KUTV report reveals how the LDS Church responded to MTC sex scandal

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is nothing in the Church's scriptural mandates that includes "be{ing} an investigative entity."

The Church has money and resources that it could, theoretically, utilize to create "an investigative entity."  But nobody wants that, surely?

The Church is constrained by its scriptural mandates.  I think D&C 134:10 pretty much precludes what you are suggesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

I absolutely want the church to investigate misconduct done by their agents while they are fulfilling their church obligations. Same as any employer.  Same as the Catholic Church.  

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is nothing in the Church's scriptural mandates that includes "be{ing} an investigative entity."

The Church has money and resources that it could, theoretically, utilize to create "an investigative entity."  But nobody wants that, surely?

The Church is constrained by its scriptural mandates.  I think D&C 134:10 pretty much precludes what you are suggesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

They can and absolutely should investigate accusations of rape and other sexual misconduct from its clergy.

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I absolutely want the church to investigate misconduct done by their agents while they are fulfilling their church obligations.

As a general proposition, I agree with you.  I guess the question is the scope of that "investigation."

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Same as any employer.  

Sort of.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Same as the Catholic Church.  

Closer, but still not quite.

What investigative steps would you suggest?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Gray said:

They can and absolutely should investigate accusations of rape and other sexual misconduct from its clergy.

What sort of investigation do you propose?

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I propose you give the matter some further thought. 1- The Church responding to a particular threat of litigation by hiring an attorney, who in turn does . . . what lawyers do (research, investigate, analyze, etc.), is a vastly different circumstance from the Church creating some sort of quasi-law enforcement agency to research / investigate / analyze allegations of misconduct by any of the many millions of members of the Church.

An attorney acting as an "agent" is a vastly different proposition from the Church reating some sort of quasi-law enforcement agency to research / investigate / analyze allegations of misconduct by any of the many millions of members of the Church.

Hmm.  I'm not sure I'm following you.  2- We were discussing the Church's generalized inability (and/or unwillingness) to be an investigative or law enforcement agency as pertaining to sex abuse allegations the Church receives from its members (usually through bishops).  You are pointing to a document written by an attorney retained by the Church in a litigated matter as evidence that the Church can "investigate" if it wants to.  I am suggesting that this expectation is unreasonable.  You are now shifting over to a discussion about "responsibility" and "liability."

I'm not sure where you are going.

3-It doesn't have resources to investigate.  It hired an attorney to do so.  

4- The Church also doesn't have resources to construct temples.  It hires contractors to do the actual work.  That doesn't mean that the contractors' ability to construct a temple is somehow transferred to the Church.  The Church also doesn't have resources to transport missionaries from place to place.  It uses airlines, buses, trains, etc. to do so.  That doesn't mean that the ability of airlines, bus companies, etc. to provide transportation services is somehow transferred to the Church.

In contrast, the Church does have some resources to do other things, such as employment centers (to help people find jobs), food production and distribution (bishops' storehouses), distribution of second-hand commodities (Deseret Industries), education (BYU, BYU-H, BYU-I, etc.), and so on.

So the Church has resources to perform some functions, but not others. 5- Systematic law enforcement / investigative work plainly, obviously falls into the latter category.  The Church has no department or group of employees who can do it.  Local bishops and stake presidents can make very generalized inquiries and hope for voluntary responses, but nothing approaching what an attorney or a law enforcement agency can do.

It seems odd that I actually have to point this out.  It is odd that this is somehow a question to be presented to people who purport to be familiar with the LDS Church.

6- In very rare, isolated cases where litigation is threatened, perhaps.  Otherwise, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

Numbering is mine-

1- I agree the church was responding to a particular threat. They said they don't have the ability to investigate and they'll leave that to law enforcement. No one is arguing that they should be or are a quasi-law enforcement agency. That's not what this is about. But when they say they don't have the ability to investigate reports of abuse, well, that's just not true. Yes, an attorney was doing what an attorney does. Again, not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the untrue statement that they don't have the ability to investigate serious accusations. They have attorneys. They can hire other attorneys if they want. Those attorneys can do what they do on behalf of the church, thus giving the church the ability to investigate. I don't understand why you won't accept the concept that the church hiring someone to investigate on their behalf is in essence the church investigating. They have the resources to investigate the things they choose, all without being a quasi-law enforcer.

