(3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[MorningStar]

Why are sexual abusers allowed to be rebaptized without turning themselves in to law enforcement? How is that full repentance? The message from the church should be, “You don’t get to quietly repent in a bishop’s office to avoid the jail time you earned.” Victims need justice. They also need to not be dragged through the ordeal of testifying in court. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, MorningStar said:

Why are sexual abusers allowed to be rebaptized without turning themselves in to law enforcement? How is that full repentance? The message from the church should be, “You don’t get to quietly repent in a bishop’s office to avoid the jail time you earned.” Victims need justice. They also need to not be dragged through the ordeal of testifying in court. 

They generally aren’t.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, MorningStar said:

Why are sexual abusers allowed to be rebaptized without turning themselves in to law enforcement? How is that full repentance? The message from the church should be, “You don’t get to quietly repent in a bishop’s office to avoid the jail time you earned.” Victims need justice. They also need to not be dragged through the ordeal of testifying in court. 

According to Paul Rytting (https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-rytting-5622303b) :

”“If members had any concerns that their disciplinary files could be read by a secular judge or attorneys or be presented to a jury as evidence in a public trial, their willingness to confess and repent and for their souls to be saved would be seriously compromised.”

Confession and repentance would be compromised if there was public accountability for breaking the law? That can’t be right.

 

[Fether]

A couple questions:

- Is the helpline intended and explained to bishops to be a source for legal questions?

- if someone is seeking legal advice from a lawyer, is the lawyer obligated to only give that legal advice? Would the lawyers in the helpline only be allowed to give the bishop possible courses of action within the law rather than tell him what he should do?

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Fether said:

A couple questions:

- Is the helpline intended and explained to bishops to be a source for legal questions?

- if someone is seeking legal advice from a lawyer, is the lawyer obligated to only give that legal advice? Would the lawyers in the helpline only be allowed to give the bishop possible courses of action within the law rather than tell him what he should do?

They can basically talk about anything. It is privileged communication. The lawyer can tell them what they “should” do.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

According to Paul Rytting (https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-rytting-5622303b) :

”“If members had any concerns that their disciplinary files could be read by a secular judge or attorneys or be presented to a jury as evidence in a public trial, their willingness to confess and repent and for their souls to be saved would be seriously compromised.”

Confession and repentance would be compromised if there was public accountability for breaking the law? That can’t be right.

 

In my opinion repentance isn’t possible without also dealing with the consequences of harming someone.

Anyone who is more concerned with their sins being made public than with helping their victims isn’t actually repentant anyway.  

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

According to Paul Rytting (https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-rytting-5622303b) :

”“If members had any concerns that their disciplinary files could be read by a secular judge or attorneys or be presented to a jury as evidence in a public trial, their willingness to confess and repent and for their souls to be saved would be seriously compromised.”

Confession and repentance would be compromised if there was public accountability for breaking the law? That can’t be right.

 

I see it kind of similar to attorney-client privilege.  If a client felt that their communication with their attorney would be exposed by a judge, then they would be less likely to disclose everything to the attorney and would receive worse representation.  If the client admits to a heinous crime to the attorney, the attorney is still obligated to give the client the best legal advice and help the client in the court case.

[webbles]

8 hours ago, MorningStar said:

Why are sexual abusers allowed to be rebaptized without turning themselves in to law enforcement? How is that full repentance? The message from the church should be, “You don’t get to quietly repent in a bishop’s office to avoid the jail time you earned.” Victims need justice. They also need to not be dragged through the ordeal of testifying in court. 

In one of Tacenda's links, it mentioned a case of a member who was excommunicated and then rebaptized without going to law enforcement.  But in that case, the member moved states and there was nothing on the ex-member's file.  So, I think the church needs to somehow ensure that when a person moves, they still can't be rebaptized unless they've also gone to the police.

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In my opinion repentance isn’t possible without also dealing with the consequences of harming someone.

Anyone who is more concerned with their sins being made public than with helping their victims isn’t actually repentant anyway.  

Yes, but anyone who goes to the police to confess without first getting a lawyer’s advice is a fool.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

35 minutes ago, webbles said:

I see it kind of similar to attorney-client privilege.  If a client felt that their communication with their attorney would be exposed by a judge, then they would be less likely to disclose everything to the attorney and would receive worse representation.  If the client admits to a heinous crime to the attorney, the attorney is still obligated to give the client the best legal advice and help the client in the court case.

