Mormon Bishop Faces Charges

[kolipoki09]

Trotter stated that Bishops are advised to follow local law. In Utah, Idaho, or Arizona (3 states with high LDS populations), local law does not require a Bishop to report child abuse or even ongoing child abuse, if the knowledge of the abuse was given by the abuser to the Bishop in a setting wherein the abuser is speaking to the Bishop as a Bishop.

Utah law requires clergy to notify police if they learn of abuse unless the information comes by way of a confession from the offender, not the victim.

[frankenstein]

Utah law requires clergy to notify police if they learn of abuse unless the information comes by way of a confession from the offender, not the victim.

yes that is what I posted, you posted it more clearly though, thankyou.

[BCSpace]

Do we know what it is the boy is accused of doing and does it warrant a criminal record?

I don't know but I also don't think that is up to a Bishop to decide.

I disagree. The law is too imperfect and seems to be undefined.

[Storm Rider]

I disagree. The law is too imperfect and seems to be undefined.

I agree wiht BC on this. It appears the two individuals involved are minors and we don't know what occured. Too often we lose sight of proprotionality when it comes to certain topics. We have created too many sacred cows. Is a kiss the equal of an unbidden touch, was force involved, forced to do what, etc. etc. We just don't have enough information to condemn the Bishop or anyone else. Once we learn more facts then it would be appropriate to make judgements of proper behavior.

Are the actions of minors the same as those of adults? This does not appear to be a situation between an adult and a minor, which always introduces an easier condemnation of any action.

[frankenstein]

There is no "exemption" for Bishops to conceal sins under the law of the land or the law of God. That R cannot successfully be C'd.

"Arizona law is clear that no priest can disclose any confession even when it concerns child abuse,"Kim Farrah, church spokeswoman, said in a statement.

[ERayR]

Trotter stated that Bishops are advised to follow local law. In Utah, Idaho, or Arizona (3 states with high LDS populations), local law does not require a Bishop to report child abuse or even ongoing child abuse, if the knowledge of the abuse was given by the abuser to the Bishop in a setting wherein the abuser is speaking to the Bishop as a Bishop.

It is my understanding that if the perpetrator confesses to the bishop that per the laws governing clergy the bishop can not report it. He can only urge the perpetrator to go to the police.

[KevinG]

"Arizona law is clear that no priest can disclose any confession even when it concerns child abuse,"Kim Farrah, church spokeswoman, said in a statement.

That isn't an exemption for Bishops, that is a constraint of the law in the state of Arizona.

the Utah law says the clergyman "is required to give notification" if the information came from the victim, perpetrator or anyone else. No exemption there which is why the Bishop was arrested.

I also think the implication that the laws have exemptions because of a high population of LDS residents is underhanded.

Unless you can somehow show that the LDS church is behind an effort to restrict what clergy can disclose to authorities then you had probably better back off with the subtle hints that they are somehow connected.

[frankenstein]

the Utah law says the clergyman "is required to give notification" if the information came from the victim, perpetrator or anyone else. No exemption there which is why the Bishop was arrested.

You are wrong again, and I have posted the Utah law twice. Please re-read the Utah law.

here is the law from Utah

62A-4a-403. Reporting requirements

(3) (a) When a clergyman or priest receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the clergyman or priest is required to give notification on the basis of that information even though the clergyman or priest may have also received a report of abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.

This means that if the source is ONLY the perpetrator the clergy is not required to report.

As for the situation in Arizona, the Chandler police department recommended that the two Bishops who knew of the molestation from the victim did not notify police as required by law. The Church spokesman stated "well Bishops followed the law", such a statement is tactic complacency to victimization of minors.

Secondly, given that main points of the Gospel involve "going the extra mile", one would think the Church would be pro-active in stopping and reporting abuse rather than cowtowing around and saying "well they followed the law". It difficult to believe someone has a "zero tolerance" policy, when they hide behind the law.

[Silver Girl]

All this confusion as to which state has which laws can be avoided if the Bishop calls the Church Legal Hotline!! The Bishop would be put in touch with a lawyer who KNOWS what the law for that state says!!

It really is not for the Bishop to decide... And, how could he...?? How can he possibly know what to do when he is not an expert in the field of law...?? All he has to do is call the legal hotline and he will know what the law says!!

It really is very simple!!

