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

[tooblue]

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.

Those surviving kids deserve everything that is legally available to them. Doesn't matter if the money will repair anything.

Yes, it is likely a bunch of people share blame for the abuse, but you cannot include the Bishops of the church in that blame. One can argue that the Bishops and by extension the church share blame for not reporting the abuse, but they were following the law. Thus, there was not faulty legal advice and any remedy is with the law. As has been made clear, other jurisdictions have changed their laws to address these types of situations differently.

I don't know what the children are owed. That is a really difficult to measure. They are not owed money from the church. Repair, or recovery is what matters most. It could never be found in this lawsuit.

[Northwestcoug]

Yes, it is likely a bunch of people share blame for the abuse, but you cannot include the Bishops of the church in that blame. One can argue that the Bishops and by extension the church share blame for not reporting the abuse, but they were following the law. Thus, there was not faulty legal advice and any remedy is with the law. As has been made clear, other jurisdictions have changed their laws to address these types of situations differently.

I don't know what the children are owed. That is a really difficult to measure. They are not owed money from the church. Repair, or recovery is what matters most. It could never be found in this lawsuit.

We extensively talked about this when the news first broke. I think your assertion that they followed the law; i.e they were bound by Arizona law not to report, is not correct. The most charitable and likely explanation is that the K&M hotline gave them incorrect legal advice. There was/is an exception to AZ law that allowed clergy to report abuse. It would have been the right thing to do even if the law was less clear, but certainly it should have been done in this instance.

Given that the church (through the local leadership) could have stopped years of additional abuse simply by reporting it, then yeah, those kids are owed money from the church. It's literally the least they could do right now.

[Lost Student]

We extensively talked about this when the news first broke. I think your assertion that they followed the law; i.e they were bound by Arizona law not to report, is not correct. The most charitable and likely explanation is that the K&M hotline gave them incorrect legal advice. There was/is an exception to AZ law that allowed clergy to report abuse. It would have been the right thing to do even if the law was less clear, but certainly it should have been done in this instance.

Given that the church (through the local leadership) could have stopped years of additional abuse simply by reporting it, then yeah, those kids are owed money from the church. It's literally the least they could do right now.

Why?

[Northwestcoug]

Why?

They're complicit in the continued abuse of those children. And it's the right thing to do.

[BigFatMeanie]

We extensively talked about this when the news first broke. I think your assertion that they followed the law; i.e they were bound by Arizona law not to report, is not correct. The most charitable and likely explanation is that the K&M hotline gave them incorrect legal advice. There was/is an exception to AZ law that allowed clergy to report abuse. It would have been the right thing to do even if the law was less clear, but certainly it should have been done in this instance.

Given that the church (through the local leadership) could have stopped years of additional abuse simply by reporting it, then yeah, those kids are owed money from the church. It's literally the least they could do right now.

Uhh, didn't the AZ Supreme Court just confirm the assertion that the church followed the law is correct?

[Moliere]

They're complicit in the continued abuse of those children. And it's the right thing to do.

Your point is a moral one, not a legal one. The church doesn’t owe them money because the church was within the law. Now, should the church lay the family money anyway? That’s a moral question with consequences on both sides.

[Northwestcoug]

Uhh, didn't the AZ Supreme Court just confirm the assertion that the church followed the law is correct?

Not the way I read it. The church's version is that AZ law prevented the bishops from reporting. The appeal and the case before the supreme court is dealing with the defendant's suit to get additional documents relating to the case. Those courts agreed that the clergy privilege allows the church to withhold those documents.

but lawyers in the crowd, please chime in.

[old_gregg]

Uhh, didn't the AZ Supreme Court just confirm the assertion that the church followed the law is correct?

the holding was that the church’s decision to shelter a man who confessed to molesting his daughter and posting videos of it on the internet was permissible and the church was not required to report. to be clear, that decision to not report, while permissible, directly allowed him to molest his other daughter and post videos of him abusing her after confessing to his bishop (and after the bishop decided his spirit of discernment and wise counsel was enough to protect the kids). glad to hear that the church spokesperson does not condone abuse of any kind, though. the kids have that going for them!

