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

[Moliere]

Yes, I understand that. I think that logic is coherent. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to that logic. I've actually argued for that in some of the Progmo-Exmo forums I participate in. In this case, it seems obvious to report, but as a general idea, I think it's compelling. At a minimum, it puts the ethics of the Church into an area that's at least understandable.

But what I hear people accusing the Church over and over is that their motivation is to "protect the good name of the Church". I don't understand that criticism because I can't imagine "the Church" (whatever that actually means) acting to cover up the actions of a psychopathic member non-leader in a way that actually does risk its "good name".

I agree that there is no coherent reason in this situation to argue that the church had a reason to protect their name. The abuser was not in any leadership position and had not been given any access to youth or children (like a primary teacher or scout leader). The dude was apparently barely active.

[Bo Diddley]

This is an interesting article that talks about the priest-penitent privilege. It's not cut and dried. Also, while we're talking about privilege, why not remove the lawyer-client privilege wrt to child abuse?

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/8...ex-abuse-cases

[All-American]

This is an interesting article that talks about the priest-penitent privilege. It's not cut and dried. Also, while we're talking about privilege, why not remove the lawyer-client privilege wrt to child abuse?

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/8...ex-abuse-cases

There is usually an exception to the attorney client privilege if someone is in danger.

[Bo Diddley]

There is usually an exception to the attorney client privilege if someone is in danger.

Beginning in the 1960s, state legislatures began to pass laws that limit the doctor-patient privilege and the clergy-penitent privilege to encourage, and in some cases mandate, reporting about child abuse. Many of these laws now require clergy, doctors, nurses, child care workers, day care operators, teachers and school principals to report suspected child abuse. In some states, only the attorney-client privilege remains.

I wonder if he's overstating the privilege here, but perhaps there's some changes still to be made.

[Non Sequitur]

There is usually an exception to the attorney client privilege if someone is in danger.

This is what's vexing in this case. Attorney's are professionals, trained to know what's privileged and what's not. I disagree with the bishop in this case, but I feel for him, because he's not professionally trained, and he found himself in an awful situation in which he should have never been put. I struggle to find the utility in encouraging lay clergy to accommodate the confession privilege of people willing to confess questionable acts..

[BigFatMeanie]

This is a pretty comprehensive writeup of the court filings in the Arizona abuse case and where the AP's reporting is potentially misleading.

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexualit...nted-evidence/

[Bo Diddley]

This is a pretty comprehensive writeup of the court filings in the Arizona abuse case and where the AP's reporting is potentially misleading.

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexualit...nted-evidence/

Good read. So it appears Agent Edwards, under oath, did misrepresent what the bishops knew.

Of course the damage is already done:

In Rezendes’ book on the Catholic sexual abuse revelations, he writes about wanting to try the case in the court of public opinion. Who needs a jury and careful court proceeding when you can persuade the masses? That appears to be what he’s attempting to do here as well.

And he’s pulling it off too! Most people without an investment in the faith don’t appear to be thinking twice about his conclusions.

[Pelado]

Good read. So it appears Agent Edwards, under oath, did misrepresent what the bishops knew.

Of course the damage is already done:

Wasn't it Warr who talked about the bishops knowing all about the abuse and doing nothing?

[Bo Diddley]

Wasn't it Warr who talked about the bishops knowing all about the abuse and doing nothing?

I could have it wrong.

[Donuthole]

Wasn't it Warr who talked about the bishops knowing all about the abuse and doing nothing?

I didn’t read the Warr testimony, but I read the Edwards testimony, and he definitely testified that Bishop Herrod had admitted to him that he (Bishop) knew the abuse was ongoing and was videoed. Which is apparently very different from the transcript of the Bishop’s conversation with Edwards.

[Bo Diddley]

I didn’t read the Warr testimony, but I read the Edwards testimony, and he definitely testified that Bishop Herrod had admitted to him that he (Bishop) knew the abuse was ongoing and was videoed. Which is apparently very different from the transcript of the Bishop’s conversation with Edwards.

Thanks. There was no way I was going to go back and reread any of that.

[Paperback Writer]

I didn’t read the Warr testimony, but I read the Edwards testimony, and he definitely testified that Bishop Herrod had admitted to him that he (Bishop) knew the abuse was ongoing and was videoed. Which is apparently very different from the transcript of the Bishop’s conversation with Edwards.

