The Nehor Posted August 8, 2022 Posted August 8, 2022 16 minutes ago, webbles said: Does child abuse require First Presidency approval as well? If not, maybe it should. It does. When readmitted your record is also annotated so you do not get a calling that involves working with children. 2
Amulek Posted August 8, 2022 Posted August 8, 2022 (edited) On 8/4/2022 at 1:29 PM, smac97 said: The decision to not report the abuse was . . . discretionary. The bishop and the Church had the option of reporting ("may withold"). [...] I am at a loss to understand why the bishops did not report, and why the helpline did not instruct them to report. In fact, per one of the bishops he was instructed by the helpline to not report. Is the priest/penitent privilege something that can be waved selectively? The statute states that "the 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." How many Bishops' reports would it take before the courts in Arizona determine that, based on their actions, the priest/penitent privilege isn't really a reasonable or necessary concept in our religion? Wouldn't that potentially expose Bishops to entanglement in a host of other litigation proceedings which they are currently able to avoid due to the existence of that privilege? Edited August 8, 2022 by Amulek 1
smac97 Posted August 8, 2022 Author Posted August 8, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Amulek said: Is the priest/penitent privilege something that can be waved selectively? Lots of variation here, I think. How this privilege works varies by jurisdiction. As to the issue of whose privilege it is to waive (the clergy's or the penitent's), see here: Quote 3. Holder of the privilege The next question is, who holds the privilege? There are three possible answers to this question: the penitent, the clergy member, or both. The vast majority of jurisdictions (43 out of 51) provide that the penitent is the holder of the privilege. Many of these jurisdictions allow the clergy member to claim the privilege on behalf of the penitent, and provide that such authority is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Five jurisdictions hold that both the clergy member and the penitent hold the privilege.17 In these jurisdictions, both the penitent and the clergy member would have the right to refuse to disclose, or prevent another from disclosing, the contents of the privileged communications. Only one jurisdiction, Virginia, provides that the clergy member is the sole holder of the privilege.18 Some jurisdictions seek to strike a balance between the interests underlying the privilege and those favoring disclosure in certain circumstances. For example, in Ohio the penitent is the holder of the privilege and can waive it, unless: (1) the confidential communication was made directly to the cleric; and (2) the confidential communication was made in the manner and context that places the cleric specifically and strictly under a level of confidentiality that is considered inviolate by canon law or church doctrine. Similarly, in Oregon the penitent holds the privilege and may waive it. However, even if the penitent consents the clergy member may not be examined on the communication if he or she has an absolute duty to keep such communication confidential under the discipline or tenets of the religion. 4. Who is a “Mandatory Reporter,” and is the Privilege Abrogated? ... All 50 states and the District of Columbia have mandatory reporting laws for suspected child abuse or neglect. Most states provide a list of specific professionals who are “mandatory reporters,” while some states provide that “any person” who has reason to believe a child is being abused or neglected has a duty to report. Twenty-six states specifically provide that members of clergy are “mandatory reporters.”19 In these states, and those that make “any person” a mandatory reporter,20 a clergy member may have an obligation to disclose privileged communications he would not otherwise be obligated (or permitted) to disclose under the tenets of his or her religion, or the law of the jurisdiction. Thus, the next question is whether the information must be disclosed even if learned in a privileged and confidential manner? Luckily, most jurisdictions took steps to clarify a clergy member’s duty in these situations, one way or another. The majority of jurisdictions expressly maintain the privilege or maintain the privilege conditionally upon meeting certain factors, such as the clergy member being bound to maintain the confidentiality under the tenets of his or her religion. Only six jurisdictions have expressly abrogated the privilege with regard to mandatory reporting laws.21 The remaining jurisdictions do not specify whether the privilege continues to apply in these situations, leaving clergy members in limbo as to their duties under the law in such situations. ... 17 See Ala.R.Evid. § 505; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1030-1034; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-107(1)(c); 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/8-803; and N.J. Stat. § 2A:84:A-23. 18 Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-400 19 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 20 Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. 21 New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. In looking at the statute closely, I think I see something that may clarify why Bishop Herrod did not use information from the victim's mother as a basis for reporting the suspected abuse. The statute is worded broadly enough to include the wife's communications ("{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..."). The statute does not specify that the "confidential communication" be from the perpetrator, so the exemption could have applied to the wife as well. 3 hours ago, Amulek said: The statute states that "the 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." How many Bishops' reports would it take before the courts in Arizona determined that, based on their actions, the priest/penitent privilege isn't really a reasonable or necessary concept in our religion? Since the "determination" is left to the individual clergy member, I'm not sure the courts in Arizona could supersede that. 3 hours ago, Amulek said: Wouldn't that potentially expose Bishops to entanglement in a host of other litigation proceedings which they are currently able to avoid due to the existence of that privilege? Yes and no. See here: Quote 12-2233. Clergyman or priest and penitent In a civil action a clergyman or priest shall not, without the consent of the person making a confession, be examined as to any confession made to him in his character as clergyman or priest in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs. Note here that the penitent controls the privilege, but only in "a civil action." Contrast this with A.R.S. 13-3620 (here), which is part of Arizona's criminal code: Quote 13-3620. Duty to report abuse, physical injury, neglect and denial or deprivation of medical or surgical care or nourishment of minors; medical records; exception; violation; classification; definitions A. Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect that appears to have been inflicted on the minor by other than accidental means or that is not explained by the available medical history as being accidental in nature or who reasonably believes there has been a denial or deprivation of necessary medical treatment or surgical care or nourishment with the intent to cause or allow the death of an infant who is protected under section 36-2281 shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer, to the department of child safety or to a tribal law enforcement or social services agency for any Indian minor who resides on an Indian reservation, except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only. A member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, as a Christian Science practitioner or as a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest may otherwise make of the minor. ... L. In any civil or criminal litigation in which a child's neglect, dependency, physical injury, abuse, child abuse or abandonment is an issue, a member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest shall not, without his consent, be examined as a witness concerning any confession made to him in his role as a member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs. This subsection does not discharge a member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest from the duty to report pursuant to subsection A of this section. Note that under the provision in A.R.S. 13-3620(L), the clergy member controls the privilege in a civil proceeding, which seems to contradict A.R.S. 12-2233 (see above), which states that the penitent controls the privilege ("without the consent of the person making a confession..."). So that is . . . confusing. As for compelled testimony in a criminal context, things are . . . also confusing. Per A.R.S. 13-3620(L), a bishop apparently cannot be compelled to testify about confessions. However, the statute is worded in such a way that the bishop can consent to providing such testimony. That is, the privilege against compelled testimony belongs to the bishop (or, perhaps more appropriately stated, to the church of which he is the agent/representative), and the choice to testify is therefore his (or his church's). But keep in mind that A.R.S. 13-3620(L) only prohibits compelled testimony from a bishop "concerning any confession made to him," and apparently does not apply to "a confidential communication" made to him by someone other than the perpetrator (such as the wife, the victim, family members, etc.), nor would it seem to apply to the bishop's "personal observations ... of the minor." Upon further reflection, however, I would think that the bishop would not be allowed to testify as to statements from other sources (wife, victim, family members, etc.) due to the general prohibition against hearsay. But I suppose the bishop could be compelled to testify as a percipient witness (not about statements made to him by anyone, but rather about his "personal observations ... of the minor"). And then, of course, there is the whole "reasonable and proper" analysis under A.R.S. 13-3620(A) as to whether non-reporting is "reasonable and necessary." As summed up here: Quote Therefore, where a church’s theology prohibits disclosing confidential information and where the communication was made as part of a “confession” that was intended to be private and for spiritual purposes—the clergyperson may not be forced to repeat the words spoken to them. However, the clergyperson must report any evidence they see—behavioral, physical, and so on—indicating the presence of abuse or neglect. This makes for murky situations, to say the least. Yep. Murky. All of this is murky. I think the following series of questions could provide a helpful framework (this is a preliminary effort) : Step 1: Does the clergy member have a reasonable belief that a minor child is being abused? -If "Yes, then proceed to Step 2. -If "No," then the clergy member has no duty to report. Step 2: Is the clergy member's reasonable belief based on the clergy member's "personal observations" of the minor child? -If "Yes," then the privilege (more accurately, the exemption from the statutory "duty to report") does not apply, and the clergy member is obligated to report the matter to law enforcement. A.R.S. sec. 13-3620 states that the privilege ("exemption") from mandatory reporting requirements does not apply to "personal observations the member of the clergy ... may otherwise make of the minor." -If "No," then proceed to Step 3. Step 3: Is the clergy member's reasonable belief based on information obtained from any source other than from "a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy?" -If "Yes," then the privilege (more accurately, the exemption from the statutory "duty to report") does not apply, and the clergy member is obligated to report the matter to law enforcement. A.R.S. sec. 13-3620 states that the "duty to report" applies to "{a}ny person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of {abuse}." There is a limited exemption from this duty which does not apply here. -If "No," the proceed to Step 4. Step 4: Is the clergy member's reasonable belief about possible abuse of a minor child derived solely and exclusively from having received "a confidential communication or a confession" in his (the clergy's member's) role as a member of the clergy? -If "Yes," proceed to Step 5. -If "No," then the privilege (more accurately, the exemption from the statutory "duty to report") does not apply, and the clergy member is obligated to report the matter to law enforcement. A.R.S. sec. 13-3620 states that the "duty to report" applies to "{a}ny person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of {abuse}." There is a limited exemption from this duty which arises when the clergy member's source of information is exclusively from "a confidential communication or a confession" which does not apply here. Step 5: Is not reporting the suspected abuse, in the determination of the clergy member, "reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the {clergy member's} religion?" -If "Yes," then proceed to Step 6. -If "No," then then the privilege (more accurately, the exemption from the statutory "duty to report") does not apply, and the clergy member is obligated to report the matter to law enforcement. A.R.S. sec. 13-3620 states that the "duty to report" applies to "{a}ny person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of {abuse}." There is a limited exemption from this duty which arises when the clergy member determines that not reporting the suspected above is "reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion." In the absence of such a determination, the "duty to report" exists. Step 6: Inasmuch as A) the clergy member's sole source of information about suspected abuse is "a confidential communication or a confession," and B) not reporting the suspected above is, in the determination of the clergy