So a bishop is like an advocate for the guilty (we are talking about confession here), instead of a judge in Israel, representative of Christ and His church, and an advocate for the voiceless (say the children harmed). Not sure that’s a good look or doctrinally sound, but I’m just a critic so ymmv. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So a bishop is like an advocate for the guilty (we are talking about confession here), instead of a judge in Israel, representative of Christ and His church, and an advocate for the voiceless (say the children harmed). Not sure that’s a good look or doctrinally sound, but I’m just a critic so ymmv. 

If the American Justice system were structured fairly I would agree with you.

It is also worth noting that making disciplinary records open to judicial access would mean records might be put in evidence where the defendant is a third party in the disciplinary action. So some teenager’s fornication confession is entered into evidence because someone involved in some peripheral way did some other crime. Could get ugly.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but anyone who goes to the police to confess without first getting a lawyer’s advice is a fool.

Agreed.

But likewise, anyone who believes he has repented but refuses to make restitution to victims that he has seriously harmed and instead seeks to continue to hide his sins, is also a fool (in my opinion).

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So a bishop is like an advocate for the guilty (we are talking about confession here), instead of a judge in Israel, representative of Christ and His church, and an advocate for the voiceless (say the children harmed). Not sure that’s a good look or doctrinally sound, but I’m just a critic so ymmv. 

That's why I said "similar" :D.  I'm talking about the value of the privilege.  If I confess to a bishop of an actual crime, I would expect the bishop to tell me to go to the police as part of my repentance process.  Bishops who don't do that are not helping the person actually repent and also are not following the handbook (32.4.5):

Quote

Some people who are repenting have broken civil or criminal laws. In some cases, government authorities are not aware of this. Bishops and stake presidents encourage members to follow the law and report such matters when required. Leaders also counsel members to obtain competent legal advice when reporting. The Church’s policy is to obey the law.

I would also expect that if I refuse to go to the law, then the bishop would proceed with a membership council because I'm not actually repenting.

But I don't think that the notes, proceedings, etc of the confession or of the membership council should be given to the courts, just like attorney/client notes.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

That's why I said "similar" :D.  I'm talking about the value of the privilege.  If I confess to a bishop of an actual crime, I would expect the bishop to tell me to go to the police as part of my repentance process.  Bishops who don't do that are not helping the person actually repent and also are not following the handbook (32.4.5):

I would also expect that if I refuse to go to the law, then the bishop would proceed with a membership council because I'm not actually repenting.

But I don't think that the notes, proceedings, etc of the confession or of the membership council should be given to the courts, just like attorney/client notes.

I will just point out that you are at odds with the Church here whose chief risk officer said “their willingness to confess and repent and for their souls to be saved would be seriously compromised” if they might be turned in for their crimes. That statement seems to say some people wouldn’t repent and their soul would be lost if there was criminal accountability. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will just point out that you are at odds with the Church here whose chief risk officer said “their willingness to confess and repent and for their souls to be saved would be seriously compromised” if they might be turned in for their crimes. That statement seems to say some people wouldn’t repent and their soul would be lost if there was criminal accountability. 

You could also argue that buried in there is the idea that the Bishop could urge them to get a lawyer and confess but if going to the bishop alone causes potential criminal liability that could discourage the initial overture.

[webbles]

57 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will just point out that you are at odds with the Church here whose chief risk officer said “their willingness to confess and repent and for their souls to be saved would be seriously compromised” if they might be turned in for their crimes. That statement seems to say some people wouldn’t repent and their soul would be lost if there was criminal accountability. 

I don't believe I'm at odds because you missed the first part of the quote.  Here's the whole quote again.

Quote

If members had any concerns that their disciplinary files could be read by a secular judge or attorneys or be presented to a jury as evidence in a public trial, their willingness to confess and repent and for their souls to be saved would be seriously compromised.

He isn't talking about going to the police or being turned in. He is talking about the disciplinary files being given to the courts.

[MorningStar]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They generally aren’t.

Long story, but my husband’s old friend found out his dad raped his sister from age 5 until she was 15. She didn’t tell her mom until she was an adult and she didn’t want to press charges because of the stress of going to court. Her fiancé had told her, “We’re not getting married until this comes out.” He dropped her off in front of her parents’ house and her brother heard her screaming.

So she told her mom, her mom confronted him, he admitted it, and she said, “You have to tell our son.”

He started out with, “I’ve done something that could affect my standing with the church.” Really?! That was his biggest concern?

He was excommunicated, but didn’t have to confess to law enforcement. He remarried, both kids told the new wife who owned a gymnasium, and she let him coach little girls. 
 

