High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[Tacenda]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Both.  Secular law applies, but the Church also does not want bishops to be compelled to testify about things they learn from confessions of penitents.  See, e.g., this story (from 1994, but still relevant):

The more I encounter vignettes about Rocky Anderson (the former mayor of SLC, and the "Ross C. Anderson" referenced above), the less I think of him.

I can't speak as to the full contours of this issue.  The privilege is generally based on state law, so that means 50 different iterations of it.  But then the legislatures step in with "mandatory reporting" laws, which complicate the matter even further.

However, in a previous post I wrote up a possible consequence to violating the privilege (the "fruit of the poisonous tree" discussion).

I'm not sure that is correct.  I think in some jurisdictions, perhaps even most, the privilege belongs to the confessor/penitent.  Consequently, whether the clergyman can disclose the confession to law enforcement is a decision that, legally speaking, belongs to the person who made the confession.

The Church has a strong preference for the privilege, but I don't think it is as strenuous as the posture taken by our Catholic friends.

Generally, yes.  See the article above.

Possibly.  Again, there are all sorts of reasons for the privilege.

Thanks,

-Smac

The religions out there are already tax exempt for one, and a lot of them can't stay out of the government or they cross the line over church and state, for two. And now are above the moral law as well in not reporting crimes as heinous as child abuse, I say this whole system of clergy exemption needs to be overhauled and fixed. Please give me one good reason for their being exempt from reporting sexual child abuse? It's insane.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Tacenda

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To be honest, I don't think this happens much.  Bishops can usually figure something out to curtail the abuse.  He can persuade the confessor to turn himself in to law enforcement.  Or move out of the family home.  Or authorize the bishop to move the family out of the home.  

There are more options, as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that it probably doesn't happen much, but if it did, and likely has,...it would kill me.  If the spouse doesn't know, and the perp has no intention of turning himself, separating his family, or confessing to his wife... 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The religions out there are already tax exempt for one,

"For one" what?  Is this an argument for something?  Against something?  What are you saying here?  And what does it have to do with the topic at hand?

Quote

and a lot of them can't stay out of the government or cross the lines over church and state, for two.

Again, what are you saying here?  How is it relevant to the topic at hand?

Quote

And now are above the law as well in not reporting crimes as heinous as child abuse,

Tacenda, I ask you to take a step back.  You are not being reasonable here.

The privilege is a part of the law, so those bound to it are not "above the law."

You are not addressing the reasoning and points being presented to you, and instead resorting to emotionalisms, vitriol, and now falsehoods (that the Church is "above the law").

Quote

I say this whole system of clergy exemption needs to be overhauled and fixed.

Okay, time to be blunt: Your "say" is irrational and unreasoned and ignorant.  Unthinking.  Borne of anger and malice and rage.  

Get a grip on your emotions, and I'm happy to engage you in a substantive discussion on the merits.  Until then, I will disregard your posts.

Quote

Please give me one good reason for their being exempt from reporting?

No.  You are not being reasonable.  You are not listening.  You have not addressed or responded to what has already been presented to you.

Again, this is a very difficult topic.  All the more reason, then, to be dispassionate and patient when examining the evidence, particularly at the outset.  I don't think we can or should rush to judgment here.  We know very little about what happened in this case.  Moreover, critics and dissidents regularly rail against the Church by posting sensational stories, like this one, with the calculated purpose of inciting anger against the Church (particularly when such topics are introduced with histrionics such as "over the edge" and "cry or scream"), and more particularly, against its volunteer bishops.  The objective is to foment ill will and outrage.  And it works.  But such emotionalisms don't seem to have much utility, and even carry some real risk when regularly interposed against an unpopular (in some circles) religious minority.  So perhaps we should not immediately and reflexively rage against the Church and its bishops, and should instead wait for further information to arise.

Again, this endless effort to cast the Church and its bishops as villains, as horrible people who don't care about the welfare of children, as people to be viewed with suspicion and contempt, and in the worst possible light, is tiresome, perhaps even despicable.

Get a grip, Tacenda.  You are hindering substantive discussion of an important issue with your histrionics.