member, "reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the {clergy member's} religion," the statutory exemption from mandatory reporting applies. However, the statutory exemption only allows non-reporting of suspected abuse, and does not prohibit non-reporting. Specifically, A.R.S. sec. 13-3620 states that a clergy member "may withhold reporting" suspected abuse in these circumstances. In other words, whether to report the suspected abuse or not is discretionary. It is up to the clergy member. That being the case, are the circumstances of the specific situation such that the best interests of the child are served by reporting the suspected abuse (such as the abuse is ongoing, or is likely to continue)? -If "Yes," then the clergy member should consider disregarding the exemption and report the abuse. -If "No," then the clergy member may utilize the exemption and proceed with such further efforts as are necessary and appropriate in helping protect the victim and the victim's family. Step 3 and Step 4 are fairly duplicative of each other, but double-checking in this context helps. Thanks, -Smac Edited August 8, 2022 by smac97 4
smac97 Posted August 8, 2022 Author Posted August 8, 2022 (edited) More news coverage (duplicative, via many different outlets) : https://lufkindailynews.com/ap_video/video_11f4531f-920a-5194-b7d3-a548ddfabea9.html https://www.tiogapublishing.com/how-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/video_00fb9efc-b728-5aec-b69f-4579fec906de.html https://www.hartfordcitynewstimes.com/video/how-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/video_4df70d46-ce0c-5994-9769-7d98f0cc30d2.html https://www.bradfordera.com/how-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/video_732081f2-f26f-5fcf-9a7b-a4e31143e932.html https://www.salamancapress.com/how-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/video_bb2368d3-b37e-50ab-9f5d-1b80d894a547.html https://www.iosconews.com/video_f98e8c01-4a17-5115-b786-4e31a142c5c7.html https://www.swiowanewssource.com/video_7e8759f0-1c62-5aff-8c0e-50913d9b46be.html https://news.yahoo.com/mormon-church-help-line-hid-180938407.html https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2022/08/08/church-rebuttal-mormon-sex-abuse-hotline https://www.abbynews.com/video/video-how-the-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/ https://www.peacearchnews.com/video/video-how-the-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/ https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2022/08/08/how-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/10269143002/ Thanks, -Smac Edited August 8, 2022 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted August 8, 2022 Author Posted August 8, 2022 Daniel Peterson has provided some useful observations, and information and resources: Quote As I mentioned in a prior blog entry here and as you are very likely aware by now, an Associated Press story has quite a bit of heat over the past couple of days, alleging that, in a case down in Arizona, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints deliberately covered up seven years of sexual abuse. This has proved extremely inspiring to many critics of the Church — some of whom have no real need for such inspiration. The case in question, which — do I actually need to say this? — is appalling and deeply sad, is being pressed into service to demonstrate that the leaders of the Church don’t care about children or about sexual abuse. Some critics, linking to another theme that is a huge favorite in some circles, are using it to depict the Brethren as deeply corrupt and as concerned only with money. (How they went from the fairly representative fathers, neighbors, elders quorum presidents, bishops, mission presidents, stake presidents, and the like that they pretty much all recently were to the callous, mercenary monsters that some apparently believe they suddenly became upon being called to full-time Church service is, well, something of a mystery.) ... “Reporting Abuse, Church Helpline, & the Bishop | An Interview with Jennifer Roach” Jennifer Roach earned a Masters of Divinity from the Seattle School of Theology and Psychology and a Masters of Counseling from Argosy University. She is a licensed Substance Use Disorder counselor, a Clinical Mental Health counselor, and was an ordained Anglican Pastor prior to her baptism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Here, too, are a few documents that you might find useful: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4489327-Exhibits-to-Osmond-Bar-Complaint-SLTRIB#document/p1 And, in the meanwhile, I share a trio of links here that, although they don’t specifically concern the Arizona case or even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, might help to put matters into perspective: “Public School Teachers 100 Times More Likely To Abuse Kids Than Catholic Priests” “More Kids Abused in Public School than in Catholic Churches” “Sexual Abuse by Teachers is on the Rise” Now — please — don’t try to twist my supplying those three links into a pretense that I’m minimizing the gravity of sexual abuse by clergy or members of any religious organization. (Some, I know, will do precisely that, nonetheless. I could almost write their comments for them, they’re so tiresomely predictable.) Sexual abuse is a horrific evil and a crime, no matter who the abuser is, whether he or she is or is not a Latter-day Saint. I simply do not find the claim persuasive, though, that Latter-day Saint churches are exceptionally dangerous places for children. So far as I can see, there seems to be little or no actual evidence to support such an accusation. Thanks, -Smac 2
jkwilliams Posted August 8, 2022 Posted August 8, 2022 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Daniel Peterson has provided some useful observations, and information and resources: Thanks, -Smac I don’t think anyone here on this board has said anything like Dan Peterson says critics are saying. I’m sure there are people saying such things, but let’s not paint with such a broad brush. 1