2- As you noted above we are talking about a church statement they made in relation to a particular threat. The church's statement about not having the ability to investigate was in direct response to the Bishop issue. So while it might also be taken generally, I think it is also reasonable to take it as a direct response to Bishop and this particular situation. They do have the ability to investigate Bishop, just like they did the victim. I don't see how that can be disputed. I can understand why some would like to put a more positive spin on it, but it can't be said the church is incapable of investigating those individuals they want to investigate, whether through attorneys, or possibly even the Strengthening the Members Committee (but I don't really have enough information about the SMC to make that argument)

3- If it doesn't have resources to investigate, how did it hire an attorney to investigate. If I went to my bishop and asked him to approve a ward service project at my house to put on a new roof because I claimed I didn't have the resources to do it myself, then he may be a bit skeptical when he finds out I've got $20,000 in savings. So even though I don't personally have the ability to replace my roof, I do have the resources to have it done on my behalf.

4- I think you need to consider money as a significant resource. If the church has the ability to pay contractors to build a temple, or airlines to fly missionaries around the world etc, then the church has the resources to do those things. Suggesting they don't is a rather silly argument.

5- I actually kind of doubt that's true. It may be true on the global scale, but I would be shocked to learn the church doesn't have any employee or department capable of doing some of these things. I think you're overselling your position by claiming an absolute. Does the church employ security specialists? Bodyguards? Corporate investigators (like most corporations do)? Attorneys- well obviously   But just because a local leader doesn't have access to all of these things doesn't mean the church doesn't have access to these things.

6- So you agree with what I've been saying. The church does have the ability to investigate. You say it is only for isolated cases involving litigation, but that acknowledges the ability if they choose to do it. That's all I've been saying. For the church to claim it is incapable of investigating accusations of abuse by a church leaders, is simply not true. They have the ability. They just don't seem to have the will, except possibly in very rare, isolated cases.

 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

What sort of investigation do you propose?

Thanks,

-Smac

Interviewing potential witnesses (including the accused), soliciting information from people who might have been witnesses or victims as was proposed earlier, asking them to come forward.

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't see a difference when the church claims it doesn't have resources to investigate but then uses its resources to hire someone to investigate.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the church has no resources to investigate anything at all. I think the idea is that the church doesn't have the resources (or the necessarily even the ability) to investigate everything. 

Even if the church wanted to investigate an individual based on some specific allegation (say, e.g., sexual assault), how would they go about doing that? What power does the church have to compel someone to speak with them? What consequence is there for lying to the church's representatives? None. Because we aren't the state; we're a church - a completely voluntary organization. At most we could withhold our association from the person, but I don't see how that would help anything.

Also, related to the notion about 'resources,' I think it's wrong to suggest that just because the church has the resources to litigate one case that they have resources to investigate every possible allegation. And, even if we restrict the discussion of resources to litigation only, it's still the same thing: just because you have the resources to litigate one case doesn't mean you have the resources to litigate a limitless number of cases. 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Amulek

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is true.

So if the Church buys an airline ticket, does that turn the Church into an airline?

You're really stretching to find fault here.  It's not working.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your argument is embarrassing. No the church doesn't turn into an airline just because it buys plane tickets. But it does mean they have the ability to fly missionaries around the world. Imagine a missionary wanted to go home early but the church said it didn't have the resources to fly the individual home, while at the same time they fly other missionaries around the world. It may be true that the church doesn't want to use its resources for a certain purpose, but that doesn't mean they don't have the resources, especially when it can be demonstrated they are doing exactly what they claim to be incapable of.

I'm not stretching at all. The fault is obvious to those willing to open their eyes. You seem unwilling so I don't see much point to continuing here. I've made my point.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't think anyone has claimed that the church has no resources to investigate anything at all. I think the idea is that the church doesn't have the resources (or the necessarily even the ability) to investigate everything. 