Silver Girl

[KevinG]

I stand corrected on the law. Here is the whole Utah code...

62A-4a-403. Reporting requirements.

(1) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (2), when any person including persons licensed under Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act, or Title 58, Chapter 31b, Nurse Practice Act, has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect, or who observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, that person shall immediately notify the nearest peace officer, law enforcement agency, or office of the division.

(b) Upon receipt of the notification described in Subsection (1)(a), the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall immediately notify the nearest office of the division. If an initial report of abuse or neglect is made to the division, the division shall immediately notify the appropriate local law enforcement agency. The division shall, in addition to its own investigation, comply with and lend support to investigations by law enforcement undertaken pursuant to a report made under this section.

(2) Subject to Subsection (3), the notification requirements of Subsection (1) do not apply to a clergyman or priest, without the consent of the person making the confession, with regard to any confession made to the clergyman or priest in the professional character of the clergyman or priest in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the clergyman or priest belongs, if:

(a) the confession was made directly to the clergyman or priest by the perpetrator; and

(b) the clergyman or priest is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of that confession.

(3) (a) When a clergyman or priest receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the clergyman or priest is required to give notification on the basis of that information even though the clergyman or priest may have also received a report of abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.

(b) Exemption of notification requirements for a clergyman or priest does not exempt a clergyman or priest from any other efforts required by law to prevent further abuse or neglect by the perpetrator.

- - -

I couldn't divine your meaning without the applicable section (2)

But the point stands. Do you believe that this subsection (2) protecting the confidentiality of a confession is or was influenced by a desire on the part of the LDS church to hide sins or make their leaders exempt from protecting children?

Would you extend that obligation to break confidentiality to a lawyer or mental health professional?

If the law of the state requires confidentiality then the Bishop could be sued for telling. Do you recommend any church recommend their clergy to break that law and put themselves in legal jeapardy in order to make a stand against child abuse?

The Bishops and Stake Presidents around the world are doing a volunteer job- and often a thankless one at that. The church has put a lot of time and resources into helping them prevent child abuse including a hotline to counsel them on how to do it according to the laws they operate under. The implication that the LDS Church is somehow working to hide abuse is outrageous.

[Pahoran]

perhaps you forgot about this post of yours

First you are incorrect about Utah law, clergy are exempt from reporting if the knowledge of the abuse is given to the clergy by the abuser.

Second, there absolutely is an exemption that exemption is written into the law of the land, I have posted both Azrizona's and Utah's exemptions for clergy to conceal sins. Idaho and California also have the exemption.

Idaho 16-1605:

(3) The notification requirements of subsection (1) of this section do not apply to a duly ordained minister of religion, with regard to any confession or confidential communication made to him ...

Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3620: A member of the clergy, ... who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, ... may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, ... determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.

here is the law from Utah

62A-4a-403. Reporting requirements

(3) (a) When a clergyman or priest receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the clergyman or priest is required to give notification on the basis of that information even though the clergyman or priest may have also received a report of abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.

None of which was the question before you. Since you have failed entirely to support your accusation that the Church "tolerates child abuse," that accusation stands discredited as a malicious lie.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

None of which was the question before you. Since you have failed entirely to support your accusation that the Church "tolerates child abuse," that accusation stands discredited as a malicious lie.

Regards,

Pahoran

First and most importantly, please read DaddyG post number 35 wherein he states "I stand corrected on the law" what was he corrected on? and what was I specifically addressing? His claim that clergy are not exempt, I have shown, with the written law, that at least 3 states exempt clergy from mandatory reporting.

A real Latter-Day Saint would understand and realize that I have chosen not to respond to your previous post, and this is notice that I will most likely not respond you in the future.

Furthermore, a real Latter-Day Saint would realize that in the quote of mine you have used, I am addressing a very specific issue that DaddyG raised, and a real Latter-Day Saint would also realize that said post and issue of DaddyG have nothing to do with your first post in this thread, so once again, real Latter-Day Saints would realize that I have not addressed your post at all.

Lastly it is readily apparent that you have not read the responses that DaddyG and I have had on page 2 of this thread, else you would have chosen something more near your first post to quote or attach. I have made a put sufficient basis to make the claim I have made. I have even used the words of two separate Spokepersons for the LDS Church; see you to it.