smac97 Posted August 8, 2022 Author Posted August 8, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Quote Daniel Peterson has provided some useful observations, and information and resources: I don’t think anyone here on this board has said anything like Dan Peterson says critics are saying. I don't think I suggested that. Nor did DCP. 12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I’m sure there are people saying such things, but let’s not paint with such a broad brush. Who is "paint{ing} with such a broad brush?" From DCP: Quote As I mentioned in a prior blog entry here and as you are very likely aware by now, an Associated Press story has quite a bit of heat over the past couple of days, alleging that, in a case down in Arizona, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints deliberately covered up seven years of sexual abuse. This has proved extremely inspiring to many critics of the Church — some of whom have no real need for such inspiration. The case in question, which — do I actually need to say this? — is appalling and deeply sad, is being pressed into service to demonstrate that the leaders of the Church don’t care about children or about sexual abuse. Some critics, linking to another theme that is a huge favorite in some circles, are using it to depict the Brethren as deeply corrupt and as concerned only with money. (How they went from the fairly representative fathers, neighbors, elders quorum presidents, bishops, mission presidents, stake presidents, and the like that they pretty much all recently were to the callous, mercenary monsters that some apparently believe they suddenly became upon being called to full-time Church service is, well, something of a mystery.) A small handful of detractors of the Church seem to imagine that I have a personal, particular duty to respond to the case, to expound upon it, and, more specifically, to admit the Church’s wickedness and guilt in the matter. ... Of course, such calm little pieces are not going to satisfy certain folks or calm them down. I came across a wonderful meme yesterday — in, I think, a completely unrelated context — from the great economist and writer Thomas Sowell, whom I deeply admire. I think it quite relevant to at least some of the impassioned (and occasionally obscene) reactions that I’ve seen from a few critics of the Church to the links give above. “It is usually futile,” Dr. Sowell is quoted as saying, “to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.” ... Now — please — don’t try to twist my supplying those three links into a pretense that I’m minimizing the gravity of sexual abuse by clergy or members of any religious organization. (Some, I know, will do precisely that, nonetheless. I could almost write their comments for them, they’re so tiresomely predictable.) Sexual abuse is a horrific evil and a crime, no matter who the abuser is, whether he or she is or is not a Latter-day Saint. I simply do not find the claim persuasive, though, that Latter-day Saint churches are exceptionally dangerous places for children. So far as I can see, there seems to be little or no actual evidence to support such an accusation. You don't really need to look very hard to find ample substantiation as to the existence of such reactions from "some" or "a few" or even "many" critics of the Church. Thanks, -Smac Edited August 8, 2022 by smac97 1
MorningStar Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 22 hours ago, Calm said: Why didn’t the son report him? Probably because his sister begged him not to and wasn't willing to talk about it. Just weird that the church would excommunicate him, but let him back in without confessing to authorities. I don't understand that. His sister just wanted to move on with her life and not go through the humiliation. He has a very hard time with it because looking back, that's why she used to ask if she could sleep in his room - to get away from their dad. He told her no because he thought it was weird. 3
MorningStar Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 Here's another question: Why doesn't the church excommunicate sex offenders AND ban them from the premises? I know of one instance where that happened (my mom's ward - perv was preying on missionaries and several went home) and the bishop gathered all of the adults and said, "Brother _____ isn't allowed on the property." I think a lot of people are under the impression that excommunication means you can't attend anymore. If the law doesn't restrict some sex offenders from being in certain places, why should that mean that the church can't? Our ward pedo pushes the boundaries he's been given and it makes me absolutely livid. He "forgot" he couldn't go to ward choir if it was in someone's home. He "forgot" he can't use the Primary hallway. He was told specifically not to talk to me ever and then at the big devotional in Seattle with Pres. Nelson, he chose the urinal next to our teenage son and talked to him while peeing. He later told the bishop, "I didn't know that was her son." Bishop said, "DON'T DO THAT WITH ANYONE!" He's been doing the job of ward music chair even though that's not his calling and I told our bishop that needs to change. Sure enough, he used it as an excuse to talk to a teenage girl when he couldn't get a hold of her mom. He couldn't get a hold of her mom because he was leaving her repeated messages asking her which song their family was performing and it was annoying her. She told him she would contact him when she knew. He had previously "accidentally" bumped up against this same girl at a wedding. I've raised Hell about this guy multiple times. Long story, but I met his ex-daughter-in-law in a freak coincidence (not a coincidence) and turns out he did in fact abuse his two daughters, which never came out. The wife knows. It's a family secret. The church can report what they know, but nothing is going to happen legally unless the victims/mothers report and press charges. This guy is a level one on the registry and isn't published because he's compliant. I never knew before that compliant level ones aren't published. I know he's a compliant level one because my old bishop told me. He probably wasn't allowed to tell me that. Whoops. All we have to share with ward members are the articles about him getting fired from his teaching position at a college for CP. He only got probation even though he admitted to exchanging videos/images with minors. I have the heavily redacted chat logs where he's chatting up girls as young as 11. I have the audio of him admitting everything to the two female detectives. No jail time! If he has to be reminded of his boundaries, why can't the church just tell him to stay home? Because they're afraid he and his wife will be offended and leave the church? What about the people he bothers? No worries about them leaving? I don't care if his wife gets offended. She knows he molested their daughters and she didn't turn him in. 4
Tacenda Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 29 minutes ago, MorningStar said: Here's another question: Why doesn't the church excommunicate sex offenders AND ban them from the premises? I know of one instance where that happened (my mom's ward - perv was preying on missionaries and several went home) and the bishop gathered all of the adults and said, "Brother _____ isn't allowed on the property." I think a lot of people are under the impression that excommunication means you can't attend anymore. If the law doesn't restrict some sex offenders from being in certain places, why should that mean that the church can't? Our ward pedo pushes the boundaries he's been given and it makes me absolutely livid. He "forgot" he couldn't go to ward choir if it was in someone's home. He "forgot" he can't use the Primary hallway. He was told specifically not to talk to me ever and then at the big devotional in Seattle with Pres. Nelson, he chose the urinal next to our teenage son and talked to him while peeing. He later told the bishop, "I didn't know that was her son." Bishop said, "DON'T DO THAT WITH ANYONE!" He's been doing the