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

[chrisrenrut]

I’m basing that on my impression of what people smarter than me on this thread have said. It seems like there was a carve out in the clergy penitent clause to report child abuse, even back then.

again, could be wrong here. But no one here has claimed that reporting was against the law back then, as far as I’m aware.

AA quotes the current statute. GM indicated he thought there had been a change to it in the past decade.

https://www.cougarstadium.com/forum/...52#post2258452

[Jeff Lebowski]

I’m not sure how to explain it better. The first bishop testified under oath that he was told by the helpline he couldn’t report the abuse to the authorities. This is contradicted by the DA and others who claim that Arizona law allows for reporting child abuse.

Assuming the bishop’s testimony is true, then it appears the help line gave him incorrect legal advice. If the help line gave him correct advice, i.e. he had legal cover in Arizona to report the abuse to authorities, then the bishop(s) chose to not report. Either scenario allowed the abuse to continue.

If I’m missing another reasonable interpretation I’m all ears.

OK, I see your point.

[Northwestcoug]

AA quotes the current statute. GM indicated he thought there had been a change to it in the past decade.

https://www.cougarstadium.com/forum/...52#post2258452

Ok maybe it’s not 100% clear. But reading that phrase AA bolded seems like it’s a nod to clergy giving them the option not to report. To me that seems unlikely to represent a significant change of practice from the previous law. Like if that was the change, then it sounds like it modified a more stringent view on clergy penitent privilege, rather than the other way around. But I don’t know.

[All-American]

The version I quoted is effective as of today. Here is the version as enacted in 2003, which was effective through 2013.

Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect that appears to have been inflicted on the minor by other than accidental means or that is not explained by the available medical history as being accidental in nature or who reasonably believes there has been a denial or deprivation of necessary medical treatment or surgical care or nourishment with the intent to cause or allow the death of an infant who is protected under § 36-2281 shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer or to child protective services in the department of economic security, except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only. A member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest may otherwise make of the minor.

The only changes from the original version to the current version are to replace the phrase "or to child protective services in the department of economic security" with the phrase "to the department of child safety or to a tribal law enforcement or social services agency for any Indian minor who resides on an Indian reservation," and to capitalize the term "Christian Science." The other language, including the bolded language (emphasis is mine), is otherwise the same.

[Art Vandelay]

Very interesting response from the Church. Never seen anything like it.

I'm sure Brigham or Joseph use to call people out by name, but I can't think of anything remotely close to this in my lifetime.. It seems in most instances the church takes the stay silent and "this too shall pass" philosophy. But to specifically talk about both the husband and wife, then drop the "absurd" comment is a very different approach. I like it.

[Northwestcoug]

The version I quoted is effective as of today. Here is the version as enacted in 2003, which was effective through 2013.



The only changes from the original version to the current version are to replace the phrase "or to child protective services in the department of economic security" with the phrase "to the department of child safety or to a tribal law enforcement or social services agency for any Indian minor who resides on an Indian reservation," and to capitalize the term "Christian Science." The other language, including the bolded language (emphasis is mine), is otherwise the same.

Thanks AA.

So as far as I understand it, reporting was considered optional at that time also, and not specifically prohibited.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Church comes out with a scathing response to the AP article. Not sure I have ever seen a press release like this from the church.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist...ona-abuse-case

Significantly different sequence of events.

I do wonder what is the truth here. I can understand not taking the AP article at face value, but I'm also not going to take the LDS church's statement at face value either.

[Moliere]

Thanks AA.

So as far as I understand it, reporting was considered optional at that time also, and not specifically prohibited.

That’s how I interpret it as well.

Reading between the lines, the confession was probably extremely redacted and I can only assume the bishop felt that since it was a one time thing and in the past and the sinner seemed penitent that reporting wasn’t necessary. That’s an incorrect decision on the bishops part and on the church legal counsel part, but I can see where they are coming from even if I think it was wrong.

The main problem in all of this other than the egregious abuse is the way the story was written. It clearly made it seem like the bishop knew of all the abuse when he didn’t. It made the church seem like it was protecting itself instead (absurd point since the church had nothing to protect itself from) of the abused (hood point since the church should’ve reported the abuse even if not legally required).

My time in a bishopric was pretty eye opening. People rarely give a full account voluntarily. People are also very rational when making decisions. We just think they are irrational because we don’t know what they know. This is why I tend to give more grace to people because jumping to conclusions usually results in being wrong.