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2019 by smac97

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Please give me one good reason for their being exempt from reporting sexual child abuse? It's insane.

If clergy was not exempt from reporting would a person be likely to confess to them?  I think the number of confessions would be dramatically reduced.  With the current system the member of the clergy at least has the opportunity to work with them and hopefully motivate that person to turn themselves in. 

[Tacenda]

Just now, ksfisher said:

If clergy was not exempt from reporting would a person be likely to confess to them?  I think the number of confessions would be dramatically reduced.  With the current system the member of the clergy at least has the opportunity to work with them and hopefully motivate that person to turn themselves in. 

Thanks, this is a very legitimate reason that escaped me.

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Smac, to the bold, I would risk going to jail, if it meant saving those girls. But that's little ole' me. I'm not an attorney, I wouldn't think it through to the extent you have here.

What experience do you have with reporting abuse to authorities?

Just curious to your personal experience.

[Tacenda]

 

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"For one" what?  Is this an argument for something?  Against something?  What are you saying here?  And what does it have to do with the topic at hand?

Again, what are you saying here?  How is it relevant to the topic at hand?

Tacenda, I ask you to take a step back.  You are not being reasonable here.

The privilege is a part of the law, so those bound to it are not "above the law."

You are not addressing the reasoning and points being presented to you, and instead resorting to emotionalisms, vitriol, and now falsehoods (that the Church is "above the law").

Okay, time to be blunt: Your "say" is irrational and unreasoned and ignorant.  Unthinking.  Borne of anger and malice and rage.  

Get a grip on your emotions, and I'm happy to engage you in a substantive discussion on the merits.  Until then, I will disregard your posts.

No.  You are not being reasonable.  You are not listening.  You have not addressed or responded to what has already been presented to you.

Again, this is a very difficult topic.  All the more reason, then, to be dispassionate and patient when examining the evidence, particularly at the outset.  I don't think we can or should rush to judgment here.  We know very little about what happened in this case.  Moreover, critics and dissidents regularly rail against the Church by posting sensational stories, like this one, with the calculated purpose of inciting anger against the Church (particularly when such topics are introduced with histrionics such as "over the edge" and "cry or scream"), and more particularly, against its volunteer bishops.  The objective is to foment ill will and outrage.  And it works.  But such emotionalisms don't seem to have much utility, and even carry some real risk when regularly interposed against an unpopular (in some circles) religious minority.  So perhaps we should not immediately and reflexively rage against the Church and its bishops, and should instead wait for further information to arise.

Again, this endless effort to cast the Church and its bishops as villains, as horrible people who don't care about the welfare of children, as people to be viewed with suspicion and contempt, and in the worst possible light, is tiresome, perhaps even despicable.

Get a grip, Tacenda.  You are hindering substantive discussion of an important issue with your histrionics.

-Smac

I don't mind if you ignore my outbursts and don't comment back to me. Just wish there was something better out there to stop all the hurt and destruction that is overtaking the world's most precious and innocent victims. I wish God would step in. He apparently steps in over the most mundane things. But why not on this one? 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Is the constraint from reporting where priest/penitent privilege exists a legal constraint or a religious one?  With my limited and possibly unclear understanding, it is not against the law for a a clergy member to report where the privilege exists, but that the law prevents clergy from being legally constrained to disclose information.  Am I wrong there?  My understanding is that any constraint to disclose comes from within the Church canon or religious law rather than legal law. The Catholic Church, for example, unconditionally forbids such disclosure in and has established that expectation of confidentiality and trust.  Does our Church have such conditions/law/expectations however?  Is there the same "trust" in a LDS confession as there would be in a Catholic confession?  Without any explicit expectations of trust, could any suit against a Latter-day Saint clergy for invasion of privacy or defamation win if a clergy did decide to report a confession where a priest/penitent privilege law exists?

The privilege belongs to the person confessing, not to the clergy member.  It is the person confessing that can seek to have evidence discovered excluded. The same with attorneys, spouses, doctors, accountants and other people who have a privileged recognized by law. 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What experience do you have with reporting abuse to authorities?

Just curious to your personal experience.

