming, IMSCO, that is.