 

No one says they should investigate everything. However I believe they have the moral obligation to investigate every instance of clergy abuse. 

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Even if the church wanted to investigate an individual based on some specific allegation (say, e.g., sexual assault), how would they go about doing that? What power does the church have to compel someone to speak with them? What consequence is there for lying to the church's representatives? None. Because we aren't the state; we're a church - a completely voluntary organization. At most we could withhold our association from the person, but I don't see how that would help anything.

Would you buy the same excuse from your employer if you reported your boss for sexual harassment? What’s the point of talking to other potential victims? What’s the most they can do? Fire someone? The church only holds the keys to our eternal salvation...

 

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No. But clearly they have the resources to get President Nelson to Africa.

Actually no, it doesn't.  It has money to pay a common carrier to fly Pres. Nelson to Africa.  To some extent, Huntsman Corp. sometimes donates use of one of its private jets by the First Presidency.

That does not mean the Church has "the resources to get President Nelson to Africa."  That is tendentious and silly.

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No one says they are an airline, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the resources to travel. 

But the Church doesn't have the resources of an airline.  That is my point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Actually no, it doesn't.  It has money to pay a common carrier to fly Pres. Nelson to Africa.  To some extent, Huntsman Corp. sometimes donates use of one of its private jets by the First Presidency.

That does not mean the Church has "the resources to get President Nelson to Africa."  That is tendentious and silly.

But the Church doesn't have the resources of an airline.  That is my point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Poor Pres. Nelson. Going without purse or scrip, hitchhiking along the way, bumming on freighters across the ocean. It's going to be a rough trip for him. IF ONLY the church had some resources they could get him there so much more quickly and comfortably  

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your argument is embarrassing.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about yours.

Any given city has a police department with investigative resources.  The LDS Church does not.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No the church doesn't turn into an airline just because it buys plane tickets.

Great!  And the Church doesn't turn into a law firm just because it retains one to handle a legal dispute.  

And that law firm's investigative resources are not magically transferred into the Church simply because the Church is a client.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But it does mean they have the ability to fly missionaries around the world.

No, it doesn't.  It has the ability to pay other entities to fly missionaries around the world.  Those other entities have the resources to transport missionaries.  The Church does not.  The Church is not in the airline business.  Doesn't want to be.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Imagine a missionary wanted to go home early but the church said it didn't have the resources to fly the individual home, while at the same time they fly other missionaries around the world.

But the Church doesn't "fly other missionaries around the world."  It pays other entities to do so.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It may be true that the church doesn't want to use its resources for a certain purpose,

It's more than that.  The Church is not a law enforcement or investigative entity.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but that doesn't mean they don't have the resources,

The LDS Church does not have law enforcement or investigative resources of the type you describe.  

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

especially when it can be demonstrated they are doing exactly what they claim to be incapable of.

That has not been demonstrated.  At all.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not stretching at all.

You are stretching to absurd lengths.  To find fault.  With the LDS Church.  Because it is a religious entity, not a law enforcement or investigative one.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The fault is obvious to those willing to open their eyes.

I'm not addressing "fault."  I'm addressing whether the LDS Church a religious entity, or else a law enforcement or investigative one.  You are faulting the Church because it is not the latter.  I think that is an absurd criticism.

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem unwilling so I don't see much point to continuing here. I've made my point.

A tendentious point, yes.

The LDS Church is a religious entity.  To fault it for not creating/financing/maintaning some sort of private law enforcement or investigative group is absurd.  Who on earth would even want such a thing?

-Smac

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually no, it doesn't.  It has money to pay a common carrier to fly Pres. Nelson to Africa.  To some extent, Huntsman Corp. sometimes donates use of one of its private jets by the First Presidency.

That does not mean the Church has "the resources to get President Nelson to Africa."  

That's exactly what it means. Of course the church has resources to get the leaders to places in the world where they are to speak, dedicate temples and so on.  Why would you even believe otherwise?

Do you believe the leaders pay for their travel expenses out of their own pockets?  If not, then church resources are used (and Huntsman IS a resource ...."Resource:  A stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively".).