Zero

[Danzo]

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Being a bishop in that position would be my worst night-mare!

I feel so bad for them.  To have a child abuser confess to you, knowing that it will likely continue despite your best efforts, and not be able to report it would be a dreadful burden that I would not wish on my worst enemy.  To feel like you are the child's only hope of stopping the abuse and feeling powerless to stop it outside of the law, would cause me to tremble in sleepless nights.  To keep that secret would be too much for me to bear.  What other options are there if the confessor shows no signs of stopping?

Generally privileged covers prior acts but not future, or ongoing crimes.

So If I confessed a murder to my attorney, It's privileged, If I confess my plans to murder someone to my attorney, it isn't. 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't mind if you ignore my outbursts and don't comment back to me.

I'd much rather engage you in a substantive, reasoned discussion.

This is a serious topic, and deserves some real attention.  Your outbursts are hindering that.

Quote

Just wish there was something better out there to stop all the hurt and destruction that is overtaking the world's most precious and innocent victims.

Well, that's certainly something that we could discuss.  As it is, your endless here's-a-story-I-am-posting-to-foment-anger-and-outrage-against-the-Church-and-its-bishops schtick is appalling. 

Worse, it is counter-productive.  Bishops, after all, are generally good and decent men, and they have an obligation to monitor the welfare of their flock, and in most jurisdictions they have a legal obligation to report most allegations of abuse.  The Church, recognizing this, has spent considerable time and effort to create a helpline for bishops, a helpline that works (see above).  Bishops are not perfect, but they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse, and in curtailing abuse.

And yet you endlessly rail against the Church and its bishops.  You ignore all the good they do.  You instead paint them in the worst possible light. 

Please get a grip.  If anything, you are persuading others that bishops are presumptively untrustworthy, that they are actual or nascent perverts and child molesters, or that they are ennablers of such things.  You imply that you are unique in your righteous outrage, and that the Church and its bishops don't care about the welfare of innocents.  

You are affirmatively slandering and speaking against good and decent men who are situated to help detect and stop abuse, and the Church that puts them in that circumstance.  You and your perpetually blind and unreasoned outrage are, if anything, only hindering efforts to help stop and detect abuse.

Please stop.

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2019 by smac97

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd much rather engage you in a substantive, reasoned discussion.

This is a serious topic, and deserves some real attention.  Your outbursts are hindering that.

Well, that's certainly something that we could discuss.  As it is, your endless here's-a-story-I-am-posting-to-foment-anger-and-outrage-against-the-Church-and-its-bishops schtick is appalling. 

Worse, it is counter-productive.  Bishops, after all, are generally good and decent men, and they have an obligation to monitor the welfare of their flock, and in most jurisdictions they have a legal obligation to report most allegations of abuse.  The Church, recognizing this, has spent considerable time and effort to create a helpline for bishops, a helpline that works (see above).  Bishops are not perfect, but they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse, and in curtailing abuse.

And yet you endlessly rail against the Church and its bishops.  You ignore all the good they do.  You instead paint them in the worst possible light. 

Please get a grip.  If anything, you are persuading others that bishops are presumptively untrustworthy, that they are actual or nascent perverts and child molesters, or that they are ennablers of such things.  You imply that you are unique in your righteous outrage, and that the Church and its bishops don't care about the welfare of innocents.  

You are affirmatively slandering and speaking against good and decent men who are situated to help detect and stop abuse, and the Church that puts them in that circumstance.  You are hindering our efforts to help innocents.

Please stop.

-Smac

You are saying things that I did not say. I didn't focus on the LDS church on my previous post, I only mentioned all religions on my post about clergy exemptions.

I'm holding my grandbaby so it's difficult to type on my phone. So bear with me.

I hope the world stops in their tracks and figures ways to stop the abuse. It seems lately many are filming their vicious acts on children and putting them on child p or n sites.

Why haven't we figured a way to eradicate their abilities to do this? I'm running out of posts so may not be able to continue the discussion for long. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hearserve said:

I was going to comment, but I was a bishop, so in some people's minds, my opinion, if not my character, is tainted.

You monster.........

