Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Copelius View Post

    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:

    Bishops and stake presidents encourage members to follow the law and report such matters when required.
    Also
    That's a very ambiguous statement. Does it mean that Bishops and stake presidents 1) encourage members to follow the law and 2) report such matters when required

    OR does it mean that Bishops and stake presidents encourage members to 1) follow the law and 2) report such matters when required?

    Is the job solely encouragement of the members, or does it also involve reporting when wrong-doing is discovered?

    If it is intended to include reporting by bishops and stake presidents, I don't care for the addition of "when required". It seems to mean that the Church only sanctions reporting by ecclesiastic leaders when required by state/local laws. At a minimum, they should change that to "when appropriate". I'd also support a change to "when appropriate, but especially to protect any current or potential victims".
    "I think it was King Benjamin who said 'you sorry ass shitbags who have no skills that the market values also have an obligation to have the attitude that if one day you do in fact win the PowerBall Lottery that you will then impart of your substance to those without.'"
    - Goatnapper'96

    Comment


    • Church releases a statement:

      The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no tolerance for abuse of any kind. Our hearts ache for all survivors of abuse and go out to the victims in this case. This tragic abuse was perpetrated by the young victims' own father who died of suicide in jail while awaiting trial. As clergy, the bishop was required by Arizona law to maintain the confidentiality of the father's limited confession. Notwithstanding, the bishop took the few details he had and made efforts to protect the children, primarily through the mother. The bishop urged the family to report the abuse or give him consent to do so, but they refused. The bishop also convened a church disciplinary council and condemned the limited conduct he knew of in the strongest terms by excommunicating Mr. Adams from the church in 2013. It was not until law enforcement made an arrest of the father that the bishop learned of the scope and magnitude of the abuse that far exceeded anything he had heard or suspected. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its clergy worked to handle this matter appropriately consistent with Arizona law. It has also tried to assist the victims and remains willing to commit significant resources to aid and assist these children. The church will continue to offer assistance to these young victims." The statement is from Sam Penrod Media relations manager, Church Communication Department
      https://www.kvoa.com/news/local/news...cdb11e050.html
      "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
      "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
      - SeattleUte

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
        I predict that this will solve everything and we can all be happy again.
        τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

        Comment


        • If a bishop in a do-not-report state receives a confession of child abuse, can't he interview the kid(s) under the pretext of a routine bishop's interview, and then claim that in the course of that interview he became at least suspicious that abuse was occurring and then go to the authorities with that suspicion, without fear of legal blowback from the penitent abuser or the state? What good is a bishop's power of discernment (with a little help from the abuser, perhaps) if it can't sniff out child abuse?

          Comment


          • It's this little tidbit of the church's statement that is interesting: "As clergy, the bishop was required by Arizona law to maintain the confidentiality of the father's limited confession"

            Maybe there is some other section of AZ law that we're missing, but if the statute that All-American posted above is the correct and relevant statue, I'm not sure how that can be interpreted as being required by law to maintain confidentiality, but I'm admittedly not a lawyer (and thank goodness for that).

            Even if we stipulate that not violating confidentiality was required by law, I still agree with YOhio's take that that Bishop should go ahead and violate the law and report it. If I was a Bishop, I would rather be held personally liable for violating some non-disclosure law when I reported the abuse, and have a clean conscience that I did the right thing regardless of the law, than to live with the knowledge that I could have stopped ongoing abuse and didn't. (Also, violating the confidentiality law and reporting the abuse would likely get me released as Bishop - so that would be a silver lining in an otherwise terrible cloud that I would never wish upon anyone.)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
              If a bishop in a do-not-report state receives a confession of child abuse, can't he interview the kid(s) under the pretext of a routine bishop's interview, and then claim that in the course of that interview he became at least suspicious that abuse was occurring and then go to the authorities with that suspicion, without fear of legal blowback from the penitent abuser or the state? What good is a bishop's power of discernment (with a little help from the abuser, perhaps) if it can't sniff out child abuse?
              Discernment doesn't make a person clairvoyant. The statement indicates the Bishop was working with a "limited confession" and that the mother was not cooperative. Further, he was legally prohibited from sharing the information with authorities, and we don't know what ramifications to the Bishop and the church there could be for violating the law so, the hotline did advise him correctly. Also, if the Bishop was able to excommunicate the individual then the man likely did not have the Melchizedek priesthood.