Edited April 4, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Poor Pres. Nelson. Going without purse or scrip, hitchhiking along the way, bumming on freighters across the ocean.

Nope.  He'll go on a public airline.  Or perhaps on the Huntsman Chemical jet.

But he will not get there on Mormon Airlines.  That is my point.

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's going to be a rough trip for him. IF ONLY the church had some resources they could get him there so much more quickly and comfortably  

Indeed.  That "resource" being a public airline or a loaned jet.  

The LDS Church does not have a private fleet of aircraft.  It does not have the means of transporting Pres. Nelson around the world.  It goes to outside sources for that.

It is weird that I have to actually explain this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  He'll go on a public airline.  Or perhaps on the Huntsman Chemical jet.

But he will not get there on Mormon Airlines.  

The church does not have to be the owner of something before it can be used as or classified as one of its resources.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Quote

What sort of investigation do you propose?

Thanks,

-Smac

Interviewing potential witnesses (including the accused),

Who does this interviewing?  Bishops?  Stake presidents?  Should the Church hire a team of investigators?

Who identifies and tracks down these potential witnesses and persuaded them to be interviewed?

Where do these interviews take place?

What if a potential witness declines to be interviewed?  Should the Church threaten to sue? 

If the witness is a member of the Church and declines to be interviewed, should the Church apply pressure?  Threaten to discipline the witness unless they comply?  Withhold a temple recommend, perhaps?

Under what auspices are such interviews held?  Are they compulsory or voluntary?

Regarding interviewing the accused, how do you propose to handle the priest/penitent privilege (assuming an ecclesiastical leader is involved)?

What if the interviews yield conflicting information (the accuser says X happened, and the accused denies that X happened)?  What happens then?  Another round of interviews?  Lit detectors?

What if the the interviews yield a straightforward he said / she said scenario (the accuser accuses, and the accused denies)?  What should the Church do with that?

1 hour ago, Gray said:

soliciting information from people who might have been witnesses or victims as was proposed earlier, asking them to come forward.

Who does this soliciting?  

Is the soliciting done in person?  By email?  Telephone?

I am not trying to pick a fight.  Honest.  I just would like to grasp what folks like you have in mind.  To me, it sounds like you want the Church to either train bishops in law enforcement and investigative techniques, or else you want the Church to create an in-house investigative agency.  I am trying to wrap my head around what it is you want and how you propose it be done.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

The church does not have to be the owner of something before it can be used as or classified as one of its resources.

Right.  So United Airlines can be fairly described as being part of the LDS Church's "resources."  

So can Ford, which leases vehicles to the Church.

The HVAC repair company that the Church hired to repair my ward building's heating system last year.  

The thousands upon thousands of private businesses and entities which provide products and services to the LDS Church are now to be described as "resources of the LDS Church."

That's your position.  It seems odd.  Weird.  I reject it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Are you suggesting that "what Paul H. Dunn did" was endorsed or encouraged or mandated by the Church?

I don't understand.  Which essays address "lying?"  Lying about what?

Example of "lying for the Lord?"  How so?  What does "lying for the Lord" mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

1. Yep. They knew he was lying yet they let him continue giving the talks. It’s well documented, I’m surprised you’re even questioning it.

2. The essays address the things the Church already knew, but which members had to find out about from the internet. Again, well documented.

3. The 1890 declaration said that plural marriages had ended, yet the Presidency that issued that declaration went on to solemnise plural marriages up to 1914. Yet again, well documented.

For reference, I’ll post what the Church standard for ‘lying’ is:

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

Quote

There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Actually no, it doesn't.  It has money to pay a common carrier to fly Pres. Nelson to Africa.  To some extent, Huntsman Corp. sometimes donates use of one of its private jets by the First Presidency.

That does not mean the Church has "the resources to get President Nelson to Africa."  

That's exactly what it means.

No, it doesn't.

Again, the Church also doesn't have resources to transport missionaries from place to place.  It uses airlines, buses, trains, etc. to do so.  That doesn't mean that the ability of airlines, bus companies, etc. to provide transportation services is somehow transferred to the Church.  But for these services, the Church would not be able to transport tens of thousands of missionaries around the world.  It does not have a fleet of planes, trains, and automobiles spread throughout the world.  It necessarily relies on outside entities for transportation.  It lacks the means or resources to provide transportation to missionaries on its own.  

