65 replies to this topic

[LDS_RM]

I will address my statement, not a personal interpretation of my statement.

editpost 2: In my opinion calling a lawyer first, who is paid to protect an entity, is not acting in the best interest of children.

edit of post 4: In my opinion calling the lawyer first is little or nothing to do with protecting a Bishop; calling the lawyer first is about protecting an entity.

There now can any of you provide a conclusion based on seleks assumption that Church follows the law.

For the cases of Bishop Rojas and Bishop Moon, both in Utah, there is a mandatory duty to report immediately.

Bishop Rojas either plead guilty or no contest to failure to report, if he completes his part of the "bargain" his plea with be withdrawn (not relevant, but the result of probably not the most complete legal advice, but, according to the ATF, United States Supreme Court,  and a few States he would be considered guilty even though the plea is withdrawn, due to the fact that inorder for him to get the bargain he recieved he had to plead guilty or no contest - it is a screwy situation.)

Bishop Moon states he did not know he had a duty to report.

So given that the Church follows the law for mandatory reporting, because that is the law in Utah, what is a conclusion that can be reached for both Rojas and Moon failing to report the abuse.

Can it reasonably be concluded that neither contacted the hotline?
Can it reasonably be concluded that one or both contacted the hotline and ignored the advice?
Can it reasonably be concluded that one or both contacted the hotline and either one or both were told not to report the abuse?

How does either option or an option of your own making comport with selek assumption that Church follows the law?

Edited by LDS_RM, 29 April 2012 - 08:33 PM.

[LDS_RM]

Selek, lets try a reasoning experiment based on your assumption. We will treat your assumption as absolute fact.

Your assumption:
"Where mandatory reporting is, in fact, the law of the land - that is precisely the action the Church will direct."

Now lets consider some facts.

1. Utah is a mandatory reporting State, even for Clergy, UNLESS AND ONLY IF, the Clergy learns of the abuse from the abuser.
2. Bishop Rojas and Bishop Moon learned of the alleged abuse from the victims.
3. The victims were not the abusers. (hopefully, you will agree that the victims where not the abusers)
4. Bishop Rojas entered a guilty plea or no contest for failing to report abuse. (Rojas enter a plea in abanence, this means either a guilty plea or no contest was entered by Rojas)
5. Bishop Moon has stated that he did not know he had a duty to report.

Lets consider those facts against your assumption. I can think of 3 possibilities.

1. Neither Bishop called the hotline. This is supported by Rojas plea of guilty or no contest and by Moon saying he did not know he had a duty to report.
2. Both Bishops called the hotline, and both ignored what they were instructed to do. This is supported by the plea entered by Rojas and supported by Moons statement that he did not know he had a duty to report.
3. Both Bishops called the hotline and both were informed not to report the abuse. This conclusion does not comport with your assumption. If the Bishops had called the hotline, they would have been informed to report the abuse immediately, as immediate reporting is the law in Utah when the knowledge of the abuse did not come from the abuser during a confession of the abuser to Clergy.

I am open to other conclusions. Can you think of a conclusion premised in your assumption that the Church follows the law?

NOTE: I am not suggesting that the LDS Church did not follow the law. I will state, that based on the facts, I do not believe either Bishop called the abuse Hotline. Utah is a mandatory reporting State, and the report must be made "immediately".

[calmoriah]

Quote

Calmoriah has already falsely accused me in this thread and I will not remain silent to false statements about my posts.

I have no intent to falsely accuse anyone, please point out my error and I will correct it with apology included.

add-on:  I have gone through all my posts in this thread, I have asked you some questions, made known my opinion on how things likely worked and gave my judgment that those who actually use the service are best aware of how effective it is and if there is any inherent problem with it.

I do not see how I have made any accusation of you, let alone a false one.

Perhaps the above claim I have made a false accusation is itself a false accusation, if so, I would like a retraction.  If not, I would like an explanation of how you interpret anything of what I've said to be a false accusation.

Edited by calmoriah, 29 April 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[ERayR]

LDS_RM, on 29 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

I will address my statement, not a personal interpretation of my statement. Calmoriah has already falsely accused me in this thread and I will not remain silent to false statements about my posts.

edit of post 2: In my opinion calling a lawyer first, who is paid to protect an entity, is not acting in the best interest of children.

edit of post 4: In my opinion calling the lawyer first is little or nothing to do with protecting a Bishop; calling the lawyer first is about protecting an entity.

There now can any of you provide a conclusion based on seleks assumption that Church follows the law.