[Pelado]

the holding was that the church’s decision to shelter a man who confessed to molesting his daughter and posting videos of it on the internet was permissible and the church was not required to report. to be clear, that decision to not report, while permissible, directly allowed him to molest his other daughter and post videos of him abusing her after confessing to his bishop (and after the bishop decided his spirit of discernment and wise counsel was enough to protect the kids). glad to hear that the church spokesperson does not condone abuse of any kind, though. the kids have that going for them!

My recollection is that the guy's confession to the bishops was very limited and didn't reveal the extent of his despicable activity.

[old_gregg]

My recollection is that the guy's confession to the bishops was very limited and didn't reveal the extent of his despicable activity.

the bishop knew he was molesting bus very young daughter. i’d like to think most of us would report that, even if we thought it was prohibited by law and at risk to ourselves.

[Pelado]

the bishop knew he was molesting bus very young daughter. i’d like to think most of us would report that, even if we thought it was prohibited by law and at risk to ourselves.

I don't remember what exactly the bishop knew, but I hope that any of us here would report it if we were aware of molestation - especially if it could be continuing.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't remember what exactly the bishop knew, but I hope that any of us here would report it if we were aware of molestation - especially if it could be continuing.

What the bishop knew was bad enough. It generated a call to the hotline, roping in the wife repeatedly to get him to stop, and then finally excommunication 2 years later.

[Lost Student]

What the bishop knew was bad enough. It generated a call to the hotline, roping in the wife repeatedly to get him to stop, and then finally excommunication 2 years later.

How do you know what the bishop knew? I recall reading somewhere that the guy was ex'd for banging his own mom . I think if the bishop were aware of ongoing abuse, he would've not only excommunicated much sooner, but done more to get the guy away from his victims.

The narrative that church leadership was trying to "protect one of their own" just doesn't ring true to me.

[Northwestcoug]

How do you know what the bishop knew? I recall reading somewhere that the guy was ex'd for banging his own mom . I think if the bishop were aware of ongoing abuse, he would've not only excommunicated much sooner, but done more to get the guy away from his victims.

Even if the bishop wasn’t aware of ‘ongoing’ abuse, what he knew was bad enough. We have court testimony documenting the extent of what the bishop knew (admittedly hearsay). It was linked here; it was sickening.

but forget about the extent of what the bishop knew. What plausible scenario is there for abuse bad enough that the bishop called the hotline, but not bad enough for him to immediately initiate church discipline? Or put another way, if the hotline didn’t exist (and he was aware that he had the option to report the abuse under AZ law), would the bishop have acted differently?

Again, the most likely scenario is that the bishop got catastrophically bad legal advice from the hotline. And the consequences were horrendous.

[tooblue]

Even if the bishop wasn’t aware of ‘ongoing’ abuse, what he knew was bad enough. We have court testimony documenting the extent of what the bishop knew (admittedly hearsay). It was linked here; it was sickening.

but forget about the extent of what the bishop knew. What plausible scenario is there for abuse bad enough that the bishop called the hotline, but not bad enough for him to immediately initiate church discipline? Or put another way, if the hotline didn’t exist (and he was aware that he had the option to report the abuse under AZ law), would the bishop have acted differently?

Again, the most likely scenario is that the bishop got catastrophically bad legal advice from the hotline. And the consequences were horrendous.

This has been covered earlier in this thread. We don't know exactly what the Bishop knew, or what he was told. There are many reasons that a Bishop can call the hotline that do not deal with horrendous circumstances. Sometimes a Bishop may need a third, objective party to talk with and help make sense of situations that are difficult to navigate. That is why the hotline exists. This continued insistence that the Bishop got "catastrophically bad legal advice" is not supported by the facts as judged by the Arizona Supreme Court.