In contrast, the Church does have some resources to do other things, such as employment centers (to help people find jobs), food production and distribution (bishops' storehouses), distribution of second-hand commodities (Deseret Industries), education (BYU, BYU-H, BYU-I, etc.), and so on.

So the Church has resources to perform some functions, but not others.  Systematic law enforcement / investigative work plainly, obviously falls into the latter category.  The Church has no department or group of employees who can do it.  Local bishops and stake presidents can make very generalized inquiries and hope for voluntary responses, but nothing approaching what an attorney or a law enforcement agency can do.

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe the leaders pay for their travel expenses out of their own pockets? 

No.  

Do you believe LDS leaders travel on "Mormon Airlines?"  Or do they . . . travel by commercial airlines like everyone else?

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If not, then church resources are used (and Huntsman IS a resource ...."Resource:  A stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively".).

The Church can spend money to use the resources of United Airlines to get missionaries from Salt Lake to Toronto.  That doesn't mean United Airlines belongs to the LDS Church.

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The church does not have to be the owner of something before it can be used as or classified as one of its resources.

You are diluting the term to the point of absurdity.

The point of discussing the Church's "resources" was to evaluate the merits of the the proposal that the LDS Church should have some sort of internal law enforcement / investigative agency (and/or that the LDS Church can be justly criticized for not having some sort of internal law enforcement / investigative agency).

I am opposed to the LDS Church functioning as a law enforcement or investigative agency.  It's ability to investigate claims of wrongdoing by its members is quite finite, constrained by both the law of the land and the Church (including, but not limited to D&C 134:10).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

Why do missionaries travel economy while Nelson travels first class?

And which section of the airplane do you believe Jesus would travel in?

 

Stay on topic please.

Skylla

[Calm]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Did I ever state that? Not even close.

I asked the question to see where you draw the line of when leaders should seek outside help to do investigations.

Would you say it is wrong for yourself to claim you do not have the investigative tools to search the potential criminal backgrounds of anyone you encounter?  Since you could hire a lawyer who has access to the database that Danzo described likely was the source of the dossier, by your usage, it seems to me you would should not claim that and yet I think most people would state you do not have such tools/powers of investigation.

My opinion...I interpret the comment "we don't have the tools to investigate" to refer to ecclesiastical leaders and their abilities.  I personally don't want Church local leaders to turn responsibility for discipline over to SL or hire lawyers and possibly private investigators as I assume some lawyers do in checking out who they are dealing with either in court or across the negotiating table---a very different purpose than Church discipline.  So I believe when talking in the limited context of church discipline, I see that comment as accurate.  I believe the official statement was in that context and so was accurate.

OTOH, while I believe it was reasonable for church leadership to view the Bishop case before the victim got a lawyer who started settlement negotiations (which assumes the potential of a lawsuit, imo) as church discipline because at that point Bishop was not in a position of custodial authority over 2000 young men and women (the MTC president not only gives pastoral care, but functions much like a parent in setting rules of behaviour like a curfew, requiring limited contact with those outside the MTC, etc), because the abuse was alleged to have taken place during a time where he had such significant custodial oversight, I believe they should have treated it as a legal issue in 2010 and gotten the lawyers involved to do investigative work on both Bishop and the at the time alleged victim (I include the victim as I believe in such things the more context is known, the more information can be both found and interpreted correctly even if not all information found will be relevant...but one won't know that until one examines any information found).  

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are diluting the term to the point of absurdity.

Once again, the church does not have to own something in order for it to be one of their resources.

They do not have to own the law firm in order for it to be used as a church resource.

The attorneys that the church hire are one of their resources.

Do you disagree with any of those statements?

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by ALarson

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why do missionaries travel economy while Nelson travels first class?

And which section of the airplane do you believe Jesus would travel in?

