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

[Copelius]

I am not sure what liability the Church had in the first place. Does every LDS dad who abuses his kids open the Church up to liability? I assume there were even discussions because some of the abuse happened when he was a bishop. But more concerning about the AP story, they quote the statement from the bishop, saying that he would be sued if he said anything, but don't bother to run the reasoning by an Idaho lawyer, who would confirm that not only would the bishop open himself up to personal liability, but that the jury would never hear the bishop testify.

Prosecutor: We now call Bishop Miller.
Defense: Objection. Privilege
Judge: Sustained

IRE 505

(a) Definitions. As used in this rule:

(1) Clergyman. A "Clergyman" is a minister, priest, rabbi, accredited Christian Science Practitioner, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed to be a clergyman by the person consulting.

(2) Confidential communication. A communication is "confidential" if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.

(b) General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser.

(c) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person, or for the person by the person's lawyer, the guardian or conservator, or by the personal representative if that person is deceased. The clergyman at the time of the communication may claim the privilege but only on behalf of the person. The authority of the clergyman to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

That is also the likely reason that the perp remains ex'd. As mentioned in the General Handbook, the bishop is to encourage a person to face legal consequences of a confessed act as part of repentance.

[All-American]

I am not sure what liability the Church had in the first place. Does every LDS dad who abuses his kids open the Church up to liability? I assume there were even discussions because some of the abuse happened when he was a bishop. But more concerning about the AP story, they quote the statement from the bishop, saying that he would be sued if he said anything, but don't bother to run the reasoning by an Idaho lawyer, who would confirm that not only would the bishop open himself up to personal liability, but that the jury would never hear the bishop testify.

Prosecutor: We now call Bishop Miller.
Defense: Objection. Privilege
Judge: Sustained

IRE 505



That is also the likely reason that the perp remains ex'd. As mentioned in the General Handbook, the bishop is to encourage a person to face legal consequences of a confessed act as part of repentance.

The Arizona case was harder, because there it looked like the rules might have allowed the bishop to speak up. Here, it is pretty clear that the church had no choice.

The oddity is that the church then paid a settlement. Not indicative of guilt, technically, but not a good look either.

[Lost Student]

I am not sure what liability the Church had in the first place. Does every LDS dad who abuses his kids open the Church up to liability? I assume there were even discussions because some of the abuse happened when he was a bishop. But more concerning about the AP story, they quote the statement from the bishop, saying that he would be sued if he said anything, but don't bother to run the reasoning by an Idaho lawyer, who would confirm that not only would the bishop open himself up to personal liability, but that the jury would never hear the bishop testify.

Prosecutor: We now call Bishop Miller.
Defense: Objection. Privilege
Judge: Sustained

IRE 505



That is also the likely reason that the perp remains ex'd. As mentioned in the General Handbook, the bishop is to encourage a person to face legal consequences of a confessed act as part of repentance.

The article also glossed over/didn't seem to question the victim's assertion that the charges weren't prosecuted because the bishop wouldn't testify, even though there were several (better) potential witnesses.

[BigFatMeanie]

Expecting Michael Rezendes to report even-handedly on the church is unrealistic.

[Non Sequitur]

People here scrambling to defend the Church, suggesting the Church isn't trying to cover things up is to be expected I suppose, but I can't get past this quote:

It was March 2017 and Rytting offered his sympathies as 31-year-old Chelsea Goodrich spoke. A Utah attorney and head of the church’s Risk Management Division, Rytting had spent about 15 years protecting the organization, widely known as the Mormon church, from costly claims, including sexual abuse lawsuits.

In the Corporate world, risk management is about covering your ass. Everybody knows that. But this slick suit shows up in Idaho and starts his interview with the victim by offering a prayer. What a slime-ball. He wants her to think he's there on behalf of the Church and not there on behalf of the Corporation. I haven't read all of the New Testament, but I don't think it says anything about Christ having risk management advisors. I could be wrong though.

[Moliere]

People here scrambling to defend the Church, suggesting the Church isn't trying to cover things up is to be expected I suppose, but I can't get past this quote:



In the Corporate world, risk management is about covering your ass. Everybody knows that. But this slick suit shows up in Idaho and starts his interview with the victim by offering a prayer. What a slime-ball. He wants her to think he's there on behalf of the Church and not there on behalf of the Corporation. I haven't read all of the New Testament, but I don't think it says anything about Christ having risk management advisors. I could be wrong though.

Well, if it’s not in the New Testament then we shouldn’t have it in the church today. The apostles should go back to walking everywhere or taking sailboats.

[falafel]

People here scrambling to defend the Church, suggesting the Church isn't trying to cover things up is to be expected I suppose, but I can't get past this quote:



In the Corporate world, risk management is about covering your ass. Everybody knows that. But this slick suit shows up in Idaho and starts his interview with the victim by offering a prayer. What a slime-ball. He wants her to think he's there on behalf of the Church and not there on behalf of the Corporation. I haven't read all of the New Testament, but I don't think it says anything about Christ having risk management advisors. I could be wrong though.

I definitely see your frustration. This is a legal process, not an ecclesiastical one. But to be fair, the New Testament was not without his own fusion of religion and legal processes, probably much more so than even now. I'm sure you wouldn't have liked it then either, but it is nothing new.

