Getting It Right — Clarifying Claims About the Church Abuse Help Line

[Notatbm]

16 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

The church has a duty to protect the pockets of tithe payers from predatory or misinformed lawsuits, that in of itself is a "Christlike" act of stewardship. Allowing the Church to be looted because it was too naive to keep professional records would be stupid. But we're smart, and the system actually results in more reporting in many cases. By having a Help Line staffed by professionals, the Church ensures that a local Bishop doesn't make a legal mistake that actually lets a criminal go free. The Help Line's purpose is to ensure that the reporting is done correctly, legally, and in a way that will stand up in court. This is arguably more "Christlike" than a disorganized system that might botch a criminal investigation.

Compassion without order is chaos. Sorry the Church refuses to be bullied by critics into abandoning the very protections that allow it to function as a global refuge for millions.

I did qualify my statement with the condition the victim deserved the justice. Nowhere did I advocate allowing the church to be looted. 
 

“That’s cute and all, but when it prevents a victim from getting justice because of a technicality when they actually deserve it, it doesn’t sound so Christlike.”

Edited February 14 by Notatbm

[Pyreaux]

50 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I did qualify my statement with the condition the victim deserved the justice. Nowhere did I advocate allowing the church to be looted. 
 

“That’s cute and all, but when it prevents a victim from getting justice because of a technicality when they actually deserve it, it doesn’t sound so Christlike.”

Yet by demanding the Church waive its defenses, that is exactly what would happen. Every dollar paid out to a claim based on a "flawed memory" (like the Oyler case potentially would have been) is a dollar taken away from members. Anyone wise realize that there are people who would dismantle the Church for profit if they could only find a crack in its legal armor.

Your "Christlike" argument relied on your subjective human judgment that Church should waive its "technicalities" whenever a victim is "deserving", according to you. An institution cannot function on your subjective feelings. Who decides who is "deserving" in ex-mormondum? The loudest? The person with the saddest story? The Church following universal legal principles like attorney-client privilege and reporting laws is the only way to be fair and consistent to everyone, rather than playing favorites based on public pressure.

In the Beau Oyler case, the sort of "justice" you wanted was based on a false premise. The Church used the system to correct the record, the Church wasn't being "un-Christlike"; it was being truthful. By standing up for the documented truth, the Church actually serves the cause of justice better than those who would blindly support any accusation.

[Notatbm]

28 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Yet by demanding the Church waive its defenses, that is exactly what would happen. Every dollar paid out to a claim based on a "flawed memory" (like the Oyler case potentially would have been) is a dollar taken away from members. Anyone wise realize that there are people who would dismantle the Church for profit if they could only find a crack in its legal armor.

where did I demand the church waive its defenses? You don’t get to lie about what I said. 

28 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Your "Christlike" argument relied on your subjective human judgment that Church should waive its "technicalities" whenever a victim is "deserving", according to you. An institution cannot function on your subjective feelings. Who decides who is "deserving" in ex-mormondum?

The loudest? The person with the saddest story? The Church following universal legal principles like attorney-client privilege and reporting laws is the only way to be fair and consistent to everyone, rather than playing favorites based on public pressure.

In the Beau Oyler case, the sort of "justice" you wanted was based on a false premise. The Church used the system to correct the record, the Church wasn't being "un-Christlike"; it was being truthful. By standing up for the documented truth, the Church actually serves the cause of justice better than those who would blindly support any accusation.

By your own statements in another threads, no one who has not bern excommunicated or formally resigned can claim to be exmormon. 
 

Looks like you are more likely to just say no one deserves compensation for child abuse at the hands of church leaders.. no matter what happened to them. 
 

you are attributing things to me I have  never said- have a nice night 

Edited February 14 by Notatbm

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

To include sharing notes of a confession of a sin to a bishop with a third party? That’s what it seems like what he was offering to do

He wasn't going to share notes.  He was going to see if her father had confessed previously.  He is helping a victim, which sounds like a great idea.  It sounds like there wasn't enough evidence to be able to take the guy to court (and no, the bishop could not testify, anything he said would be thrown out of court).  The pbs article is really bad reporting and since we don't have the tapes, we don't know for sure what was proposed.  But what would be the purpose of seeing if her dad had confessed to someone else?  How would that help Chelsea or the court case, especially when she already knew that he had confessed to others?  Maybe Rytting was proposing to help see if there was something else that could actually be used in court.  If there was something in the notes that could point to evidence outside of the confession, then it could be helpful.

Edited February 14 by webbles

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

2 Q. So you're saying there was no
3 responsibility by LDS Family Services to keep records
4 of the phone calls they received; correct?
5 A. We did not keep records of those phone
6 calls.