job of ward music chair even though that's not his calling and I told our bishop that needs to change. Sure enough, he used it as an excuse to talk to a teenage girl when he couldn't get a hold of her mom. He couldn't get a hold of her mom because he was leaving her repeated messages asking her which song their family was performing and it was annoying her. She told him she would contact him when she knew. He had previously "accidentally" bumped up against this same girl at a wedding. I've raised Hell about this guy multiple times. Long story, but I met his ex-daughter-in-law in a freak coincidence (not a coincidence) and turns out he did in fact abuse his two daughters, which never came out. The wife knows. It's a family secret. The church can report what they know, but nothing is going to happen legally unless the victims/mothers report and press charges. This guy is a level one on the registry and isn't published because he's compliant. I never knew before that compliant level ones aren't published. I know he's a compliant level one because my old bishop told me. He probably wasn't allowed to tell me that. Whoops. All we have to share with ward members are the articles about him getting fired from his teaching position at a college for CP. He only got probation even though he admitted to exchanging videos/images with minors. I have the heavily redacted chat logs where he's chatting up girls as young as 11. I have the audio of him admitting everything to the two female detectives. No jail time! If he has to be reminded of his boundaries, why can't the church just tell him to stay home? Because they're afraid he and his wife will be offended and leave the church? What about the people he bothers? No worries about them leaving? I don't care if his wife gets offended. She knows he molested their daughters and she didn't turn him in. I'm sorry you are still dealing with this. 😓
MorningStar Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 46 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I'm sorry you are still dealing with this. 😓 I pray for the Second Coming. I'm so sick of this garbage. 2
smac97 Posted August 9, 2022 Author Posted August 9, 2022 2 hours ago, MorningStar said: Here's another question: Why doesn't the church excommunicate sex offenders AND ban them from the premises? I know of one instance where that happened (my mom's ward - perv was preying on missionaries and several went home) and the bishop gathered all of the adults and said, "Brother _____ isn't allowed on the property." I think a lot of people are under the impression that excommunication means you can't attend anymore. If the law doesn't restrict some sex offenders from being in certain places, why should that mean that the church can't? Our ward pedo pushes the boundaries he's been given and it makes me absolutely livid. He "forgot" he couldn't go to ward choir if it was in someone's home. He "forgot" he can't use the Primary hallway. He was told specifically not to talk to me ever and then at the big devotional in Seattle with Pres. Nelson, he chose the urinal next to our teenage son and talked to him while peeing. He later told the bishop, "I didn't know that was her son." Bishop said, "DON'T DO THAT WITH ANYONE!" He's been doing the job of ward music chair even though that's not his calling and I told our bishop that needs to change. Sure enough, he used it as an excuse to talk to a teenage girl when he couldn't get a hold of her mom. He couldn't get a hold of her mom because he was leaving her repeated messages asking her which song their family was performing and it was annoying her. She told him she would contact him when she knew. He had previously "accidentally" bumped up against this same girl at a wedding. I've raised Hell about this guy multiple times. Long story, but I met his ex-daughter-in-law in a freak coincidence (not a coincidence) and turns out he did in fact abuse his two daughters, which never came out. The wife knows. It's a family secret. The church can report what they know, but nothing is going to happen legally unless the victims/mothers report and press charges. This guy is a level one on the registry and isn't published because he's compliant. I never knew before that compliant level ones aren't published. I know he's a compliant level one because my old bishop told me. He probably wasn't allowed to tell me that. Whoops. All we have to share with ward members are the articles about him getting fired from his teaching position at a college for CP. He only got probation even though he admitted to exchanging videos/images with minors. I have the heavily redacted chat logs where he's chatting up girls as young as 11. I have the audio of him admitting everything to the two female detectives. No jail time! If he has to be reminded of his boundaries, why can't the church just tell him to stay home? Because they're afraid he and his wife will be offended and leave the church? What about the people he bothers? No worries about them leaving? I don't care if his wife gets offended. She knows he molested their daughters and she didn't turn him in. Yeesh. This sounts terrible. Have you compiled evidence of these "boundary-pushing" incidents and submitted them to your bishop and stake president? Thanks, -Smac
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 7 hours ago, smac97 said: More news coverage (duplicative, via many different outlets) : https://lufkindailynews.com/ap_video/video_11f4531f-920a-5194-b7d3-a548ddfabea9.html https://www.tiogapublishing.com/how-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/video_00fb9efc-b728-5aec-b69f-4579fec906de.html https://www.hartfordcitynewstimes.com/video/how-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/video_4df70d46-ce0c-5994-9769-7d98f0cc30d2.html https://www.bradfordera.com/how-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/video_732081f2-f26f-5fcf-9a7b-a4e31143e932.html https://www.salamancapress.com/how-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/video_bb2368d3-b37e-50ab-9f5d-1b80d894a547.html https://www.iosconews.com/video_f98e8c01-4a17-5115-b786-4e31a142c5c7.html https://www.swiowanewssource.com/video_7e8759f0-1c62-5aff-8c0e-50913d9b46be.html https://news.yahoo.com/mormon-church-help-line-hid-180938407.html https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2022/08/08/church-rebuttal-mormon-sex-abuse-hotline https://www.abbynews.com/video/video-how-the-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/ https://www.peacearchnews.com/video/video-how-the-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/ https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2022/08/08/how-mormon-church-help-line-hid-child-sex-abuse/10269143002/ Thanks, -Smac It should be borne in mind that because the AP is by definition a wire service, much of the coverage is going to be duplicative as members of the Associated Press pick up the AP stories. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, MorningStar said: If he has to be reminded of his boundaries, why can't the church just tell him to stay home? It sounds to me like he is intentionally pushing the boundaries, perhaps as a means of trying to assert control over his situation and people he sees as 'enemies' (your family?). He sounds narcissistic and dangerous. The Church has every right to tell him to stay home if he's not following the guidelines he's been given. From section 38.1.1 of the Handbook: Quote If there is inappropriate behavior, the bishop or stake president gives private counsel in a spirit of love. He encourages those whose behavior is improper for the occasion to focus on helping maintain a sacred space for everyone present with a special emphasis on worshipping Heavenly Father and the Savior. Church meetinghouses remain private property subject to Church policies. Persons unwilling to follow these guidelines will be asked in a respectful way not to attend Church meetings and events. If your bishop isn't enforcing boundaries, I would encourage you strongly to elevate your concern to the stake president. If that doesn't fix the problem, is a personal order possible? (I agree that it shouldn't come to this, but it might!) We have several families in our stake who have court orders that mean that certain other people cannot be in the same building as they are. Edited August 9, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan 3
MorningStar Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Yeesh. This sounts terrible. Have you compiled evidence of these "boundary-pushing" incidents and submitted them to your bishop and stake president? Thanks, -Smac Yes, I have. Long, bizarre, frustrating story. In another weird situation, we had to get my son in to see a therapist immediately and that led to me telling her about the man. She asked if he uses the Primary hallway and she was furious when I told her he lingers there every week after church. She said, “HE. CAN’T. DO. THAT.” She called the hotline and they talked to my bishop. I told her I felt like I had been assigned to deal with this situation and she was doubtful about that until I later told her I was at the store and a woman two people ahead of me was having trouble paying because her card wasn’t working. I ended up paying for her, which I had never done in my life, and she turned out to be the man’s ex daughter-in-law! The therapist gripped onto her chair. 😂 The DIL lives out of state and brought her kids up for visitation. We got to chatting and became friends. She had been married to the son who first discovered CP on his home computer (that was in a news article) and a video of him doing you know what that he had sent to a minor. Son begged him to stop. Wife sent him to SA. Son is estranged. The man didn’t get caught until he started doing it at work. Ex DIL told me he had abused his two daughters, his wife knew it, and it never came out. What a surprise! Not. There’s much more to the story. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 19 minutes ago, MorningStar said: I told her I felt like I had been assigned to deal with this situation ... My mission president almost had to pull all six missionaries from a ward I had served in because the local stake president was one of those men who thought that good leadership consisted of seeing the best in everyone. It doesn't. Sometimes leadership -- like parenthood -- involves seeing clearly what people are like and then telling them no. Good luck! 4
MorningStar Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 42 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: It sounds to me like he is intentionally pushing the boundaries, perhaps as a means of trying to assert control over his situation and people he sees as 'enemies' (your family?). He sounds narcissistic and dangerous. The Church has every right to tell him to stay home if he's not following the guidelines he's been given. From section 38.1.1 of the Handbook: If your bishop isn't enforcing boundaries, I would encourage you strongly to elevate your concern to the stake president. If that doesn't fix the problem, is a personal order possible? (I agree that it shouldn't come to this, but it might!) We have several families in our stake who have court orders that mean that certain other people cannot be in the same building as they are. Thank you! He certainly thinks very highly of himself and my stake president hasn’t been helpful except somewhat after my cousin who used to enforce offenders’ safety plans got involved. This quote might come in handy! He has stayed away from me since my new bishop told him to, but when we had a Zoom Christmas program due to snow, he played a solo and then apparently thought mute turns off your camera. He started to get undressed and someone texted his wife, “He’s getting undressed and he’s on camera!!!” Just how much more he was planning to take off during the meeting when kids were about to perform, we’ll never know. He got down to his garment top. Luckily my family didn’t see it but our friend’s daughter said she was scarred for life. 2
MorningStar Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 30 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: My mission president almost had to pull all six missionaries from a ward I had served in because the local stake president was one of those men who thought that good leadership consisted of seeing the best in everyone. It doesn't. Sometimes leadership -- like parenthood -- involves seeing clearly what people are like and then telling them no. Good luck! Amen! My relief society president said I shouldn’t talk about his past. It’s his PRESENT! He hasn’t changed! 4
smac97 Posted August 9, 2022 Author Posted August 9, 2022 7 hours ago, MorningStar said: Yes, I have. Long, bizarre, frustrating story. In another weird situation, we had to get my son in to see a therapist immediately and that led to me telling her about the man. She asked if he uses the Primary hallway and she was furious when I told her he lingers there every week after church. She said, “HE. CAN’T. DO. THAT.” She called the hotline and they talked to my bishop. I told her I felt like I had been assigned to deal with this situation and she was doubtful about that until I later told her I was at the store and a woman two people ahead of me was having trouble paying because her card wasn’t working. I ended up paying for her, which I had never done in my life, and she turned out to be the man’s ex daughter-in-law! The therapist gripped onto her chair. 😂 The DIL lives out of state and brought her kids up for visitation. We got to chatting and became friends. She had been married to the son who first discovered CP on his home computer (that was in a news article) and a video of him doing you know what that he had sent to a minor. Son begged him to stop. Wife sent him to SA. Son is estranged. The man didn’t get caught until he started doing it at work. Ex DIL told me he had abused his two daughters, his wife knew it, and it never came out. What a surprise! Not. There’s much more to the story. If your bishop and SP have not taken corrective action, have you taken the matter to the area presidency? Thanks, -Smac 1
