Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Northwestcoug]

Ok, fine, the real problem is that a dude was abusing his daughters.

But it looks like the bishop was given incorrect legal advice.

I don’t even know how those bishops process the cascade of everything that resulted from the calls to the help line.

also, I want to be charitable to the first bishop. But there had to be a way to get the authorities indirectly involved. Like maybe have the RSP make a family visit, and if anything looked amiss it would be out of his hands and it could be reported? Also, couldn’t he have just been excommunicated immediately?

[Moliere]

Ok, fine, the real problem is that a dude was abusing his daughters.

But it looks like the bishop was given incorrect legal advice.

This is a very succinct summary. The guy should spend his life in prison (well, if he hadn’t killed himself). The church should pay a hefty sum to the victims since it gave incorrect legal advice.

I want to feel bad for the bishop. He’s probably someone with no legal training that was absolutely torn in what to do. It’s pretty clear he wanted to report it, going so far as talking to the wife who knew about the abuse and she didn’t report it. Should the bishop have ignored the advice from the church? Maybe, but when lawyers are involved and you feel like you talked to a competent lawyer then you probably don’t feel like you can go against that advice.

[Non Sequitur]

Ok, fine, the real problem is that a dude was abusing his daughters.

But it looks like the bishop was given incorrect legal advice.

I don't understand why a bishop needs legal advice in a case like this. If you know a father is sexually abusing a little girl, you put a stop to it, regardless of what Arizona law says. How stupid is it that we pass laws to protect this kind of clergy confidentiality, as though some lay bishop is going to Jesus the evil out of a confessed child rapist? What kind of clergy confidentiality is there if a member confides to a bishop that he has been secretly organizing efforts that denounce certain Church doctrine or Church Leaders. How much confidentiality will Kirton McConkie afford that person?

[All-American]

I don't understand why a bishop needs legal advice in a case like this. If you know a father is sexually abusing a little girl, you put a stop to it, regardless of what Arizona law says. How stupid is it that we pass laws to protect this kind of clergy confidentiality, as though some lay bishop is going to Jesus the evil out of a confessed child rapist? What kind of clergy confidentiality is there if a member confides to a bishop that he has been secretly organizing efforts that denounce certain Church doctrine or Church Leaders. How much confidentiality will Kirton McConkie afford that person?

In some states it would be against the law for the bishop to report it. In some states it would be against the law for the bishop to not report it. In some states neither absolute is true, and a duty to report or not report may or may not arise based on the circumstances.

This is exactly the kind of case where you want legal guidance.

[Paperback Writer]

I don't understand why a bishop needs legal advice in a case like this. If you know a father is sexually abusing a little girl, you put a stop to it, regardless of what Arizona law says. How stupid is it that we pass laws to protect this kind of clergy confidentiality, as though some lay bishop is going to Jesus the evil out of a confessed child rapist? What kind of clergy confidentiality is there if a member confides to a bishop that he has been secretly organizing efforts that denounce certain Church doctrine or Church Leaders. How much confidentiality will Kirton McConkie afford that person?

So, your advice is that a Bishiop should break the law? And open the Bishop up to a lawsuit by the wife because he illegally reported the abuse. Her husband is now in prison and the family has most likely lost their financial support. She wouldn't report the abuse of her own daughters so its highly likely she would sue the Bishop for breaking the law and sending her husband off to prison.

I understand your point about protecting children and certainly agree with it. But the Bishiop hotline is to protect the Bishop. Maybe there are not enough hotlines to go around. As far as the necessity of laws protecting clergy confidentiality, what is your stance on attorney-client privilege in such cases?

[Non Sequitur]

In some states it would be against the law for the bishop to report it. In some states it would be against the law for the bishop to not report it. In some states neither absolute is true, and a duty to report or not report may or may not arise based on the circumstances.

This is exactly the kind of case where you want legal guidance.

At what point does the law become irrelevant? For me personally, child rape is on the side of the line where legal guidance is not necessary.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The relatively recent change requiring two adults of the same gender (or a married couple) to be in every children's classroom in the Church, results in my wife being asked to sit in on a Primary class taught by a 75-year-old woman who was a beloved and honored elementary school teacher for decades, with nary a whiff of misconduct. But up to the point that Paul Adams confessed his horrific behavior to his bishop, he and his wife (who is very culpable here as well) would be perfectly acceptable under the protective system. I'm not trying to make a point--it just shows how difficult this problem is to address adequately before misconduct comes to light.

[fusnik]

At what point does the law become irrelevant? For me personally, child rape is on the side of the line where legal guidance is not necessary.

Hey but in some states it’s illegal! Its a slippery slope, if clergy start turning in child rapists today, tomorrow humanity might slip into total anarchy.

This happened in my hood growing up. A guy on the HC who was a former Bishop molested about 15 of the young women with whom I went to elementary, JH and HS. He told the police that he had been working with the SP and Bishop for years to get over this temptation.

[YOhio]

So, your advice is that a Bishiop should break the law? And open the Bishop up to a lawsuit by the wife because he illegally reported the abuse. Her husband is now in prison and the family has most likely lost their financial support. She wouldn't report the abuse of her own daughters so its highly likely she would sue the Bishop for breaking the law and sending her husband off to prison.