For the cases of Bishop Rojas and Bishop Moon, both in Utah, there is a mandatory duty to report immediately.

Bishop Rojas either plead guilty or no contest to failure to report, if he completes his part of the "bargain" his plea with be withdrawn (not relevant, but the result of probably not the most complete legal advice, but, according to the ATF, United States Supreme Court,  and a few States he would be considered guilty even though the plea is withdrawn, due to the fact that inorder for him to get the bargain he recieved he had to plead guilty or no contest - it is a screwy situation.)

Bishop Moon states he did not know he had a duty to report.

So given that the Church follows the law for mandatory reporting, because that is the law in Utah, what is a conclusion that can be reached for both Rojas and Moon failing to report the abuse.

Can it reasonably be concluded that neither contacted the hotline?
Can it reasonably be concluded that one or both contacted the hotline and ignored the advice?
Can it reasonably be concluded that one or both contacted the hotline and either one or both were told not to report the abuse?

How does either option or an option of your own making comport with selek assumption that Church follows the law?

Assumptions have a tendency to sneak up behind and bite very hard when all the facts are not known.  Without knowing any more than you have presented either one or two is POSSIBLE.  Having had some experience in this area I would say that number three is not possible.

Why are you so vehement in your advocacy of number three?

[LDS_RM]

calmoriah, on 29 April 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

I have no intent to falsely accuse anyone, please point out my error and I will correct it with apology included.

add-on:  I have gone through all my posts in this thread, I have asked you some questions, made known my opinion on how things likely worked and gave my judgment that those who actually use the service are best aware of how effective it is and if there is any inherent problem with it.

I do not see how I have made any accusation of you, let alone a false one.

Perhaps the above claim I have made a false accusation is itself a false accusation, if so, I would like a retraction.  If not, I would like an explanation of how you interpret anything of what I've said to be a false accusation.

Yes, sorry about that, post has been edited. I misunderstood a previously post of yours.

[LDS_RM]

ERayR, on 29 April 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

Assumptions have a tendency to sneak up behind and bite very hard when all the facts are not known.  Without knowing any more than you have presented either one or two is POSSIBLE.  Having had some experience in this area I would say that number three is not possible.

Why are you so vehement in your advocacy of number three?

I am not favoring that the Church did not follow the law.

[ERayR]

LDS_RM, on 29 April 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I am not favoring that the Church did not follow the law.

Please what are you talking about "the church not following the law"?  Apparently you have found two cases where policy was not followed and it has come back to bite, what is probably two very fine men.  It was not the church who did not follow the law.  I know that when policy is followed the law is followed and things turn out well if the civil authorities don't mess it up.  Which I have seen happen.

Edited by ERayR, 29 April 2012 - 09:14 PM.

[LDS_RM]

ERayR, on 29 April 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Please what are you talking about "the church not following the law"?  Apparently you have found two cases where policy was not followed and it has come back to bite, what is probably two very fine men.  It was not the church who did not follow the law.  I know that when policy is followed the law is followed and things turn out well if the civil authorities don't mess it up.  Which I have seen happen.

based on the information available, it is my position that the hotline was not utilized, that each Bishop acted on their own.

[ERayR]

LDS_RM, on 29 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

based on the information available, it is my position that the hotline was not utilized, that each Bishop acted on their own.

That being the case how do you justify statements such as this:

LDS_RM, on 29 April 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I am not favoring that the Church did not follow the law.

[blackstrap]

What is the law's definition of immediately? Within 10 seconds? 30 seconds? One minute? 30 minutes? An hour? A day? What if you went to the washroom first to vomit? Is it allowed? Let's say one has 30 minutes to contact authorities. That is enough time to find out what the legal ramifications are by whatever means available.If the bishops in question failed to do so,then they will be held accountable to the State.
   Personally,I have a problem with the State making reporting mandatory.Is that the case with murder? rape?robbery? Of course there is a powerful moral obligation to report. I have seen too many cases where false accusations have ruined innocent lives and where the "authorities" have done a very poor job of investigating the truth of the matter.

[LDS_RM]

eraye, do you consider the Church responsible for the Bishops failures to report? At present, it does not appear that the Church was involved with the failures to report.

[calmoriah]

ERayR, on 29 April 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

That being the case how do you justify statements such as this:

His/her statement "I am not favoring that the Church did not follow the law" is a double negative, thus s/he is saying that s/he views it likely the Church did follow the law, I believe.  LDS_RM can correct me if I read it wrong.