I flew first class from LA to Denver, when I came home on my mission

I think the Lord would fly by a Hornet as per Josh. 24:12, he seems to favour that flying contraption so I choose that one

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Duncan

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Numbering is mine-

1- I agree the church was responding to a particular threat. They said they don't have the ability to investigate and they'll leave that to law enforcement. No one is arguing that they should be or are a quasi-law enforcement agency.

Actually, some people are arguing that (or something rather akin to it).

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's not what this is about. But when they say they don't have the ability to investigate reports of abuse, well, that's just not true.

What "ability" are you suggeting the Church has?  To hire lawyers every time allegations of abuse arise?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, an attorney was doing what an attorney does. Again, not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the untrue statement that they don't have the ability to investigate serious accusations.

We seem to be talking past each other.  I think the LDS Church, in the main, lacks the ability to "investigate reports of abuse" in any meaningful sense.  A bishop can hear such claims while counseling with the accused, the accuser, or an interested party.  The bishop can make some very few basic factual inquiries of the accused, the accuser and any witnesses.  The bishop can also confer with the helpline attorneys to figure out the legal complexities, including what can and cannot be reported to law enforcement.  That is not much of an "investigation" in my view.  

Now, there are times where "serious accusations" may arise.  Allegations of serious misconduct by a representative of the Church (Joseph Bishop, for example) acting in his representative capacity, for example, may merit more extensive scrutiny.  But it seems that such scrutiny should pretty quickly t-bone into . . . civil law enforcement.  Barring a "priest/penitent privilege" issue (which may preclude disclosure to law enforcement), any investigation of "serious accusations" should be referred to law enforcement, not handled "in-house" by the Church.  Wouldn't you agree?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They have attorneys. They can hire other attorneys if they want.

Why?  Wouldn't law enforcement be a more appropriate mechanism for "investigat{ing} serious accusations?"

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Those attorneys can do what they do on behalf of the church, thus giving the church the ability to investigate.

No.  The attorneys investigate and report their findings to the Church.  The Church does not have "the ability to investigate" serious accusations of misconduct.

Moreover, why would you recommend that the Church hire attorneys to conduct a private investigation rather than turn "serious accusations" of misconduct over to law enforcement?  

What is with this fixation of turning the LDS Church into an investigative agency?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't understand why you won't accept the concept that the church hiring someone to investigate on their behalf is in essence the church investigating.

Because the Church "hiring someone to investigate on their behalf" as part of a legal dispute is worlds apart from the Church "investigating" serious accusations of misconduct that are better off being referred to civil law enforcement.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They have the resources to investigate the things they choose, all without being a quasi-law enforcer.

No, they don't.  The Church has 28,000+ bishops around the world, who regularly meet with millions of members of the Church.  When and if bishops receive information amounting to "serious accusations" of misconduct, the Church should comply with the law, and otherwise turn the matter over to law enforcement.

As far as ecclesiastical discipline, the Church has a very limited capacity to "investigate" claims, but that is worlds apart from what you seem to be suggesting.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- As you noted above we are talking about a church statement they made in relation to a particular threat. The church's statement about not having the ability to investigate was in direct response to the Bishop issue. So while it might also be taken generally, I think it is also reasonable to take it as a direct response to Bishop and this particular situation.

Okay.  So in the presence of this now-acknowledged-by-you ambiguity, perhaps you can ease up on the public accusations of dishonesty.

In any event, the Church's statement is still correct.  The Church can ask questions of the accused, which it did.  He denied any wrongdoing.  The Church can also refer such serious accusations to law enforcement, which it did (at least in 2010).  I concede that the bishop from the 80s made a material error in judgment in not disclosing the allegations to law enforcement or the Church.

But apart from basic ecclesiastical "investigation" (local priesthood leaders asking questions), the Church does not have any meaningful ability to investigate criminal matters.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

6- So you agree with what I've been saying.

Not substantively, no.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church does have the ability to investigate.

Not really, no.  

I think the Church should refer serious accusations of misconduct to civil law enforcement.  Trying to resolve such things strictly "in house" is not a good idea.  When allegations of abuse are in play, the Church is an amateur sleuth, and should instead leave investigation of such things to the professionals.

Thanks,

-Smac