[strappinglad]

There is always the old 2X4 and gunny sack treatment. Vigilante justice has worked so well in punishing only the guilty in the past. 👿

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You are saying things that I did not say. I didn't focus on the LDS church on my previous post, I only mentioned all religions on my post about clergy exemptions.

C'mon.  You've been posting this way for months/years.

Quote

I hope the world stops in their tracks and figures ways to stop the abuse.

This seems to be something like the "Nirvana Fallacy" (comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives).  You rail against the Church because some few of its members commit abuse against innocents (in plain violation of the teachings of the Church), and because others perhaps do not handle those situations with exacting perfection.

In La Bégueule (1772), Voltaire wrote Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The best is the enemy of the good").  For you, your expectation of "the perfect" (no abuse anywhere, ever) has made you an "enemy of the good" (the Church and its efforts to teach correct principles to prevent abuse from happening in the first place, and also situating bishops and members so as to help them to detect and stop abuse when it does happen).

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2019 by smac97

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You are saying things that I did not say. I didn't focus on the LDS church on my previous post, I only mentioned all religions on my post about clergy exemptions.

I'm holding my grandbaby so it's difficult to type on my phone. So bear with me.

I hope the world stops in their tracks and figures ways to stop the abuse. It seems lately many are filming their vicious acts on children and putting them on child p or n sites.

Why haven't we figured a way to eradicate their abilities to do this? I'm running out of posts so may not be able to continue the discussion for long. 

Then do something. Lobby for changes to laws (including penitent privilege if you find it wrong). Lobby for more funding. Volunteer. Donate.

Histrionics about how horrible something is serve as an emotional catharsis at best and as ego affirming moral superiority at worst but it does nothing. The reason these government services are underfunded is no one votes based on this issue and the reason subsidiary private agencies and organizations do not get enough in donations or in manpower is most people do not actually care. On an emotional level when confronted with the results people will express outrage but nothing changes. It is like the electoral college or inequities in criminal justice. People care briefly if something that seems unfair happens (especially if it hits them or someone close to them) but then everyone forgets until it comes up again and nothing changes.  

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks, this is a very legitimate reason that escaped me.

Except I and many others have given that exact reason to you many times in this and other threads.

[Amulek]

31 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If clergy was not exempt from reporting would a person be likely to confess to them?  I think the number of confessions would be dramatically reduced.  With the current system the member of the clergy at least has the opportunity to work with them and hopefully motivate that person to turn themselves in. 

I think that's the obvious downside to mandatory reporting. Once perps learn that confessing to clergy is the same as confessing to law enforcement, they'll simply stop confessing things to clergy in the first place.

And that takes away another potential avenue that they might otherwise be willing to reach out to, and it forestalls another potential chance at intervention. 

That being said, I would be willing to entertain something like mandatory reporting for clergy if it could be shown that doing so would actually decrease future incidences of abuse, or even if it could be shown to have a meaningful impact on reducing the number of times known abusers actually abuse specific victims.

Otherwise, you're giving up something for nothing. And it's something that will be terribly difficult to get back. How many politicians, do you think, would be willing to push for legislation exempting people from reporting child abuse? It would be like trying to get rid of those Amber Alerts. Even though they are costly, annoying, and pretty much completely ineffective, no politician in his (or her) right mind is going to try and get rid of them. It would be political suicide.                              

 

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Zero

So you could say that your experience criticizing people you don't know for not reporting child abuse exceeds your experience in actually reporting child abuse?

You say you are willing to go to jail to report the abuse but you have never actually reported abuse.

Once you have done it a few times, maybe you would have a different perspective.

We have done so as a family, the experience of being interviewed by by police, defense attorneys, prosecutors.  

In our case, we didn't witness the abuse, but were told about it by one of the victims (all of our information was heresay)

It isn't just a matter of calling someone.  For a period of about a year we were receiving subpoenas about once a month, making plans to go to court and testify, then having the trial continued and then receiving the same treatment the next couple of months.

Most of the time, you don't really have hard evidence, but just suspicions.

A false accusation of abuse can ruin a person's life.  