I understand your point about protecting children and certainly agree with it. But the Bishiop hotline is to protect the Bishop. Maybe there are not enough hotlines to go around. As far as the necessity of laws protecting clergy confidentiality, what is your stance on attorney-client privilege in such cases?

I don't think that's exactly what NS is saying. Yes the bishop should break the law in this instance. If he gets sued the church should indemnify him (I can't imagine a scenario in this life or next where a district attorney prosecutes). Any litigation would become a public spectacle and likely prompt a change in laws. The bishop looks like a man of honor and integrity (which he would be) and the church looks as if it's protecting the most vulnerable (which it would be). Much better scenario than the church being so afraid of telling on a pedophile that it allows a monster to continue to destroy the life of a child. This really isn't hard. In fact, it reminds me of a hymn we sing on occasion. Do what is right let the consequence follow.

[BigFatMeanie]

Excommunicating a Melchizedek Priesthood holder must be done at the Stake level, generally with the stake High Council. Assuming the dude was an MP holder the Stake Presidency and most all the High Councilors would have had to know about the abuse. Even if he wasn't an MP and the excommunication was done at the ward level, the Bishop and at least two other High Priests plus a clerk would have had to know about the abuse, and I find it rather unlikely that the SP wouldn't have known about the conditions that warranted an excommunication in his stake. In either case, it's not just the Bishop that didn't report. There are lots of people that likely knew what was going on.

I agree with the takes on here that the Church's actions as a whole (multiple layers of ecclesiastical leaders and lawyers) are indefensible in this case. I can't find anything I disagree with in YOhio's post above.

[Bo Diddley]

I don't think that's exactly what NS is saying. Yes the bishop should break the law in this instance. If he gets sued the church should indemnify him (I can't imagine a scenario in this life or next where a district attorney prosecutes). Any litigation would become a public spectacle and likely prompt a change in laws. The bishop looks like a man of honor and integrity (which he would be) and the church looks as if it's protecting the most vulnerable (which it would be). Much better scenario than the church being so afraid of telling on a pedophile that it allows a monster to continue to destroy the life of a child. This really isn't hard. In fact, it reminds me of a hymn we sing on occasion. Do what is right let the consequence follow.

This is a reasonable approach. I expect the Church will be looking to make changes.

[tooblue]

Excommunicating a Melchizedek Priesthood holder must be done at the Stake level, generally with the stake High Council. Assuming the dude was an MP holder the Stake Presidency and most all the High Councilors would have had to know about the abuse. Even if he wasn't an MP and the excommunication was done at the ward level, the Bishop and at least two other High Priests plus a clerk would have had to know about the abuse, and I find it rather unlikely that the SP wouldn't have known about the conditions that warranted an excommunication in his stake. In either case, it's not just the Bishop that didn't report. There are lots of people that likely knew what was going on.

I agree with the takes on here that the Church's actions as a whole (multiple layers of ecclesiastical leaders and lawyers) are indefensible in this case. I can't find anything I disagree with in YOhio's post above.

It is more than just unlikely—the Bishop does not have the authority to excommunicate the individual in this circumstance. That is why the story on Yahoo can be considered suspect, or at least not a complete, and accurate picture of the circumstances.

[SteelBlue]

Isn't at least part of the problem here that confession to an LDS bishop can seen by an abuser a legitimate option for forgiveness or guilt reduction that may not necessarily involve the law? It seems to me that no believer should be walking around thinking confession is a legitimate path to "forgiveness" when it comes to sex offenses. Should be common knowledge that the first and only step toward forgiveness is to report yourself to the authorities first and get right with your church in 2 decades when your sentence has been served.

[smokymountainrain]

Isn't at least part of the problem here that confession to an LDS bishop can seen by an abuser a legitimate option for forgiveness or guilt reduction that may not necessarily involve the law? It seems to me that no believer should be walking around thinking confession is a legitimate path to "forgiveness" when it comes to sex offenses. Should be common knowledge that the first and only step toward forgiveness is to report yourself to the authorities first and get right with your church in 2 decades when your sentence has been served.

right. i would hope that if i were the bishop in that scenario - even if i felt like i shouldn't report to authorities - that would would tell the guy "this confession to me is all well and good, but you realize the repentance process will involve you confessing to law enforcement as well, right? otherwise this supposed confession/repentance falls flat on its face, you piece of shit."

[Copelius]

right. i would hope that if i were the bishop in that scenario - even if i felt like i shouldn't report to authorities - that would would tell the guy "this confession to me is all well and good, but you realize the repentance process will involve you confessing to law enforcement as well, right? otherwise this supposed confession/repentance falls flat on its face, you piece of shit."

I don't remember from 30+ years ago, but I thought the handbook had just that kind of guidance to bishops receiving confession of illegal activities.

Just looked up the current Handbook:

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.

Also

Evidence of Repentance
Spiritual guidance is needed to discern whether a person has sincerely repented. Such repentance is shown more reliably by righteous actions over time rather than by intense sorrow during a single interview. Factors to consider include: . . Compliance with legal requirements. . .