This is an interesting article. It seems like someone is doing something wrong or nefarious (not saying it isn't), but the article doesn't identify any clear wrongdoing by the Utah legislators other than the usual junkets and symbolic posturing. The Weber State prof does seem a bit sketch.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News
Collapse
X
-
It has been fascinating. I guess you can't write an unnecessarily mean spirited article and get a positive reaction. Who knew. Also, I like this article about it as well.Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View PostThis Sanderson thing has been fascinating. I can't find anyone sympathetic to the Wired article and nothing but overwhelming support for Sanderson. I guarantee you this will result in a spike in book sales for him.
As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
--Kendrick Lamar
Comment
-
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!
For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.
Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."
Comment
-
Haha. I got a chuckle out of that. "Wow. You know Utah is desperate when they ask all faiths to join in prayer."Originally posted by myboynoah View Post
Comment
-
Arizona Supreme Court rules in favor of the Church in the case that made the rounds last year about the bishop not reporting confessions of child abuse to the authorities.
The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can refuse to answer questions or turn over documents under a state law. The law exempts religious officials from having to report child sex abuse if they learn of the crime during a confessional setting. The ruling stems from a child sex abuse lawsuit filed by three children. They accuse the church of a conspiracy to cover up their abuse by their father, church member Paul Adams. Attorneys for the children intend to file a motion asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling.τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν
Comment
-
I have mixed feelings on this one.Originally posted by All-American View PostArizona Supreme Court rules in favor of the Church in the case that made the rounds last year about the bishop not reporting confessions of child abuse to the authorities.
https://apnews.com/article/mormon-ch...source=Twitter
Comment
-
the church not doing all it can to report is very tellingOriginally posted by All-American View PostArizona Supreme Court rules in favor of the Church in the case that made the rounds last year about the bishop not reporting confessions of child abuse to the authorities.
https://apnews.com/article/mormon-ch...source=Twitter
Comment
-
-
First, it was mostly a joke. They are literally not telling.Originally posted by Maximus View Postwhat are good reasons to toe the line and not be proactive on this?
Second, the policy reason is, if the bishop has to report it, then you discourage people from talking to the bishop in the first place, which means it tends to stay hidden. Whether or not that is what happens in practice is a question I couldn’t answer but I don’t think it is unreasonable to think that such a policy has a net positive effect for victims advocacy.τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν
Comment
-
Someone help me out here. There is mandatory reporting in other states and countries. So the church abides by those laws in those jurisdictions. Given the negative publicity the Arizona case has attracted, why is the church fighting this in court? Why not get ahead of the ball and say you know what, our policy will now be if a member goes to a bishop/SP and confesses sexual abuse, they will be treated universally the same; i.e. reporting to authorities with the express understanding that no forgiveness will be granted until they go through the legal process. Why are they trying to cling to the clergy penitent privilege in jurisdictions where it is allowed?
the church got favorable press when they worked with the Utah legislature and compromised with the various gay issues. Why not take another easy win in the public's eye?"...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
-
If reporting is mandatory these people who confess, don't get reported and keep raping kids won't confess, not get reported and keep raping kids.Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostSomeone help me out here. There is mandatory reporting in other states and countries. So the church abides by those laws in those jurisdictions. Given the negative publicity the Arizona case has attracted, why is the church fighting this in court? Why not get ahead of the ball and say you know what, our policy will now be if a member goes to a bishop/SP and confesses sexual abuse, they will be treated universally the same; i.e. reporting to authorities with the express understanding that no forgiveness will be granted until they go through the legal process. Why are they trying to cling to the clergy penitent privilege in jurisdictions where it is allowed?
the church got favorable press when they worked with the Utah legislature and compromised with the various gay issues. Why not take another easy win in the public's eye?
Comment
-
The family is suing the church for "conspiracy and negligence." The family is seeking to place blame on the church through the courts for the abuse that occurred. They are looking for "compensatory and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial." Further, there are news headlines that declare the church "let the abuse happen." Consider all that carefully for a moment. Then ask, who truly is responsible for the abuse?Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostSomeone help me out here. There is mandatory reporting in other states and countries. So the church abides by those laws in those jurisdictions. Given the negative publicity the Arizona case has attracted, why is the church fighting this in court? Why not get ahead of the ball and say you know what, our policy will now be if a member goes to a bishop/SP and confesses sexual abuse, they will be treated universally the same; i.e. reporting to authorities with the express understanding that no forgiveness will be granted until they go through the legal process. Why are they trying to cling to the clergy penitent privilege in jurisdictions where it is allowed?
the church got favorable press when they worked with the Utah legislature and compromised with the various gay issues. Why not take another easy win in the public's eye?
Is a Bishop (or other clergy) thus responsible for the actions of every individual who comes to them and confesses to a sin, that is also criminal in nature? In some parts of the world, legislative bodies have answered that question in context to this story by lawfully compelling clergy to report instances of abuse. One can argue this is a good thing. One can argue that in this situation in Arizona, the Bishop, or Bishops should have broken clergy-penitent privilege. But neither of those arguments, or lawfully compelling clergy to report, or the lawsuit address the originally stated question:
Who truly is responsible for the abuse?
If it is fair to criticize the church and their position then it is also fair to consider the totality of the circumstances. You have asked: "Why cling to the clergy penitent privilege in jurisdictions where it is allowed?" Because it is allowed in those jurisdictions, and there may well be unintended consequences if that privilege is disregarded. Such as, since one cannot seek further remedy from the perpetrator, then one can seek financial remedy from an institution.
The publicity is the publicity, and irrelevant because it only serves to draw eyeballs, so news outlets can make money. It's an awful situation. It is sad and miserable to think what the children suffered. That's the only thing that matters. Placing blame and receiving compensation isn't going to help the recovery. It's just not. The pretense that the lawsuit is designed to raise awareness, likely has raised awareness in the church, but again that is not what the lawsuit is really about.Last edited by tooblue; 04-14-2023, 11:59 AM.
Comment
-
When it comes to issues like this, I think "favorable press" is a pipe dream. No matter what path is pursued.Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostSomeone help me out here. There is mandatory reporting in other states and countries. So the church abides by those laws in those jurisdictions. Given the negative publicity the Arizona case has attracted, why is the church fighting this in court? Why not get ahead of the ball and say you know what, our policy will now be if a member goes to a bishop/SP and confesses sexual abuse, they will be treated universally the same; i.e. reporting to authorities with the express understanding that no forgiveness will be granted until they go through the legal process. Why are they trying to cling to the clergy penitent privilege in jurisdictions where it is allowed?
the church got favorable press when they worked with the Utah legislature and compromised with the various gay issues. Why not take another easy win in the public's eye?"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 tooblue View Post
A bunch of people share blame for the abuse. The church, mostly through faulty legal advice, shares a lot of the blame for the continued abuse once the father confessed.The family is suing the church for "conspiracy and negligence." The family is seeking to place blame on the church through the courts for the abuse that occurred. They are looking for "compensatory and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial." Further, there are news headlines that declare the church "let the abuse happen." Consider all that carefully for a moment. Then ask, who truly is responsible for the abuse?
Those surviving kids deserve everything that is legally available to them. Doesn't matter if the money will repair anything.
"...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
Comment