Church Loses "Emotional Distress Case"

[Serious]

I am one of the plaintiffs in this case. This case could've been dealt with 4 years ago with an apology and a change in Church policy. What the Church neglects to tell the Tribune is one of the Church's own witnesses testified that in 1996 I told her I told the first bishop about the abuse. The Church only mentions anything that helps their case, but doesn't mention the mounds of evidence and conduct that is simply inexcuseable.

Two bishops, 1 stake president, and two offices of LDS Family Services (in Renton and Provo) all knew about the abuse, but NO ONE reported it. Then, when it was finally reported by my mom, the Church wouldn't cooperate at all with the investigation.

The Church also refused to release the records of Pete Taylor's Church court, wherein he said that he had gone through the repentance process with the first bishop in 1994. The Church had previously released Church court records in another case in Portland, Oregon. Why all of the sudden not release another set of records?

Never forget, there are two sides to every story.

My friend had many of her grandchildren molested by a man in their ward, they were helped by the church to prosicute the perp... it was the police who wouldn't do anything when things were discovered... the mother of the kids, my friends daughter, sued the Police...

Then the church wouldn't help her.

[asbestosman]

The idea is that the Bishop acts as a servant or agent of the Church, and therefore the Church, as the principal, is liable for any negligence on the Bishop's part. That part of the argument is quite well established legally, it's pretty well understood, and I don't think anyone has any problems with it; if the Bishop did something wrong in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duty, then the Church is liable.

Thanks, Pahoran.

Wouldn't a church avoid liability if it 1) sufficiently intructed the clergy, and 2) had all reason to believe that the clergy would comply?

It sounds to me like there is an underlying assumption here. The laymen (and hence jury) assume that clergy should report confessions of abuse, but the law may not require it. * If this is the issue, then shouldn't we be working with government officials to change the law instead of suing organizations for complying with the law, but not complying with our assumptions?

* It seems there is a distinction between when the perpetrator confesses and when anyone else confesses. In the latter case, the clergy must report it. Was this the law at the time? Furthermore there is the question of how sure the bishop was, but law may (or maybe should) require the clergy report it anyhow.

[Pahoran]

The idea is that the Bishop acts as a servant or agent of the Church, and therefore the Church, as the principal, is liable for any negligence on the Bishop's part.  That part of the argument is quite well established legally, it's pretty well understood, and I don't think anyone has any problems with it; if the Bishop did something wrong in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duty, then the Church is liable.

Thanks, Pahoran.

Wouldn't a church avoid liability if it 1) sufficiently intructed the clergy, and 2) had all reason to believe that the clergy would comply?

I don't think so; I'm not certain about that. I don't know of any directly parallel cases, so maybe the resident legal experts could help out; I've heard of cases where an employee has acted in clear breach of his instructions, caused harm, and his employer was still found liable. I don't know if that's automatically the way it is all of the time; at very least I think the Church would have the burden of showing that the Bishop's actions were (1) in clear breach of (2) well-known policies and (3)completely unexpected and unpredictable.

It sounds to me like there is an underlying assumption here. The laymen (and hence jury) assume that clergy should report confessions of abuse, but the law may not require it. * If this is the issue, then shouldn't we be working with government officials to change the law instead of suing organizations for complying with the law, but not complying with our assumptions?

Alternatively, judges should clearly instruct juries as to the law. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, changing the law to require clergy to report would have a chilling effect upon religious activity. Should the state have the right to use the coercive power of the law to force churches to change their repentance/forgiveness doctrines, or the practices by which they put those doctrines into effect?

Everyone sees child sexual abuse as the "hot button" issue--that's what witch hunts are for--but where would the line be drawn? Would child sexual abuse be the only crime subject to mandatory reporting? What about murder? Isn't that more serious? After all, an abused child can recover, while a murder victim cannot. Okay, so if we expand it to include murder, how about rape? Attempted murder? If at first he didn't succeed, isn't he likely to try again? Assault and battery? Vehicular manslaughter? Hate crimes? Arson? Robbery? Theft? Fraud? Illegal immigration? Unlawful assembly? Parking infringements? Can you not see that once clergy can be compelled to divulge confidences about anything, they will ultimately end up being forced to divulge confidences about everything?

