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

[Northwestcoug]

Partly to ensure that things get reported and properly handled. Many bishops screw up these cases badly which leads to serious complications not just for the church, but for the bishop who often ends up being in legal trouble when things aren't done properly. The bishop is 100% a representative of the church. How could talking to the church's legal department be a conflict of interest?

I agree that a church representative should get advice from some church legal department. I guess one reason I’m asking the question is because I wonder if there’s a better way. If K&M is involved in potential settlements from these calls, shouldn’t it be someone else who is giving that advice to a bishop?

Anyone please correct my opinion if it’s full of legal holes.

[tooblue]

Partly to ensure that things get reported and properly handled. Many bishops screw up these cases badly which leads to serious complications not just for the church, but for the bishop who often ends up being in legal trouble when things aren't done properly. The bishop is 100% a representative of the church. How could talking to the church's legal department be a conflict of interest?

I agree that a church representative should get advice from some church legal department. I guess one reason I’m asking the question is because I wonder if there’s a better way. If K&M is involved in potential settlements from these calls, shouldn’t it be someone else who is giving that advice to a bishop?

Anyone please correct my opinion if it’s full of legal holes.

I am having this conversation with our Ute friends elsewhere. I have written ...

What a mess of an article; rambling and incoherent in its focus. It reads more like a hit piece than an in-depth expose. Why? Outside of the fact children were abused and there is a help line that goes directly to law offices who represent the church, any of the other supposed facts presented are supposition. Supposition representative of one specific agenda driven perspective.

Also, why release it on a Friday—to hide the fact that it is so poorly written and that the conclusion drawn from the title, but not supported by facts is at best inaccurate?

Here's the thing about the help line: Bishops are under legal obligation to report abuse without equivocation. That's not negotiable. That's why when they call the help line they speak to a lawyer, who informs them that they are personally, legally liable of consequences if they choose not to report the abuse to authorities. The hotline doesn't protect the church. It is designed to inform the Bishops who in some circumstances do not head the legal advice given to them ...

A Bishop is not only the spiritual leader representative of a geographic area called a Ward, but he is also, legally speaking, the representative of the church in that area.

By law, especially where I live, individuals in a position such as the Bishop of a Ward can be criminally charged by authorities if they do not report abuse when told to them by a congregant. That's where the article gets this whole situation wrong. Privacy is paramount. The type of transparency the article is calling for could violate attorney client privilege, if the conversation between the Bishop and lawyer is privileged. It also could obliterate many other individuals privacy. So who better to have the conversation with than with a lawyer?

The bishop in this story made a critical mistake though that was against church policy. Any accusation of abuse need to be reported through the hotline and bishops need to comply with local laws, that means you have to also report it to authorities. As mentioned, the hotline serves for that purpose. For the protection of the victim, the bishop and the church they don't want bishops doing their own thing and making things worse (like this bishop did).

Yes you do speak to attorneys at Kirton McConkie who basically walk you through all that you must do and must report. The first question is if you assured the victim or victims are safe and the second is have you reported it to proper authorities. Under no circumstances do they discourage you from reporting abuse to authorities. You also speak to clinical specialists who help walk you through how to help the victim and provide resources for the protection and recovery.

They of course are then interested in the protection of the bishop and the church, but that protection is aligned with the law.

From the handbook:

"In the United States and Canada, the Church has established a confidential abuse help line to assist stake presidents and bishops (hotline number). These leaders should promptly call the help line about every situation in which a person may have been abused—or is at risk of being abused. Stake presidents and bishops should also call the help line if they become aware of the viewing, purchasing, or distributing of child pornography.

This help line is available for bishops and stake presidents to call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, when addressing situations involving any type of abuse.

When stake presidents or bishops call the help line, legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions and provide instructions about how to assist victims, comply with local laws and requirements for reporting abuse, and protect against further abuse."

(Emphasis theres)

[Jeff Lebowski]

Seeing people on social media claim that the church should not even have a legal department. Brilliant.

I need to avoid Twitter.

[tooblue]

Seeing people on social media claim that the church should not even have a legal department. Brilliant.

I need to avoid Twitter.

lol ... has it hit the Sltrib yet. I'm sure they'll eat it up.