jkwilliams Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 I know this is anecdotal, but I find it interesting that 4 former bishops I know who have had dealings with the help line tell me that, in their experience, it exists to shield the church from legal liability rather than to help abuse victims. A friend of mine (active LDS) wrote this: “I went to the church's website and offered some feedback on the official response to the AP article. I wasn't sure how long they'd let me go on, so I kept it short and direct. Probably not the kind of feedback they want, but, well, there it is... "’I know the official line is that the help line has been mischaracterized, but friends of mine who have had experiences with the help line support the AP article's version. I'm having a difficult time buying the official line. If the system is broken, own it, fix it, and move forward. Please, let's fix this.’” I’m not suggesting these folks are representative, but if some people—even a few—who have dealt with this have this impression, there might be a problem. 3
Snodgrassian Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 41 minutes ago, smac97 said: If your bishop and SP have not taken corrective action, have you taken the matter to the area presidency? Thanks, -Smac This is my main concern regarding the role that local leadership plays in the lives of the members. These men are not adequately trained nor equipped to handle any of these situations. These men all have day jobs, families, and stressors, now they are also asked to deal with very traumatic and life-changing, family-splitting events with essentially no training. These are situations that licensed therapists and legal professionals struggle to even deal with. The church teaches members to rely on their local leaders for most things. There are better resources out there than your leaders. The story above is a perfect example of someone raising the alarm, via the approved channels, with the same results. How will escalating it protect future victims? 2
Calm Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 25 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said: The church teaches members to rely on their local leaders for most things. Not in my life, spiritual guidance and religious education only. The Church did not teach me to expect my local leaders would teach me how to balance a budget, apply for a job, use a computer, how to ride a bike or drive a car. I was also never once taught I should go to my local leaders to discipline my kids, to get advice on where to move or what job to take, to get advice on what car to drive or whether to stick with the bus. Didn’t even push to go to my local leaders for college advice.
Calm Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 (edited) This is what the Church teaches one should do in the case of being in crisis in an abuse situation…not one is a church run organization and there is no mention of calling your bishop or another leader first. People may do so on their own volition because in crisis they seek out safe, familiar, and comfortable faces for help: “If you or someone you know has been abused, seek help immediately from civil authorities, child protective services, or adult protective services. You may also seek help from a victim advocate or medical or counseling professional. These services can help protect you and prevent further abuse. In addition, the help lines listed below are free and are staffed by people who are trained to help. These resources are not created, maintained, or controlled by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline(US and Canada; 170 languages): 1-800-4-A-Child or 1-800-422-4453. Crisis intervention and information, referrals to support services. Confidential 24/7 support. Child Protective Services | Childcare.gov The National Domestic Violence Hotline(200 languages): 1-800-799-7233 or 1-800-787-3224 (TTY). Advocacy information and safety planning. Email (English) and chat (English and Spanish) are also available. National Dating Abuse Helpline (200 languages): 1-866-331-9474 or 1-866-331-8453 (TDD). Email and text (English) and chat (English and Spanish) are also available. Freephone 24-hour National Domestic Violence Helpline (UK; English): 0808-2000-247. Email is also available. National Sexual Assault Hotline (US; English and Spanish): 1-800-656-4673. National Sexual Assault Online Hotline(US): Live chat. Help from a trained support specialist. National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (US; English and Spanish): 1-800-273-8255. Live chat.“ Edited August 9, 2022 by Calm
Calm Posted August 9, 2022 Posted August 9, 2022 “Friends, family, Church leaders, and others can connect you to resources that will help you feel safe so that you can heal and remember your worth. You are loved, and you can find hope and healing through the Savior Jesus Christ because of His atoning sacrifice.” Note here church leaders are helping them find help, not being the help themselves. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/get-help/abuse/help-for-victims?lang=eng Here it is explicit you call legal authorities first, not church leaders. They are told to counsel with leaders, but in order to receive help….not be told what to do (as is clear elsewhere when it states no leader should tell someone not to report abuse). They are there to help with spiritual healing, not legal issues. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/counseling-resources/abuse-victim?lang=eng “Bishops, branch presidents, and stake presidents should call the Church’s ecclesiastical help line each time they learn of abuse. This resource provides assistance in helping victims and in meeting reporting requirements. Go to Help Line Numbers for the help line number and more information. No Church leader should ever dismiss a report of abuse or counsel an individual not to report criminal activity. U.S. and Canada If other members learn of abuse, they should immediately contact legal authorities. They should also counsel with their bishop or stake president who will call the abuse help line for guidance in helping victims and meeting reporting requirements. Countries Outside of the U.S. and Canada Learn how and when you should report abuse. Stake presidents and bishops should immediately call the help line for guidance if one is available in their country. In countries that do not have a help line, a bishop who learns of abuse should contact his stake president. He will seek guidance from the area legal counsel at the area office (see General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsnone (2020), 38.6.2.1, ChurchofJesusChrist.org). Other members should comply with any legal reporting obligations and counsel with their bishops.” ”Victims of abuse may seek help from Church leaders for spiritual healing. Women and youth may feel more comfortable meeting with the bishop or other leaders if they have a friend, parent, or trusted Church leader present. Ensure that the victim knows she or he can have a support person present.”