* It seems there is a distinction between when the perpetrator confesses and when anyone else confesses. In the latter case, the clergy must report it. Was this the law at the time? Furthermore there is the question of how sure the bishop was, but law may (or maybe should) require the clergy report it anyhow.

Maybe it should, when the information comes from someone other than a confessing perpetrator. In fact, in many jurisdictions, it does. We'd have to know what the relevant statute said at the time; notice, however, that the Bishop has not been prosecuted for any breach of the law; the lawsuit was a civil, not a criminal action, based upon what looks like some form of negligence claim.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Enish-go-on-doshling]

And when five young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts claimed that they were being persecuted by local witches, all the good Christian folk there saw things just the way you do.

Evidently you admire them.

I have to admit, I can't imagine a weirder serious repsonse than that.

IOW, you don't have a response. I fully understand.

Please explain where you think the analogy is deficient. Do you deny that the subsequent witch-hunt mirrored your "don't question the Victims" mentality?

Yours was as an accusation, rather than an analogy. I don't see much point in bothering to engage it. The weirdness of the accusation speaks for itself.

it's her subsequent effort to find $4,200,000.00 worth of balm for her wounds that we are questioning right now.

interesting that you would call it "questioning":

The criticism you have bought for yourself with your ill-gotten $4,200,000 is not for being an abuse victim (sob) but for your opportunistic money-grubbing.

If God is that concerned about "His" money, I'm sure he will find some way to make up the loss. My reading of Jesus' life makes me think He would see it better spent on an abuse victim than on sprucing up urban real estate, but maybe I just weight the beatitudes too much.

[aznative]

The idea is that the Bishop acts as a servant or agent of the Church, and therefore the Church, as the principal, is liable for any negligence on the Bishop's part. That part of the argument is quite well established legally, it's pretty well understood, and I don't think anyone has any problems with it; if the Bishop did something wrong in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duty, then the Church is liable.

OK, I'm confused. If the victim reported to the Bishop that she was being abused, as I follow in the articles, and the Bishop failed to do so, then isn't the Bishop and the Church neglagent? Even whithin the time frames of the abuse occuring?

[Pahoran]

I am continually amazed at how having the fulness of the gospel in people's lives makes them so much more meek, humble, charitible, and understanding towards others.

And when five young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts claimed that they were being persecuted by local witches, all the good Christian folk there saw things just the way you do.

Evidently you admire them.

I have to admit, I can't imagine a weirder serious repsonse than that.

IOW, you don't have a response. I fully understand.

Please explain where you think the analogy is deficient. Do you deny that the subsequent witch-hunt mirrored your "don't question the Victims" mentality?

That was as an accusation, rather than an analogy. I don't see much point in bothering to engage it. The weirdness of the accusation speaks for itself.

Really? Let's step through this at a pace you might be able to follow.

1) You, with typical sarcasm, attacked us for not being sufficiently "meek, humble, charitible, and understanding towards others," and attributed this to "having the fulness of the gospel in people's lives." The message behind the smarminess is clear: being a Mormon makes people mean. Which is a nasty, opportunistic lie, of course, but that is not likely to slow you down; quite the opposite, in fact.

2) I pointed out that we were questioning--i.e. taking issue with--the appropriateness of dealing with a sad event in one's life by suing the Church for a truckload of money.

3) I introduced the "witch hunt" analogy: applying your logic to that situation, it is clear that those who refused to question the claims of the "Victims" were acting as you would approve.

4) You have twice refused to engage this analogy or explain what is wrong with it; instead, you have chosen to try to brush it aside with an adolescent pejorative: it is "weird." Not factually inappropriate or illogical or poorly reasoned--just "weird."

Why did you do that?