He was later rebaptized after he faced no legal consequences at all. The son wanted to see him punished more than anyone and he lost his faith completely. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

was later rebaptized after he faced no legal consequences at all. The son wanted to see him punished more than anyone and he lost his faith completely

Why didn’t the son report him?

[Calm]

Collects the documents and most useful reports and relayed articles with links:

https://mormonr.org/qnas/tpo8C/failure_to_report_sexual_abusebisbee_arizona/research

Individuals and timeline here, answers to common questions, and a summation at the end:

https://mormonr.org/qnas/tpo8C/failure_to_report_sexual_abusebisbee_arizona

Very well done, imo.

Just looked at a few topics, but liking the site.

Edited August 8, 2022 by Calm

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

Long story, but my husband’s old friend found out his dad raped his sister from age 5 until she was 15. She didn’t tell her mom until she was an adult and she didn’t want to press charges because of the stress of going to court. Her fiancé had told her, “We’re not getting married until this comes out.” He dropped her off in front of her parents’ house and her brother heard her screaming.

So she told her mom, her mom confronted him, he admitted it, and she said, “You have to tell our son.”

He started out with, “I’ve done something that could affect my standing with the church.” Really?! That was his biggest concern?

He was excommunicated, but didn’t have to confess to law enforcement. He remarried, both kids told the new wife who owned a gymnasium, and she let him coach little girls. 
 

He was later rebaptized after he faced no legal consequences at all. The son wanted to see him punished more than anyone and he lost his faith completely. 

I know someone who was raped by her brother and never told her parents. It happened when she was a minor. She did go down the rabbit hole for a bit. Did ‘confess’ to Bishop and is fully active. I don’t think any Bishop ever told law enforcement. She never did. Victims sometimes don’t want things to be public knowledge. It’s hard to drag a victim into a situation everyone will know when that’s not what they want. 
 

Sometimes it may seem the victim is now safe so why involve law enforcement but the truth is, unless the creep is dead, he will find new victims. 
 

 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, MorningStar said:

Long story, but my husband’s old friend found out his dad raped his sister from age 5 until she was 15. She didn’t tell her mom until she was an adult and she didn’t want to press charges because of the stress of going to court. Her fiancé had told her, “We’re not getting married until this comes out.” He dropped her off in front of her parents’ house and her brother heard her screaming.

So she told her mom, her mom confronted him, he admitted it, and she said, “You have to tell our son.”

He started out with, “I’ve done something that could affect my standing with the church.” Really?! That was his biggest concern?

He was excommunicated, but didn’t have to confess to law enforcement. He remarried, both kids told the new wife who owned a gymnasium, and she let him coach little girls. 
 

He was later rebaptized after he faced no legal consequences at all. The son wanted to see him punished more than anyone and he lost his faith completely. 

That makes me wonder about whether an abuser can repent without legal repercussion?  If the victim doesn't want to testify, there is no way to convict the abuser.  So, can the abuser still repent and be rebaptized?  A part of me says yes (I believe only murder prevents rebaptism) and a part of me says no.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

If the victim doesn't want to testify, there is no way to convict the abuser.  So, can the abuser still repent and be rebaptized?  A part of me says yes (I believe only murder prevents rebaptism) and a part of me says no.

If a victim asked him not to turn himself in because of not wanting to put the family in a bad spot, would he need to do so?  If maybe his was the only income and the family had little savings so mom could lose the home and go into poverty if dad went to prison and therefore lost his job (and would have a very hard time finding one if on sex registry. 
 

I can see if an abuser was not habitual and the victims (this includes those not abused but still affected) really didn’t want him turned in, maybe repenting without legal punishment…but if it went on for years, I see that as more likely to result in other victims. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Why didn’t the son report him?

Probably not enough to convict and depending on how long ago it happened the statute of limitations might have been long up. Most states have extended them substantially but they are usually not open-ended.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

That makes me wonder about whether an abuser can repent without legal repercussion?  If the victim doesn't want to testify, there is no way to convict the abuser.  So, can the abuser still repent and be rebaptized?  A part of me says yes (I believe only murder prevents rebaptism) and a part of me says no.

Rebaptism after murder is possible. It is one of the situations that needs First Presidency approval and that would not be given lightly in this case. I am betting if you apply after a year your odds of success are not good.

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Rebaptism after murder is possible. It is one of the situations that needs First Presidency approval and that would not be given lightly in this case. I am betting if you apply after a year your odds of success are not good.

Does child abuse require First Presidency approval as well? If not, maybe it should.