smac97 Posted August 9, 2022 Author Posted August 9, 2022 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I know this is anecdotal, but I find it interesting that 4 former bishops I know who have had dealings with the help line tell me that, in their experience, it exists to shield the church from legal liability rather than to help abuse victims. A friend of mine (active LDS) wrote this: “I went to the church's website and offered some feedback on the official response to the AP article. I wasn't sure how long they'd let me go on, so I kept it short and direct. Probably not the kind of feedback they want, but, well, there it is... "’I know the official line is that the help line has been mischaracterized, but friends of mine who have had experiences with the help line support the AP article's version. I'm having a difficult time buying the official line. If the system is broken, own it, fix it, and move forward. Please, let's fix this.’” I’m not suggesting these folks are representative, but if some people—even a few—who have dealt with this have this impression, there might be a problem. I am curious about this characterization, in a few different ways: 1. A Strange Narrative: It seems like the narrative is that the helpline attorneys are discouraging/prohibiting bishops from reporting allegations of abuse, which if so would increase exposure to liability (for failure to report). And then there's the significant damage done to the Church's reputation by such a scheme. Given such increased risks as to both legal liability and reputational harm, how does this "shield{ing} the church from legal liability" thing work? 2. Questionable Inferences: The narrative also seems a bit odd given the inference of depravity it carries. Daniel C. Peterson put it well: Quote The case in question, which — do I actually need to say this? — is appalling and deeply sad, is being pressed into service to demonstrate that the leaders of the Church don’t care about children or about sexual abuse. Some critics, linking to another theme that is a huge favorite in some circles, are using it to depict the Brethren as deeply corrupt and as concerned only with money. (How they went from the fairly representative fathers, neighbors, elders quorum presidents, bishops, mission presidents, stake presidents, and the like that they pretty much all recently were to the callous, mercenary monsters that some apparently believe they suddenly became upon being called to full-time Church service is, well, something of a mystery.) The Brethren are decent men. Family men. Moreover, they are fairly intelligent, well-educated and well-informed. The narrative, however, more or less requires us to infer that these men are both depraved (they sanction sacrificing the welfare of abuse victims in order to - somehow - "shield the church from legal liability"), and stupid (they are not aware of the increased risks, both as to legal liability and reputational harm, arising from a scheme to discourage/prohibit reporting of abuse). Pres. Oaks graduated cum laude from the University of Chicago Law School, clerked for the Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court, taught law for ten years at the University of Chicago, served on the Utah Supreme Court, and was twice considered for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Elder Christofferson graduated got his JD from Duke University, clerked for a federal judge, and spent years practicing law. Elder Cook got his JC from Stanford and spent decades as a corporate attorney in San Francisco, as CEO of California Health System, and did pro bono work as a city attorney for 14 years. These men are, I think, pretty attuned to how the law works, both in the courtroom as in the "real world." The suggested narrative requires that they are broadly indifferent to the abuse of innocents and/or are grossly incompetent and ignorant of the ramifications of taking the path the narrative suggests. That seems . . . implausible. 3. Faulty/Hasty Generalization: The narrative being purveyed here is also difficult to square with the Deseret News article by Kate Taylor Lauck, who has had first-hand experience with the helpline (she previously worked as one of the attorneys on it) : Quote I can’t speak to the specifics of the case discussed in The Associated Press article. I only know what was reported. But I can speak to my work and my experience. I can speak to what I know. And I know my former colleagues are diligent, competent, compassionate and deeply committed to the work of protecting kids from abuse. We were a small team so I know each attorney personally. We often reflected on how lucky we felt that we got to use our law degrees to rescue children and help victims. To suggest that any attorney on the helpline is “hiding” abuse from law enforcement seems disingenuous or inaccurate. From my experience, it just wouldn’t happen. Not only is it illegal, it is immoral. The very fact that criminal charges have not been brought against anyone from the church is the first indication that the AP article may not have the complete story. I think the narrative may be a form of a logical fallacy, namely, a "hasty" or "faulty" generalization. See, e.g., here: Quote A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is similar to a proof by example in mathematics.[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions.[2] For example, one may generalize about all people or all members of a group, based on what one knows about just one or a few people: If one meets a rude person from a given country X, one may suspect that most people in country X are rude. If one sees only white swans, one may suspect that all swans are white. Expressed in more precise philosophical language, a fallacy of defective induction is a conclusion that has been made on the basis of weak premises, or one which is not justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence.[3] Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions, yet only weakly buttress the conclusions, hence a faulty generalization is produced. The essence of this inductive fallacy lies on the overestimation of an argument based on insufficiently-large samples under an implied margin or error.[2] And here: Quote Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization, which involves reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence[3]—essentially making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables or enough evidence. The narrative seems to be built on this fallacy. 4. Counter-Anecdote: My personal experiences with the helpline were uniformly positive, though happening under difficult circumstances. The legal advice was sound and appropriate. That said, the basis/reasoning for the legal advice was, in some instances, difficult to fully understand. And I say this as an attorney with 18 years of litigation experience. I imagine bishops with no training whatsoever might on occasion feel perplexed or confused. Thanks, -Smac 4
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now