Well, factually inappropriate or illogical or poorly reasoned, while much more meaningful criticisms, are something you'd have to argue. "Weird," of course, you don't.

And that's what really "speaks for itself:" that you choose a criticism that doesn't actually assert anything, and thus doesn't require any rigour. It is mere spiteful dismissiveness.

If God is that concerned about "His" money, I'm sure he will find some way to make up the loss.  My reading of Jesus' life makes me think He would see it better spent on an abuse victim than on sprucing up urban real estate, but maybe I just weight the beatitudes too much.

Thank you for the obligatory "I'm a better Christian than you" slam.

Which is, of course, pure rubbish. You do not "weight the beatitudes" at all, and you know it. If you did, you wouldn't lower yourself to attacking the Latter-day Saints for accepting the Gospel, you wouldn't sneer about the things that we believe and you can't begin to understand, and you wouldn't be gloating about how a dishonest lawyer persuaded a gullible jury to give a truckload of money to a greedy opportunist.

Regards,

Pahoran

[nomdujour]

If you did, you wouldn't lower yourself to attacking the Latter-day Saints for accepting the Gospel, you wouldn't sneer about the things that we believe and you can't begin to understand, and you wouldn't be gloating about how a dishonest lawyer persuaded a gullible jury to give a truckload of money to a greedy opportunist.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

I wanted my first post at FAIR to be addressed to you. Your summary here is a fine example of what a rotten person would say. You have no more facts than anyone else regarding this case, you are just a mean jackass that would throw anyone under the bus. Dont feel so bold buddy, all 12 million dont have your back on this one.

You are an embarassment.

Jessica. I hope you find a peaceful resolution for yourself. I hope the same for your sister, mother and others involved in this case.

I respect your willingness to fight for yourself and others. May we all be better for your efforts.

Pahoran, I hope you have a crappy holiday season.

[auteur55]

My heart goes out to the victims as well. I hope their hearts heal and the Lord takes them under his tender wing. May this evil abuse one day be flushed off the earth. Yet I find myself compelled to rush to the defense of Pahoran. The Lord will judge whether the bishops and stake presidents involved were negligent in this case but one thing is sure. Suing the church for 4 million dollars as if they were somehow responsible for abuse going on in someones home is an act that helps no one. The church outright condems these acts and is not responsible for what sick people are doing. The money should go to a foundation that benefits the victims of these attacks.

[Sput]

Yup Im with auteur55 on this also and i dont think nomdujour read the board rules before posting! Id like to know how the money will heal the pain? Is the mother going to have a lawsuit against her for putting the girls in danger?

[Arlon James]

nomdujour Posted on Nov 22 2005, 11:25 PM

Pahoran,

I wanted my first post at FAIR to be addressed to you. Your summary here is a fine example of what a rotten person would say. You have no more facts than anyone else regarding this case, you are just a mean jackass that would throw anyone under the bus. Dont feel so bold buddy, all 12 million dont have your back on this one.

You are an embarassment.

Jessica. I hope you find a peaceful resolution for yourself. I hope the same for your sister, mother and others involved in this case.

I respect your willingness to fight for yourself and others. May we all be better for your efforts.

Pahoran, I hope you have a crappy holiday season.

nomdujor,

I would ask if you had read the rules before posting but, obviously you have not.

One: you have failed to get past the tone of Pahoran's post to actually deal with the (very valid) points he's made and Two: after failing at this, proceeded to attack him personally as bolded above. Thus you have violated rule number one:

1. Any post which contains personal insults, flaming, ad-hominem attacks or harassment will be removed. Any statement intended to antagonize, harass, or to cause distress or unwanted attention will be deleted.

It is obvious that not all LDS will agree with Pahoran here, which is lucky, becuase Pahoran never claimed to be speaking for anyone but him/herself. Keep in mind this is just a message board, not a place to pick fights. I find your emotionaly charged, overly reactive, personal attack against Pahoran lacking in any substance. I would like to see you, and others here, who can't seem to put their emotions aside for some reason, actually deal with what Pahoran is pointing out, instead of just being offended and hurling pajoratives.