[ScoopJahoop]

Partly to ensure that things get reported and properly handled. Many bishops screw up these cases badly which leads to serious complications not just for the church, but for the bishop who often ends up being in legal trouble when things aren't done properly. The bishop is 100% a representative of the church. How could talking to the church's legal department be a conflict of interest?

It’s a conflict of interest if/when the bishop’s interests don’t align with the church’s. I’m guessing I think that’s a lot more likely to happen than you do. That’s leaving aside the appearance of limiting legal liability at any cost regardless of what it might do to the injured party.

[tooblue]

It’s a conflict of interest if/when the bishop’s interests don’t align with the church’s. I’m guessing I think that’s a lot more likely to happen than you do. That’s leaving aside the appearance of limiting legal liability at any cost regardless of what it might do to the injured party.

I guess your cynicism is fine if you can clearly define what you mean by injured party. The situations can be complex. The article makes it sound all very black and white. But there are certainly many injured parties to concern yourself with.

[YOhio]

If I read it correctly the bishop in the first case didn’t use the hotline and the bishop in the second case didn’t use it at all. In either case I have no idea why the parents would go to the bishop first before the police. It puts an unfair burden on the church and bishop considering that the pedophile wasn’t in a position of ecclesiastical authority, but rather just a babysitter the parents hired. I don’t want to be casting stones at the parents, though. I don’t know what I’d do in that position. What a piece of shit kid.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It’s a conflict of interest if/when the bishop’s interests don’t align with the church’s. I’m guessing I think that’s a lot more likely to happen than you do. That’s leaving aside the appearance of limiting legal liability at any cost regardless of what it might do to the injured party.

Remember kids, hot takes like this are worth 1000 likes on twitter.

[ScoopJahoop]

Remember kids, hot takes like this are worth 1000 likes on twitter.

Clearly I’m too stupid to post here. My apologies.

[Eddie]

It’s a conflict of interest if/when the bishop’s interests don’t align with the church’s. I’m guessing I think that’s a lot more likely to happen than you do. That’s leaving aside the appearance of limiting legal liability at any cost regardless of what it might do to the injured party.

I'm super confused right now. So - applying this same concept to ANY organization that has legal representation...

Are you saying that if there are legal concerns for my current place of employment then maybe I shouldn't speak with the agency attorney because my interests may not align with the agency's interests, so there might be a conflict?

With the idea that at some point an "employee" or unpaid volunteer may have different interests than the organization itself - you almost make it sound like employees/volunteers should simply never speak with the organization's legal representation. Which seems weird to me.

[YOhio]

Church responds.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900069024/latter-day-saint-spokesman-denounces-news-story-about-churchs-sexual-abuse-response.html

[Eddie]

Church responds.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-response.html

That makes more sense to me - from my own experience interacting with the helpline.

[ScoopJahoop]

I'm super confused right now. So - applying this same concept to ANY organization that has legal representation...

Are you saying that if there are legal concerns for my current place of employment then maybe I shouldn't speak with the agency attorney because my interests may not align with the agency's interests, so there might be a conflict?

With the idea that at some point an "employee" or unpaid volunteer may have different interests than the organization itself - you almost make it sound like employees/volunteers should simply never speak with the organization's legal representation. Which seems weird to me.

No. If, as a volunteer/employee/whatever, you feel that the organization has different interests than you should probably not consult with their lawyers. But as has been firmly established the church has nothing but the best intentions at all times and in all places. It would be impossible for a conflict of interest to exist. Really, the people suing the church should have used KM for representation as well.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Horrifying.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...l-abuse-claims

Yes. Very bad and could get worse.

[tooblue]

Yes. Very bad and could get worse.

??? Have you not read the entire thread ... The article is inaccurate at best:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900069024/latter-day-saint-spokesman-denounces-news-story-about-churchs-sexual-abuse-response.html

"She testified in court," Hawkins said, "that when she reported the abuse to him, he told her, 'this is a crime,' and provided her with the phone number so that she could call the police. The church leader then called the church help line, and the church then called the police to make sure a report had been made."

Hawkins said that was the most egregious fact withheld in the story. He also said the case is a positive example of the church's local leaders correctly using its hotline system and generating a criminal report.