That was my thinking as well. I think Edwards testimony was in the court hearing for the mom's sentencing. The prosecution was trying to establish that the mom knew of the daughter's sexual abuse and Edward's testimony was key to that. Edwards implied that the Bishop knew of the on-going abuse and so did the mom because of the joint counseling sessions with the mom and the dad where the on-going sexual abuse was discussed. However, from the Bishop's statement, it looks like the joint counseling sessions were about the one-time confession and his porn addiction and maybe other stuff. Not to make any excuses for the mom, but if the Bishop's statement is accurate, that does not prove that the mom knew of on-going sexual abuse - just the one-time that was confessed. I think it highly likely that the mom knew of the on-going sexual abuse but the prosecution needed proof of it and Edward's testimony provided it. What I remember from Warr's testimony (from a narrative not the actual testimony) is that Warr suspected child abuse but did not know for certain and did not report it.

[All-American]

This is a pretty comprehensive writeup of the court filings in the Arizona abuse case and where the AP's reporting is potentially misleading.

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexualit...nted-evidence/

On the whole a good article, but they get at least one detail wrong.

It’s worth noting that McIntyre prosecutes criminal cases, not civil ones. And Arizona law does, in fact, make clergy liable if they testify about a confession made to them without the permission of the confessor (12-2233).

Here's the statute cited:

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.

This is a rule of evidence. It concerns what evidence can and cannot come into evidence at a trial. It does not make clergy liable for testifying about a confession made without permission of the confessor. It prevents a clergyman from being made a witness and testifying about a confession. Very different concepts.

I remain of the opinion that the bishop was not prevented under Arizona law from alerting authorities. The law probably allowed him not to report, but he was not compelled by the law not to report.

[Bo Diddley]

On the whole a good article, but they get at least one detail wrong.



Here's the statute cited:



This does not make clergy liable for testifying about a confession made without permission of the confessor. It prevents a clergyman from being made a witness and testifying about a confession. Very different concepts.

I remain of the opinion that the bishop was not prevented under Arizona law from alerting authorities. The law probably allowed him not to report, but he was not compelled by the law not to report.

That being the case, Bishop Herrod's statements lead me to question if he had a true understanding of the law. I don't know if that would stem from the help line giving him a bad interpretation, or if he simply studied it on his own or what.

[Paperback Writer]

On the whole a good article, but they get at least one detail wrong.



Here's the statute cited:



This is a rule of evidence. It concerns what evidence can and cannot come into evidence at a trial. It does not make clergy liable for testifying about a confession made without permission of the confessor. It prevents a clergyman from being made a witness and testifying about a confession. Very different concepts.

I remain of the opinion that the bishop was not prevented under Arizona law from alerting authorities. The law probably allowed him not to report, but he was not compelled by the law not to report.

Sure, a Bishop cannot be compelled to testify about a confession in Arizona, but what is your opinion on whether a Bishop can be sued in a Civil Court for violating a privileged confession? For instance, Bishop does call the authorities after a confession. Confessor is arrested but not convicted at trial or not arrested after an inconclusive investigation. Confessor loses his job anyway. Confessor then sues Bishop and claims that no such confession was made or that the Bishop misunderstood the confession.

This case is easy to second guess since the perpetrator made video evidence of his sexual abuse that implicated him. But what if there was no video? What if the parents coached the victims to deny the sexual abuse making an investigation difficult?

Further, I feel empathy for Bishop Herrod if his statement is accurate about only hearing a one-time confession and he didn't know of on-going abuse. He tried to do the right thing and called the hotline for assistance. In retrospect, he should have called the authorities and reported the abuse but that is all in hindsight. Also in hindsight, Herrod should have sought legal counsel before talking with special agent Edwards. Perhaps then he refuses the interview with Edwards so there is not a risk of Edwards testifying differently on the witness stand than what was recorded during the interview. Then Herrod probably does not get sued in a civil action that also includes his medical practice and keeps his name out of the papers by a reporter with a known agenda.

As you stated, Arizona law prevents a bishop from being made a witness and testifying about a confession. Since he didn't call the authorities back when the confession was made, he should have not said anything to anyone when the authorities began investigating looking for someone to blame after the perpetrator killed himself.