Other than that, welcome to the board!

Arlon James

[Tribunal]

Having read this entire post and read articles on the case, I believe the mother was just as responsible as the two Bishops, the Stake President, and the two Counselors.

Why should the Church be financially responsible to the two daughters, and probably the mother? To sue the Church is to say that I'm also responsible for the actions of this step-father and the inactions of the mother and clergy. I'm not!

I hope the millions of dollars that you won will heal the pain that I caused you. You'll be in my prayers!

[Bernard Gui]

Interesting report on KING 5 News tonight from Seattle

on this case with Jessica and sister on the air. It was said

that the bishop told the girl, "It's a good thing you

didn't tell a school counselor, because they have

to report it to the police."

The girls were not asked why they did not report

it to a school counselor. It was reported that the

Church will pay the bulk of the award, but some will

be required from the perp. A representative of the

church said that the church may contest the decision.

On a side note, I recently received training as a public

school teacher in the State of Washington that I am now

personally responsible to contact the police and Child

Protective Services if I have ANY suspicion of abuse.

Kind of puts my butt on the line. Just one more in a very

long line of LATs.....Lawsuit Avoidance Training. There's

money to be made out there, folks.

Bernard the Urbane

[nomdujour]

I would ask if you had read the rules before posting but, obviously you have not.

One: you have failed to get past the tone of Pahoran's post to actually deal with the (very valid) points he's made and Two: after failing at this, proceeded to attack him personally as bolded above.  Thus you have violated rule number one:

1. Any post which contains personal insults, flaming, ad-hominem attacks or harassment will be removed. Any statement intended to antagonize, harass, or to cause distress or unwanted attention will be deleted.

It is obvious that not all LDS will agree with Pahoran here, which is lucky, becuase Pahoran never claimed to be speaking for anyone but him/herself.  Keep in mind this is just a message board, not a place to pick fights.  I find your emotionaly charged, overly reactive, personal attack against Pahoran lacking in any substance.  I would like to see you, and others here, who can't seem to put their emotions aside for some reason, actually deal with what Pahoran is pointing out, instead of just being offended and hurling pajoratives.

Other than that, welcome to the board! 

Arlon James

Are you kidding me? Dont pull this rule number one business here. Let me remind you of a the quotes in my post

Thank you for the obligatory "I'm a better Christian than you" slam.

Which is, of course, pure rubbish. You do not "weight the beatitudes" at all, and you know it. If you did, you wouldn't lower yourself to attacking the Latter-day Saints for accepting the Gospel, you wouldn't sneer about the things that we believe and you can't begin to understand, and you wouldn't be gloating about how a dishonest lawyer persuaded a gullible jury to give a truckload of money to a greedy opportunist.

So here you go, from Saint Pahoran:

He refers to another posters comments as a slam

Other posters thoughts are rubbish.

The other poster cannot understand or accept the Gospel

Oh wait, the other poster cannot even begin to understand.

The other poster is gloating

The winning lawyer of A POSTER ON THIS BOARD is dishonest

The jury favoring a POSTER FROM THIS BOARD is gullible

The award is a truckload of money, implying that it is egregious and unfair

THE VICTIM OF A CRIME AND ABUSE, WHO IS ALSO A POSTER ON THIS BOARD, IS A GREEDY OPPORTUNIST.

Save your silly and selective reprimanding. Sheesh.

I realize he is sainted and beloved, but please, let him speak for himself and dont hide behind these rules when it is convenient and dismiss them as it suits you.

I want to add the greatest point of my post, in agreement with you, is that Pahoran does not speak for all members. Maybe I was not clear when I said all 12 million do not have your back. I will clarify - Pahoran, speak for yourself. I am speaking for me and at least a few others when I say I find your insults (as noted above) unnecessary.

Thanks for the Welcome.

Saint Pahoran, my holiday wishes to you remain unchanged. Ciao.