[tooblue]

I definitely see your frustration. This is a legal process, not an ecclesiastical one. But to be fair, the New Testament was not without his own fusion of religion and legal processes, probably much more so than even now. I'm sure you wouldn't have liked it then either, but it is nothing new.

I recently completed the Protecting Children and Youth Training by the Church. All church leaders are required to complete the training every three years. The training explicitly addresses what actions to take concerning knowledge of abuse of any kind. It also explains in detail that laws concerning the reporting of abuse can vary greatly depending on laws within a geographic area. Leaders are instructed to learn about and avail themselves of further training related to the laws in their geographic location. The training has to be completed regardless of any other training I could receive.

As a college professor, I complete a similar training every three years. The training is mostly identical, but along side the training I must also complete mental health first aid training. Again, the training explicitly addresses what actions to take concerning knowledge of abuse of any kind. It also describes in detail how to respond to a mental health crisis. The training has to be completed regardless of any other training I could receive.

As a youth basketball and football coach I am expected to complete similar training—for football in particular. The training is mostly identical. Again, The training has to be completed regardless of any other training I could receive.

This is the world we live in. It is naive to cynically lament that the church's response is mere risk management.

[Non Sequitur]

I recently completed the Protecting Children and Youth Training by the Church. All church leaders are required to complete the training every three years. The training explicitly addresses what actions to take concerning knowledge of abuse of any kind. It also explains in detail that laws concerning the reporting of abuse can vary greatly depending on laws within a geographic area. Leaders are instructed to learn about and avail themselves of further training related to the laws in their geographic location. The training has to be completed regardless of any other training I could receive.

As a college professor, I complete a similar training every three years. The training is mostly identical, but along side the training I must also complete mental health first aid training. Again, the training explicitly addresses what actions to take concerning knowledge of abuse of any kind. It also describes in detail how to respond to a mental health crisis. The training has to be completed regardless of any other training I could receive.

As a youth basketball and football coach I am expected to complete similar training—for football in particular. The training is mostly identical. Again, The training has to be completed regardless of any other training I could receive.

This is the world we live in. It is naive to cynically lament that the church's response is mere risk management.

Everything you listed is risk management. The only reason any of those courses exist is so companies can limit legal liability. These courses are not designed and required for the benefit of potential downstream victims. They exist so that when a company gets sued they can claim that they required training on the topic and that their hands are now clean. In sexual abuse cases like this, how much energy and how many resources are expended to help the victims of the sexual abuse as opposed to the resources expended limit liability. I'm sure the Church footed the bill for the pamphlet on dealing with abuse the the victim was likely given, but I'm guessing the Church spent at least $20,000 to send that lawyer up to Idaho deal with the victim/adversary.

[Moliere]

Everything you listed is risk management. The only reason any of those courses exist is so companies can limit legal liability. These courses are not designed and required for the benefit of potential downstream victims. They exist so that when a company gets sued they can claim that they required training on the topic and that their hands are now clean. In sexual abuse cases like this, how much energy and how many resources are expended to help the victims of the sexual abuse as opposed to the resources expended limit liability. I'm sure the Church footed the bill for the pamphlet on dealing with abuse the the victim was likely given, but I'm guessing the Church spent at least $20,000 to send that lawyer up to Idaho deal with the victim/adversary.

Didn’t the church pay out a settlement in this case when they didn’t have to pay it out? Seems like if that’s the case then the church did quite a bit.

[tooblue]

Everything you listed is risk management. The only reason any of those courses exist is so companies can limit legal liability. These courses are not designed and required for the benefit of potential downstream victims. They exist so that when a company gets sued they can claim that they required training on the topic and that their hands are now clean. In sexual abuse cases like this, how much energy and how many resources are expended to help the victims of the sexual abuse as opposed to the resources expended limit liability. I'm sure the Church footed the bill for the pamphlet on dealing with abuse the the victim was likely given, but I'm guessing the Church spent at least $20,000 to send that lawyer up to Idaho deal with the victim/adversary.

I rely upon the training to de-escalate situations every day, especially relying upon the mental health first aid training at this particular time of year (end of semester). You can continue in your deliberate obtuseness. But it it just makes you look cynically naive.

[Non Sequitur]

Didn’t the church pay out a settlement in this case when they didn’t have to pay it out? Seems like if that’s the case then the church did quite a bit.

If the Church didn't need to pay out a settlement then they wouldn't have. If they paid out a settlement then there was a reason for it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If the Church didn't need to pay out a settlement then they wouldn't have. If they paid out a settlement then there was a reason for it.

Super convenient logic.

[Copelius]

If the Church didn't need to pay out a settlement then they wouldn't have. If they paid out a settlement then there was a reason for it.

And if the Church fought tooth and nail and wound up winning all the lawsuits that they have settled, it would be cold, heartless and not very Christlike to the victims.

[falafel]

If the Church didn't need to pay out a settlement then they wouldn't have. If they paid out a settlement then there was a reason for it.

And the reason could be that they don't want the press, so get rid of the case even if there is no merit. Happens all. the. time.