[kolipoki09]

A real Latter-Day Saint would understand and realize that I have chosen not to respond to your previous post, and this is notice that I will most likely not respond you in the future.

Furthermore, a real Latter-Day Saint would realize that in the quote of mine you have used, I am addressing a very specific issue that DaddyG raised, and a real Latter-Day Saint would also realize that said post and issue of DaddyG have nothing to do with your first post in this thread, so once again, real Latter-Day Saints would realize that I have not addressed your post at all.

It's because of this type of behavior that your activity on this board is limited.

Pahoran raises a legitimate claim and you side-step the issue.

[Ares]

It's because of this type of behavior that your activity on this board is limited.

Pahoran raises a legitimate claim and you side-step the issue.

...and Frankenstein can answer Pahoran's question or leave this discussion. His choice.

[frankenstein]

It's because of this type of behavior that your activity on this board is limited.

Pahoran raises a legitimate claim and you side-step the issue.

kolipoki09, "real Latter-Day Saint" is a favourite phrase of Pahoran.

No real Latter-day Saint should be willing to sit through the profanity that has been amply documented.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm sure they do. But no more than real Latter-day Saint parents who raise their children in the Church of Jesus Christ do.

Regards,

Pahoran

are you offended by Pahoran use? He is the first to use the phrase that I am aware, I could speculate as to others who may have used the phrase, but using the phrase in a response to Pahoran is quite apropos.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have addressed, in my replies and responses to DaddyG as to my claim and position about the Church and child abuse. I have used the public statements of two spokespersons for the LDS Church those are Trotter and Kim Farrah, and it should be noted that Kim Farrah knows not of what she speaks (her statement does not reflect with any accuracy Arizona law concerning clergy and disclosure of child abuse)

[Calm]

kolipoki09, "real Latter-Day Saint" is a favourite phrase of Pahoran.

I'm sure they do. But no more than real Latter-day Saint parents who raise their children in the Church of Jesus Christ do.

Regards,

Pahoran

But if need be, my replies and responses to DaddyG address my position.

If you think this behaviour is wrong for him to do, why in the world do you think it is right for you to do. We have moderators here....sheesh, I am so tired of posters who didn't learn in kindergarten that the defense "he started it" only makes them look like immature, little jerks. Report him, don't mimic him.

And btw, simply because the possibility is there that abuse may not have been reported because the Church either chose to obey the law or sustain the concept of trust and confidentiality between spiritual adviser and member, does not mean that there has actually been any cases where the abuse occurred and wasn't dealt with in a way that protected the victim first and foremost. You want to prove the Church puts the abuser first or whatever your claim is, then you need to demonstrate that it has, not just that it could.

I am curious, do you think the lawyers, doctors and therapists should be required to report any criminal acts, criminal acts that harm individuals, criminal acts that harm children or anything other criminal act in all cases? Or is your concern only limited to religious organizations.

PS to mods: I am willing to concede that lack of sleep may have led me to think something was within bounds of board rules that was not, my apologies to you and bystanders if so and please remove the offending comment if you so desire.

[frankenstein]

We have moderators here....sheesh,

Yes, we do have moderators here, and I have communicated directly to moderators concerning Pahoran's use of "real latter-day saint" and since his use of it continues, then it can only be clear that the phrase is perfectly acceptable for use on this board.

It is a conumdur for sure, we are not permitted to question each others reading comphresion because that is considered an insult but it appears that we may question each others "real Latter-Day Saint[lyness]"

And yes, there are legitimate state interest in exempt other, however, if you were to read a few of the laws I have posted concerning child abuse you would see that the stated exemptions are for clergy.

The state has zero interest in maintaining confidentiality of clergy confessions, and from something I read about 30 minutes, the trend to exempt clergy was barely gaining momentum during the mid 80's, what I read indicate that as of 1985 on 3 states exempted clergy, now close to 30 states exempt clergy.

This board has already gone through as "exempt/don't exempt' concerning child abuse, the discussion was one in which USU78 participated, there is no to rehash it.

If someone wants to claim "zero tolerance" then that person would not give false public statements concerning the law. Kim Farrah, LDS Church Spokesperson gave a false statement concerning clergy, the law in Arizona, and reporting child abuse. She gave the false statement to justify the violation of the law by two LDS Bishops. (see the link in post 30 in this thread)