[clarkgoble]

I'd urge people not to leap to judgment here. I feel horrible for Jessica and what's she's had to go through. I can fully understand wanting to lash out. I do wish she had contacted other people. Without knowing both sides it's hard for me to say much. Unfortunately it seems like many on both sides are assuming that are events are as they think. (Either the Bishop fully knew and suppressed, or that the Bishop didn't know)

If the Bishop did know that abuse was going on and covered up, then that is, in my mind a grievous sin and he ought be excommunicated along with any others involved.

However it isn't clear to me that the Bishop did understand this, although apparently Jessica does believe that he did. Without knowing the details of testimony, it's hard for me to really render much of a judgment.

What I do worry about is the presumption that anyone is legally liable for millions of dollars when they aren't even involved. Consider that you were the next door neighbor. You think something might be going on but aren't sure. Should you be legally liable? Should you be able to be sued, losing your home and all else?

It also isn't clear to me what other changes Jessica wanted the church to make beyond what they've already done in terms of training and legal hotlines. It does seem that the church has really made this a big focus. This isn't to say mistakes won't happen in the future. But they do sincerely appear to be trying to catch predators of all kinds. The danger is, I worry, that bystanders will be held to a nearly inerrant standard in these things. I'm not sure that's fair to ask of anyone.

Certainly in cases where clear knowledge can be established that is a different situation. But from my limited knowledge of the case, it appears that the Bishop is claiming that he didn't know.

[Moksha]

Nomdujour, this isn't about truth, justice and the American way. This is Apologetics. It is about spin. You change the story so it looks good for you and bad for the other guys. Don't get bent out of shape. This is just to prepare young men and women to take their place in defense of the Church.

You might think this is misguided and that truth itself will be the best defender of the Church, and that position does have a smattering of support.

Never-the-less, this is just spin, so relax.

[nomdujour]

I'd urge people not to leap to judgment here. I feel horrible for Jessica and what's she's had to go through. I can fully understand wanting to lash out. I do wish she had contacted other people. Without knowing both sides it's hard for me to say much. Unfortunately it seems like many on both sides are assuming that are events are as they think. (Either the Bishop fully knew and suppressed, or that the Bishop didn't know)

If the Bishop did know that abuse was going on and covered up, then that is, in my mind a grievous sin and he ought be excommunicated along with any others involved.

However it isn't clear to me that the Bishop did understand this, although apparently Jessica does believe that he did. Without knowing the details of testimony, it's hard for me to really render much of a judgment.

What I do worry about is the presumption that anyone is legally liable for millions of dollars when they aren't even involved. Consider that you were the next door neighbor. You think something might be going on but aren't sure. Should you be legally liable? Should you be able to be sued, losing your home and all else?

It also isn't clear to me what other changes Jessica wanted the church to make beyond what they've already done in terms of training and legal hotlines. It does seem that the church has really made this a big focus. This isn't to say mistakes won't happen in the future. But they do sincerely appear to be trying to catch predators of all kinds. The danger is, I worry, that bystanders will be held to a nearly inerrant standard in these things. I'm not sure that's fair to ask of anyone.

Certainly in cases where clear knowledge can be established that is a different situation. But from my limited knowledge of the case, it appears that the Bishop is claiming that he didn't know.

Clark, who do you consider to be the "innocent neighbor?"

A jury didnt award this willynilly. The evidence obviously weighed in favor of one side. You may choose to dismiss that, I understand. But at least we agree that one side clearly presented facts more favorably.

We may never know the details and what the Bishop knew. But remember, she also went to LDSSS, which requires a referral from a Bishop in most cases. And it is extremely unlikely that she was seeing LDSSS, who did know the details, without some shared information between the three (victim, LDSSS, Bishop).

The Church has made an effort. I consider it a superficial effort. Before you skewer me, let me explain. I have had 7 bishops in 7 years. Bad timing with moves and splits. I have seen ridiculous choices made by 2 that could subject the Church to some litigation. I was in ward councils and Bishoprics during these events. In every case, the Stake President was not helpful. The training is weak. Training seems to be more about motivation and feeling the spirit than practical advice. In this Washington case it cost the church some money. It wont be the last time, it certainly wasnt the first. I dont think what the Church is doing is enough and it doesnt counter the unshakable faith members have, which empowers Bishops and Stake Presidents.