              The situation is awful. We all would've hoped for a different outcome. And I can only morn with the family and the Bishop for having to live through such miserable circumstances. Pass judgement if you must, and just hope you are never put in such a perilous situation.
              Last edited by tooblue; 08-05-2022, 05:11 PM.

              Comment


              • Funny how confident we all are with the benefit of hindsight and having no stakes.
                "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                  Funny how confident we all are with the benefit of hindsight and having no stakes.
                  You don't need hindsight. Name any scenario in which it makes sense to not notify authorities if you know of ongoing abuse.

                  Given the amount with this and the bsa cases..systematic trying to protect the church and not report

                  Comment


                  • During my five years on the ward throne, I didn't have a single incident of spousal or child abuse, at least none was ever brought to my attention. I wonder if I was simply obtuse, or just very lucky.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Maximus View Post

                      You don't need hindsight. Name any scenario in which it makes sense to not notify authorities if you know of ongoing abuse.

                      Given the amount with this and the bsa cases..systematic trying to protect the church and not report
                      I’m curious how much the bishop knew. It sounds like he knew enough to be concerned and get the wife involved but I highly doubt he knew the extent of the abuse.

                      When people confess they almost never give a full account. They rationalize and downplay things and don’t divulge other things. I still think the church was wrong in how it handled thr situation but I’m more and more inclined to think the bishop did what most people on this board would do in this situation.
                      "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                      Comment


                      • One question someone needs to answer is why would the church have any incentive to try and keep the bishop from reporting the sexual abuse in this case. I can’t think of one.
                        "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                          One question someone needs to answer is why would the church have any incentive to try and keep the bishop from reporting the sexual abuse in this case. I can’t think of one.
                          To encourage people to talk to them.

                          And comply with the law, fine, but let’s get to the point.
                          τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by All-American View Post

                            To encourage people to talk to them.

                            And comply with the law, fine, but let’s get to the point.
                            What is the benefit of encouraging a sex offender to talk with a bishop? If not to rescue the victim, what kind of magic is a bishop going to perform that will improve the situation?
                            "The mind is not a boomerang. If you throw it too far it will not come back." ~ Tom McGuane

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                              Funny how confident we all are with the benefit of hindsight and having no stakes.
                              I’m sure there were some folks who stopped praying once Darius was tricked into making his decree, yet Daniel had some spine. It’s infuriating because it (appears) to go against every honorable, noble and good value taught in church.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Moliere View Post

                                I’m curious how much the bishop knew. It sounds like he knew enough to be concerned and get the wife involved but I highly doubt he knew the extent of the abuse.

                                When people confess they almost never give a full account. They rationalize and downplay things and don’t divulge other things. I still think the church was wrong in how it handled thr situation but I’m more and more inclined to think the bishop did what most people on this board would do in this situation.
                                No doubt the guy minimized his actions. Having lied about my pron exposure in a temple recommend interview before, I understand the impetus.

                                however, I am at a loss to come up with a ‘fuzzy’ downplayed scenario that the bishop is concerned enough to call the hot line, rope in the spouse to get him to report, and finally excommunicate him that the church is alluding to to cover for the official inaction. It was child abuse, even if the extent of the evilness of it wasn’t known at the beginning.

                                I think AA’s opinion that the legal advice the bishops got from the church lawyers was simply incorrect is the best explanation. It was catastrophic in the end, but I can see how everything rippled from that call.

                                "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                                "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                                - SeattleUte

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X