Our bishop was telling us once how frustrating that can be. No one actually knows anything, people just have suspicions, the victims often don't tell you directly, sometimes they tell you then deny it later. He told us to report any suspicions so he could keep the person away from children, but if all you have is suspicions it is hard to report.  Many divorce cases use accusations of abuse to help obtain custody.

 

Then you have the problem of after an incident is reported, the victim recanting their story.  I served on a jury once where the alleged victim testified it never happened. We weren't sure we  really believed her, but it created reasonable doubt and we felt we had to acquit. 

If you are really concerned with how the church treats children, I suggest you participate in church and ask for a calling with the youth or primary.  They usually need the help.  Then you can actually help children instead of criticizing the church for not doing enough.

Become part of the solution!

  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Then do something. Lobby for changes to laws (including penitent privilege if you find it wrong). Lobby for more funding. Volunteer. Donate.

Histrionics about how horrible something is serve as an emotional catharsis at best and as ego affirming moral superiority at worst but it does nothing. The reason these government services are underfunded is no one votes based on this issue and the reason subsidiary private agencies and organizations do not get enough in donations or in manpower is most people do not actually care. On an emotional level when confronted with the results people will express outrage but nothing changes. It is like the electoral college or inequities in criminal justice. People care briefly if something that seems unfair happens (especially if it hits them or someone close to them) but then everyone forgets until it comes up again and nothing changes.  

I was actually thinking of ways to stop this insidious onslaught of child p o r n and using children like that. I wondered if the police officers that go undercover may need some help to moniter these chat sites. I'm not sure how able I'd be at it. But I'd sure like to try. 

[Calm]

I assume there is something like this*** in the US. I would suggest contacting a charity that specializes in helping victims of child abuse and asking how you might contribute, including possibly tracking down predators. 

***https://www.iwf.org.uk/what-we-do

But it probably takes a special kind of person to do that effectively. I would suggest finding out if there is training and such so one doesn’t end up letting a predator know they have been spotted so they disappear as well as being able to sleep at night. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was actually thinking of ways to stop this insidious onslaught of child p o r n and using children like that. I wondered if the police officers that go undercover may need some help to moniter these chat sites. I'm not sure how able I'd be at it. But I'd sure like to try. 

Perverted Justice, the biggest volunteer group hunting predators this way, no longer monitors chat rooms as of the start of 2019. It worked for a time but the Internet landscape has changed and it is really not viable any more. The problem has become more diffuse and with everyone having a camera with them even if you got a predator interested they could more easily demand pictures or videos right away and failure to produce often makes them go silent.

I have mixed feelings about these kinds of vigilante attempts to catch predators but this approach is fading away.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Perverted Justice, the biggest volunteer group hunting predators this way, no longer monitors chat rooms as of the start of 2019. It worked for a time but the Internet landscape has changed and it is really not viable any more. The problem has become more diffuse and with everyone having a camera with them even if you got a predator interested they could more easily demand pictures or videos right away and failure to produce often makes them go silent.

I have mixed feelings about these kinds of vigilante attempts to catch predators but this approach is fading away.

Sounds like it might be better to invest efforts in helping victims if one is untrained in efforts compatible with law enforcement these days.  Or donating money to trustworthy organizations combatting human trafficking and such.

[hearserve]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I was actually thinking of ways to stop this insidious onslaught of child p o r n and using children like that. I wondered if the police officers that go undercover may need some help to moniter these chat sites. I'm not sure how able I'd be at it. But I'd sure like to try. 

Consider supporting Operation Underground Railroad, an organization that works to stop sex trafficking worldwide.  Comprised largely of former CIA, Homeland Security, and Special Forces operatives, they investigate, plan, and execute operations to free women and children from horrible circumstances.  But beware...it was founded by a member of the (cue ominous music) LDS Church.

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

If clergy was not exempt from reporting would a person be likely to confess to them?  I think the number of confessions would be dramatically reduced.  With the current system the member of the clergy at least has the opportunity to work with them and hopefully motivate that person to turn themselves in. 

And have the opportunity to help the victims that they otherwise might not not know about.

Edited December 13, 2019 by JAHS