Finally, of course the Bishop is claiming he didnt know. What do you expect? That he would claim now that he knew the whole time and did nothing. What he is not claiming is also relevent here. That is another part where the jury has an advantage.

[charity]

Nomdujour, people don't always post back immediatley, especially when they are in different time zones. We are an international group.

Calling a person's behavior into question is not an ad hominem attack. Calling other people names, and displaying vitriol, with the "have a . . ." remark, are not welcome here. You can clean it up and still be a respected post-er. Otherwise, you go on the list most of keep of those who are worthy adversaries, and those who are merely display yapping dog behavior.

Moksha would like you to think there is justification for anything that comes from the LDS apologetics as being spin, while anything that comes from non-LDS apologetics as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. That's just his spin.

[Christian]

I've read a few posts on here and have to add my 2 cents.

Many are blaming the vitims of the abuse for seeking recourse of $$ from the church. I have to ask those who are critical of this allegedly opportunistic behavior, Would you be more supportive had the victims sought only say $1000 from the church? Can you please explain why?

If the church did something legally and morally wrong, like any other entity, there is absolutly nothing wrong (and a lot right) about a victim of such wrong behavior seeking recourse in courts from the wrong doer.

Since the church is a huge corporation, however, with financial resources large enough to finance a $1.5 Billion dollar mall from sources other than its main revenue stream (tithing), its got a lot of cash. I've heard of the church settling law suits for similar and related matters, but we don't know of the $ amounts from such settlments as they are usually confidential, but such settlements suggest a willingness of the church to pay $ to avoid confrontation an publicity--a strategey emplyed by any reasonable organization regardless of its guilt in the matter at hand. The thing is, to an organization that has billions of dollars at its disposal, a penalty of paying a few thousand to an abuse vicitm is a quick, easy fix. But its hardly going to get the attention of church leaders to correct any wrong doing on behalf of the church (once again, assuming there was "negligence" on the part of the church").

However, this $4.3 Mill verdict will. It will be the biggest item on Pres. Hinkley's and many other GA's and the church PR firm's agendas for the next few days (well, lets at least hope that it is) It will be in newspapers all thorugh Utah and elsewhere. Members and priesthood leaders will be reading about the verdict right and left and hopefully, any wrong behavoir on the part of the church regarding abusers will be correcred--and fast. I think, in a twisted sort of way, this verdict and others like it that wil come, will be good instruction for church leaders and members. It will send a clear, absolute message to all members of the church that child sexual abuse is not just a "sin" but it is criminal behavior. It is far more serious and terrible than a chronic porn and mastubation habit or comiting adultry, and needs to be dealt with in a far more serious way. For some reason, I think this distinction (between sex abuse and consensual sexual sins) gets confused in the church, and people are quick to label one as the other, IMO. Hopefully, this case will furhter clarify this confusion.

Whether this confusion between abuse and consensual sexual sins was the cause of any church wrong doing in this case--I'm not sure-- I wasn't there, I didn't see what happened, I don't know if the church is at fault. But, nonetheless to say that a victim of terrible child abuse should not be able to seek millions of damages from an organization with billions at its disposall from wrongdoing is really scrwed up. The main question should be "did the church do something wrong?" If it did, asking the church to pay $4.3 million as a penalty for the wrong is really not a lot to ask of it. Maybe they could add one less shop to the new mall to pay for the verdict, if it is a problem.

[nomdujour]

Nomdujour, people don't always post back immediatley, especially when they are in different time zones.  We are an international group. 

Calling a person's behavior into question is not an ad hominem attack.  Calling other people names, and displaying vitriol, with the "have a . . ." remark, are not welcome here.  You can clean it up and still be a respected post-er.  Otherwise, you go on the list most of keep of those who are worthy adversaries, and those who are merely display yapping dog behavior.