[Bo Diddley]

That’s how I interpret it as well.

Reading between the lines, the confession was probably extremely redacted and I can only assume the bishop felt that since it was a one time thing and in the past and the sinner seemed penitent that reporting wasn’t necessary. That’s an incorrect decision on the bishops part and on the church legal counsel part, but I can see where they are coming from even if I think it was wrong.

The main problem in all of this other than the egregious abuse is the way the story was written. It clearly made it seem like the bishop knew of all the abuse when he didn’t. It made the church seem like it was protecting itself instead (absurd point since the church had nothing to protect itself from) of the abused (hood point since the church should’ve reported the abuse even if not legally required).

My time in a bishopric was pretty eye opening. People rarely give a full account voluntarily. People are also very rational when making decisions. We just think they are irrational because we don’t know what they know. This is why I tend to give more grace to people because jumping to conclusions usually results in being wrong.

Yeah, what exactly did Paul Adams confess? Apparently not enough for the Church or bishop think the child was in imminent danger. As they say, the help line will:

Directly report the abuse to authorities, regardless of legal exemptions from reporting requirements, when it is known that a child is in imminent danger.

This is where the Church might decide to make changes. Perhaps they opt to report by default regardless of imminent danger.

[Northwestcoug]

That’s how I interpret it as well.

Reading between the lines, the confession was probably extremely redacted and I can only assume the bishop felt that since it was a one time thing and in the past and the sinner seemed penitent that reporting wasn’t necessary. That’s an incorrect decision on the bishops part and on the church legal counsel part, but I can see where they are coming from even if I think it was wrong.

The main problem in all of this other than the egregious abuse is the way the story was written. It clearly made it seem like the bishop knew of all the abuse when he didn’t. It made the church seem like it was protecting itself instead (absurd point since the church had nothing to protect itself from) of the abused (hood point since the church should’ve reported the abuse even if not legally required).

My time in a bishopric was pretty eye opening. People rarely give a full account voluntarily. People are also very rational when making decisions. We just think they are irrational because we don’t know what they know. This is why I tend to give more grace to people because jumping to conclusions usually results in being wrong.

Giving well-meaning bishops the benefit of the doubt, I want to be careful here. I agree that sinners tend to minimize their sins when confessing. I'm sure there was a component of that with Adam's initial encounter with the bishop. However, to repeat, his first confession was in 2011, the bishop brought in the wife multiple times in counselling sessions in an effort to get him to stop and to encourage him to report to authorities, and then he was exed in 2013. What plausible scenario is there of him not confessing to something serious initially, but which is serious enough to lead to excommunication 2 years later?

Not sure if I want to be known as the exmo who links to mormonleaks, but I saw this on twitter today, the leaked court transcript. Read page 43 of the transcript. If that is true of the initial encounter, it was still pretty bad:

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/document...SENTENCING.pdf

[Pelado]

Giving well-meaning bishops the benefit of the doubt, I want to be careful here. I agree that sinners tend to minimize their sins when confessing. I'm sure there was a component of that with Adam's initial encounter with the bishop. However, to repeat, his first confession was in 2011, the bishop brought in the wife multiple times in counselling sessions in an effort to get him to stop and to encourage him to report to authorities, and then he was exed in 2013. What plausible scenario is there of him not confessing to something serious initially, but which is serious enough to lead to excommunication 2 years later?

Not sure if I want to be known as the exmo who links to mormonleaks, but I saw this on twitter today, the leaked court transcript. Read page 43 of the transcript. If that is true of the initial encounter, it was still pretty bad:

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/document...SENTENCING.pdf

That sounds a lot more like the AP story than the rebuttal from the church. The bishop definitely should have reported.

[SteelBlue]

Assuming that leaked document is real, not reporting was absolutely morally reprehensible and indefensible.

[Donuthole]

Any action/inaction by the bishop and/or K&M is indefensible if the bishop knew the victim had been made to perform oral on the dad. That transcript is not testimony from the bishop directly, so its hearsay, but it's pretty damning stuff.

[Bo Diddley]

I couldn't finish reading it. I got physically ill.

[Bo Diddley]

Any action/inaction by the bishop and/or K&M is indefensible if the bishop knew the victim had been made to perform oral on the dad. That's transcript is not testimony from the bishop directly, so its hearsay, but it's pretty damning stuff.

Yes, this was the question I had. Where did the agent get his information? Was it from the bishop directly?