Edited by calmoriah, 29 April 2012 - 09:54 PM.

[calmoriah]

blackstrap, on 29 April 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

   Personally,I have a problem with the State making reporting mandatory.Is that the case with murder? rape?robbery? Of course there is a powerful moral obligation to report.

I believe it is for domestic violence and child abuse, the idea, I believe, is to stop something that may be ongoing, a continued threat whether to the original victims or other potential victims.  If so, with that rationale it seems like all violent crimes should be reported due to the increased likelihood of it happening again once a person crosses the line.

Quote

I have seen too many cases where false accusations have ruined innocent lives and where the "authorities" have done a very poor job of investigating the truth of the matter.

This is my concern as well, both for any falsely accused and charges that get tossed due to improper handling of the legal issues....which makes in my view the use of the hotline a big plus.

Wiki had a description of mandated reporting for pretty much any form of abuse or neglect, even nonphysical.  Varies with location of course.  Add in required reporting of firearm injuries, I am wondering if knifing injuries are including as well, it would seem professionals may spend a large amount of their time writing up reports (since the law requires not only reporting by phone, but a written report).

http://en.wikipedia....ndated_reporter

Edited by calmoriah, 29 April 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[ERayR]

LDS_RM, on 29 April 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

eraye, do you consider the Church responsible for the Bishops failures to report? At present, it does not appear that the Church was involved with the failures to report.

No the church gives explicit instructions and a hotline for help in following those instructions.  If the bishops involved did not follow procedure it is their own responsibility, not the churches.  If you choose to ignore procedures, for whatever reason, whose choice is that?  Who is responsible for your choices?

[wenglund]

I wish to join with Selek and others in condemning the trial by Internet being plied here. Such trials tend to constitute an unwarranted usurpation of authority, by people who likely don't know what they are talking about, and who too oft violate numerous judicial protocols intended to protect the innocent and avoid undue abuse. Let those who have whipped themselves into a self-righteous frenzy find some other venue their vigilantism. May I suggest the Huffington Post, the favored home for the insipid and banal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

calmoriah, on 29 April 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

His/her statement "I am not favoring that the Church did not follow the law" is a double negative, thus s/he is saying that s/he views it likely the Church did follow the law, I believe.  LDS_RM can correct me if I read it wrong.

It may be that I am misunderstanding him/her.  If so, sorry.  I do not follow double negatives well.

[LDS_RM]

wenglund, on 30 April 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

I wish to join with Selek and others in condemning the trial by Internet being plied here. Such trials tend to constitute an unwarranted usurpation of authority, by people who likely don't know what they are talking about, and who too oft violate numerous judicial protocols intended to protect the innocent and avoid undue abuse. Let those who have whipped themselves into a self-righteous frenzy find some other venue their vigilantism. May I suggest the Huffington Post, the favored home for the insipid and banal.

Thanks, -Wade

are you suggesting then that we can not take a Bishop at his word, when he accepts guilt or no contest for an act? Are we also to understand that well reasoned deduction that are not offered as fact but meer possibilities is something.g that should not occur on this board.

But as for usurpation of authority, I wager none here have been authorized to speak authoritativly on behalf of the Church, so any defense of the Church here is just a well reasoned response, should this board not exist for the "trial by internet" of the Lds belief system.

[LDS_RM]

ERayR, on 30 April 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

No the church gives explicit instructions and a hotline for help in following those instructions.  If the bishops involved did not follow procedure it is their own responsibility, not the churches.  If you choose to ignore procedures, for whatever reason, whose choice is that?  Who is responsible for your choices?

I agree that the Church should not be responsible for the inactions or alledged inaction of Bishops.

[wenglund]

LDS_RM, on 30 April 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

are you suggesting then that we can not take a Bishop at his word.

No. I am suggesting that we mind our own business and leave judgments of this sort to those rightly empowered and within a system that entails the appropriate checks and balances.

Quote

But as for usurpation of authority, I wager none here have been authorized to speak authoritativly on behalf of the Church, so any defense of the Church here is just a well reasoned response, should this board not exist for the "trial by internet" of the Lds belief system.

I wasn't speaking on behalf of the Church or defending the Church. I was speaking pragmatically and as an individual about the enormous impropriety of self-anointed busy-bodies like yourself ignorantly and wrongly adjudicating legal matters on the Internet. I say this without expecting you to comprehend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rpn]

Innocents plead guilty to things they didn't do all the time, usually because they see no possibility that the outcome will be worse for them if they do than if they don't.