Moksha would like you to think there is justification for anything that comes from the LDS apologetics as being spin, while anything that comes from non-LDS apologetics as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.  That's just his spin.

Oh beloved Charity, holy one of FAIR, bless you in this holiday season.

Again, keep your little nuisancy jibberish.

The victim in this case is in a far worse situation now than she was. When you get revenge, you don't "feel better." You feel worse because you are disobeying God. Vengeance is the Lord's.

This was your first quote on this thread. How is it not OK to wish someone have a crappy holiday, but it is ok to point out that they are disobeying God and imply that God will seek vengeance for their choice. Spare me, you clown. Your gymnastics of the mind are like a Cirque du Soleil act, impressive, but more appropriate when I have had more sleep.

You may not agree with this judgment. You may think the Church is perfect but the members are not. You may think it helps the Church to intimidate and insult the hell out of victims. I take these conclusions from your posts.

I disagree. I think the Church has been slow to respond. I think there is a big gap between what members are expected to think a Bishop is capable of accomplishing and what Bishop is able of accomplishing. While you may see that as a weakness of the members and the members alone should be accountable for all things, I see it as a problem that should be fixed.

And as for your buddy Pahoran and his moneygrubbing insult (you may have missed it with that color lense on your glasses) I have a bit more to say. I agree with Christian that there is an amount of money that would probably shush this entire conversation. I would add this to what he said, while it is a bunch of money, its her money if it is her church. The church is effectively our church. So she got hers back. Who Cares? The church isnt meant to be the bank or Fidelity Investments, its the members church. So what if she gets her dividend early, she paid one hell of a price, I wouldnt make that trade.

Charity, may all your Christmases be blight.

[Moksha]

Moksha would like you to think there is justification for anything that comes from the LDS apologetics as being spin, while anything that comes from non-LDS apologetics as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. That's just his spin.

Not so. I Find our spin to be no worse than any other spin.

...and I say that as I constantly revolve around the Earth.

BTW Charity, I like your jibberish and don't find it nuisancy.

[nomdujour]

My heart goes out to the victims as well. I hope their hearts heal and the Lord takes them under his tender wing. May this evil abuse one day be flushed off the earth. Yet I find myself compelled to rush to the defense of Pahoran..........The church outright condems these acts and is not responsible for what sick people are doing. The money should go to a foundation that benefits the victims of these attacks.

Whew, thanks for defending Pahoran. I almost missed your little defense there. Sorry to be slow to get to it.

Of course you would defend him, he is St. FAIR, the Saint of Haight. It is noble to defend his kind of judgmentalism. Hail St. Pahoran.

I would just caution you, that in this case, not all cases, but in this case, it is not just the molestor who is the "sick person doing ," but also the Bishops, Counselors and Stake President. And possibly more. And yes, the church now condems what they did, it is unclear whether the Church really condemned their choices at the time. The jury, who knows more than me, says the Church was wrong. Feel free to disagree.

[Avatar4321]

Again since no one seems to have addressed my post of say about 5 or six pages ago.

Where is the duty here? How is the Church responsible for the actions of someone in their home? Especially when those actions contradict everything the Church teaches and stands for?

And assuming you can prove a duty here. Where the heck is the proximate cause? Why isn't the victims failure to report the abuse or the mothers refusal to report it a intervening/superceding cause?

Also, one of the articles mentioned that the stepfather was a priest. Why on earth does that matter in the LDS Context? anyone who was worthy at the age 16 is a priest. Considering that a worthy adult member who has been baptized for a while should be an Elder, how is the fact that he was a priest a sign of some prominent position the Church put him in? That whole part doesn't make sense.

[nomdujour]

Again since no one seems to have addressed my post of say about 5 or six pages ago.

Where is the duty here? How is the Church responsible for the actions of someone in their home? Especially when those actions contradict everything the Church teaches and stands for?

And assuming you can prove a duty here. Where the heck is the proximate cause? Why isn't the victims failure to report the abuse or the mothers refusal to report it a intervening/superceding cause?