Sorry, I meant to reply to this and it looks like I deleted it from my other comment.  This doesn't show Van Komen saying that the helpline doesn't keep notes.  This shows that Family Service employees don't keep notes.  But, again, Family Service != helpline.  The helpline is a 1-800 number that goes to both Family Service employees and attorneys.  Where does Van Komen say that the helpline (aka the 1-800 number, aka all the people who accept those calls) don't keep notes?  Please stop equating the helpline to Family Services.  They are not the same thing.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

where did I demand the church waive its defenses? You don’t get to lie about what I said. 

By your own statements in another threads, no one who has not bern excommunicated or formally resigned can claim to be exmormon. 
 

Looks like you are more likely to just say no one deserves compensation for child abuse at the hands of church leaders.. no matter what happened to them. 
 

you are attributing things to me I have  never said- have a nice night 

Ah, so your Exit strategy is to frame my defense of the Church as an attack on abuse victims so you can exit the dialogue on your high horse? No, it's a Straw Man Fallacy that I think no one deserves compensation. The Church actually provides more help to victims through its Counseling Assistance Program than many other institutions, often paying for years of therapy regardless of legal "technicalities." Protecting the Church's legal integrity is what ensures those funds remain available for actual victims.

You claim you never demanded the Church waive its defenses, but your entire argument contradicts this. You called the Help Line protocols "dishonest", a "shell game", "Stone Age" or "amateurish," you are clearly demanding that the organization stop using it. You can't have it both ways, you can't attack the legal shield while claiming you aren't asking the Church to drop it.

Edited February 14 by Pyreaux

[Notatbm]

16 hours ago, webbles said:

He wasn't going to share notes.  He was going to see if her father had confessed previously.  He is helping a victim, which sounds like a great idea.  It sounds like there wasn't enough evidence to be able to take the guy to court (and no, the bishop could not testify, anything he said would be thrown out of court).  The pbs article is really bad reporting and since we don't have the tapes, we don't know for sure what was proposed.  But what would be the purpose of seeing if her dad had confessed to someone else?  How would that help Chelsea or the court case, especially when she already knew that he had confessed to others?  Maybe Rytting was proposing to help see if there was something else that could actually be used in court.  If there was something in the notes that could point to evidence outside of the confession, then it could be helpful.

If the church isn’t willing to have the bishop share the confession in court ( apparently against the law there) who does he think he is to share it with anyone else if it exists? He would be violating the law by disclosing that info to a third party.

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

If the church isn’t willing to have the bishop share the confession in court ( apparently against the law there) who does he think he is to share it with anyone else if it exists? He would be violating the law by disclosing that info to a third party.

It has nothing to do whether the church is willing or not.  That is just bad reporting.  The church could have been willing, but the perpetrator can prevent it.  If the perpetrator allowed it, then I doubt the bishop would be needed to testify since that means the perpetrator is already willing to confess.  And what law would Rytting be violating?

Most privilege is only around court room testimony.  Outside of that, the privilege usually isn't valid.  Let's use the clergy/penitent privilege as an example.  Say a bishop hears a confession from a perpetrator.  He is not legally required to tell the officials in most of the states.  He is required, by the church's handbook, to keep it confidential.  And the perpetrator has clergy/penitent privilege to prevent the bishop from testifying.  Even with all of that, the bishop is legally allowed to go to the police and tell them what he learned.  The church might discipline him for going against the handbook, but that isn't a legal issue.  And the clergy/penitent privilege can't stop the bishop from going to the police.  But, if the police can not find any other evidence and all they have is the testimony of the bishop, then they have no case.  Because if they charge the perpetrator with a crime, all of the bishop's testimony MUST be ignored.  They can't use it as evidence.  They can't have him sit in the witness stand.  The bishop can't do anything.  Because the perpetrator has the clergy/penitent privilege and can prevent the bishop from saying anything about what was confessed.  This is the situation in pretty much every state (even the states that make bishops be mandatory reporters without any loopholes).  If the police do find evidence (say they talk to the victim who is willing to testify, or the talk to another witness, or they find a recording, etc), then the police can charge the perpetrator.  Even if the source of the original information is from the bishop.  Now, the guy could sue the bishop for going to the police.  But in most (and maybe all) states, reporting child abuse is usually given immunity from those type of suits.  There was a case in Oregon where a wife of a perpetrator sued the church for turning in her husband to the police.  It was dismissed after several months https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/08/turner-woman-mormon-lds-church-child-sex-abuse-lawsuit-oregon/2832368001/ and https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16799523/johnson-v-corporation-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of/