Also, one of the articles mentioned that the stepfather was a priest. Why on earth does that matter in the LDS Context? anyone who was worthy at the age 16 is a priest. Considering that a worthy adult member who has been baptized for a while should be an Elder, how is the fact that he was a priest a sign of some prominent position the Church put him in? That whole part doesn't make sense.

Its my understanding that he was a Hight Priest and that he had a personal relationship with the Bishop. I have seen conflicting reports though, I have little faith in the newspapers.

Especially when those actions contradict everything the Church teaches and stands for?

Well, the Church teaches that the Bishop is inspired of God. The Church teaches that the Bishop, after hearing a confession, can help a sinner. A Bishop can recieve revelation. If you have sinned it is imperative to seek the forgiveness of the Church via the Bishop. We can confide in our Bishop. If he gives us a calling we should never say no and we should never ask to be released. The Bishop has the gift of discernment. In fact, most members trust their Bishop so much they allow youth to meet with him without parental supervision. That is a lot of confidence that the Church teaches. So, with that loyalty, comes some obligations. Apparently, this jury believes that the Church and its local leaders did not hold up on their end of the deal.

The issue was not what happened in the home, but rather, how the Church handled the information of what they knew about the home.

And assuming you can prove a duty here. Where the heck is the proximate cause? Why isn't the victims failure to report the abuse or the mothers refusal to report it a intervening/superceding cause?

I hope you are not saying that because the victim did not report it immediately to the local authorities that she may in fact not be a victim. I may not understand your questions.

In this Church we believe that family is everything and the word of the Bishop is as good as Gods word. Some have that much faith in the Bishop, some do not. But, its perfectly acceptable to have that faith. When the Bishop says dont tell the local authorities it will cause havock at home, its not a stretch for a faithful young person to heed that counsel. In that persons mind it is more like this - if you blow the whistle you can never be in the celestial kingdom again. Its the same for missionaries, who are even older. If you break the rules and get sent home, you will become unfaithful and never see the celestial kingdom, or your family. So, it is not a stretch to see how a young person would follow their Bishop into a mode of silence.

[Del March]

Jessica,

if you're still around, I'd like to ask you some questions, in order to clarify my understanding, because all those conflicting reports don't help much.

1. When did you tell your bishop for the first time? Was he the first person you told? Why did you choose him? What exactly did you tell him?

2. What did he say? Did he counsel you to tell someone else, or inversely not to tell anyone? Did he suggest a specific plan of action?

3. Did you tell anyone else? Did you tell your mother? Did you tell the LDS SS? Did you tell the Stake President? Did you tell the police, or a school counselor, or your Young Women leader, or anyone else? If not, why?

4. Why are you suing the Church, instead of sueing the individuals in the church who you think have done you wrong?

5. When did you learn that your little sister was also being abused? Did you take any action to protect her? If not, why? Do you consider yourself partly responsible for the abuse she went through?

6. When did your mother learn about all this? Do you really believe she didn't suspect long ago? Are you going to sue her? If no, why not?

7. What are you going to do with the money?

8. How do you feel about someday forgiving your abuser and those who failed to help you? Do you think the money can help you do that?

9. What particular measures would you want the Church to take concerning child abuse?

10. What kind of relationship do you have with your lawyer? What kind of feelings is he fostering in you: revenge, forgiveness, self-pity, entitlement, or what?

I hope you find healing and peace.

Del

[Abulafia]

CI, do you think that the church will need to change its proceedures in light of this case???

(I know that in the past (anecdotal sorry) my friends who have been abuse victims at the hands of their own fathers, were ignored and made to feel responsible by their church leaders. One was even going to be sent home from her mission by her MP, when it 'all came out', but some right thinking GA decided not to blame her - thank goodness)

I havn't been to church for a long time, but I would hope that bishops and leaders are better trained, and that they are offered guidelines on this that will protect the victims, their families, and themselves.

An awful business with no winners.

Abulafia