Is the church on its heels with sex abuse?

[Anonymous]

I started this a couple days ago but it somehow got lost in cyberspace before I finished and hit submit. Happens to the best of us. 🙄 (Or maybe it was a sign I wasn’t supposed to post it?)

Anyway, back on Aug. 4 the Associated Press published an article (linked below) about a horrific sex abuse case in Arizona which I believe was picked up my many outlets. The gist of the story is that this young girl and her younger sister were abused for a number of years by their father, the younger sister beginning as an infant. There were thousands of pictures and videos of the abuse. The father, a church member, did confess at some point to his bishop but the church hotline told him he was not required to report the abuse. He was encouraged to try to get the father to report it himself, the father refused. The mother was also aware of the abuse and also refused to report. A couple years later the father was excommunicated and eventually charged and arrested but committed suicide in jail. The mother eventually served prison time and the girls and their siblings were moved to foster care. The older girl is now a teenager. The AP story clearly alleges the church was aware of the abuse but did nothing to stop it and did not report it to authorities. These girls are, of course, scarred for life.

AP story: https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-church-sexual-abuse-investigation-e0e39cf9aa4fbe0d8c1442033b894660” class=”bbcode_url”>https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-church-sexual-abuse-investigation-e0e39cf9aa4fbe0d8c1442033b894660

The church did give a somewhat immediate response (Aug 5, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-offers-statement-help-line-abuse” class=”bbcode_url”>https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-offers-statement-help-line-abuse:

Quote:

The abuse of a child or any other individual is inexcusable. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes this, teaches this, and dedicates tremendous resources and efforts to prevent, report and address abuse. Our hearts break for these children and all victims of abuse.

The nature and the purpose of the Church’s help line was seriously mischaracterized in a recent Associated Press article. The help line is instrumental in ensuring that all legal requirements for reporting are met. It provides a place for local leaders, who serve voluntarily, to receive direction from experts to determine who should make a report and whether they (local leaders) should play a role in that reporting. When a leader calls the help line, the conversation is about how to stop the abuse, care for the victim and ensure compliance with reporting obligations, even in cases when the law provides clergy-penitent privilege or restricts what can be shared from private ecclesiastical conversations.

The help line is just one of many safeguards put in place by the Church. Any member serving in a role with children or youth is required to complete a training every few years about how to watch for, report and address abuse. Leaders and members are offered resources on how to prevent, address and report abuse of any kind. Church teachings and handbooks are clear and unequivocal about the evils of abuse. Members who violate those teachings are disciplined by the Church and may lose their privileges or membership. These are just a few examples.

The story presented in the AP article is oversimplified and incomplete and is a serious misrepresentation of the Church and its efforts. We will continue to teach and follow Jesus Christ’s admonition to care for one another, especially in our efforts related to abuse.

Apparently that response was not enough, and I can see why. All news is simplified, but as news goes this was a pretty long and fairly detailed article, and to say it was incomplete is a bit hard to swallow. And was it really a misrepresentation, considering there have been other similar stories in the past? I personally know people who say they were the subject of abuse that the church (at least local leaders) knew of but never did anything about. On August 17 the church issued another more detailed statement in response to the initial article: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case” class=”bbcode_url”>https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-provides-further-details-about-arizona-abuse-case

In this later statement, the church berates the AP a bit, and then provides facts they say were ignored by the AP (it is not apparent to me these were completely ignored, perhaps they were stated differently – if you read the article, that stuff is in there).

Quote:

In late 2011, Paul Adams made a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child. The bishop then called the help line, where he was advised about how to fully comply with Arizona’s reporting laws. In compliance with that counsel, from that time forward, the bishop repeatedly tried to intervene and encourage reporting, including by:

counseling Paul Adams to repent and seek professional help

asking Paul Adams to report (he refused and also refused to give permission to the bishop to make the report)

encouraging Paul Adams’s wife, Leizza, to report (she refused and later served time in prison for her role)

encouraging Paul Adams to move out of the home (which he did temporarily)

urging Leizza to seek professional counseling for Paul and their children, which would trigger a mandatory report (they refused)

In 2013, Adams was excommunicated for his behavior and lost his membership in the Church.

Prior to and after his limited confession, Paul rarely attended Church or talked to leaders.

It wasn’t until 2017, nearly four years later, that Church leaders learned from media reports the extent of the abuse, that the abuse had continued and that it involved a second victim born after Paul’s excommunication.

I honestly think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The church’s own statement indicates that there was not just one meeting with the bishop and the abuser (there was a year of meetings according to the AP article), and that the bishop also met with the abuser’s wife (mother of the children). I do not believe that there was no indication of continued abuse in those meetings, and there is some indication that at least early on the family continued to be active in the church and attend meetings.

The church’s statement also says in relation to what the hotline does:

Quote:

Its purpose is to:…Directly report the abuse to authorities, regardless of legal exemptions from reporting requirements, when it is known that a child is in imminent danger. The help line routinely reports cases of child abuse to authorities. Outside experts who are aware of the Helpline have regularly praised it.

So if that’s its purpose, “regardless of legal exemptions” why didn’t they report it? The statement goes on to say:

Quote:

Even when a report is not required or is even prohibited by law (because the confession is “owned” by the confessor), the help line encourages leaders to pursue ways to ensure these three goals are met.

I’m not a lawyer or a PR guy, but isn’t the church digging itself a deeper hole? If that’s the goal, what happened?

In its conclusion section there is the following statement (emphasis added):

Quote:

The Church has issued a strong response because this is a topic where there can be no mincing of words, no hint of apathy and no tolerance for any suggestion that we are neglectful or not doing enough on the issue of child abuse. It is a matter that strikes at our hearts and is so deeply offensive to everything that we value. We will not stand by while others mischaracterize or completely misrepresent the Church’s long-term efforts and commitment. Nor will we tolerate the Associated Press or any other media to make such gross errors on the details of such a tragic and horrific incident as what occurred in Arizona. We are constantly striving to be better and do more, and we invite others to join us in such efforts.

Isn’t this statement just as much and oversimplification of what happened (perhaps even more oversimplified)? After reading the articles and the statements are we really supposed to believe the church is doing enough?

Just one more thing and I’ll step off the soapbox. From the AP article:

Quote:

Arizona’s child sex abuse reporting law, and similar laws in more than 20 states that require clergy to report child sex abuse and neglect, says that clergy, physicians, nurses, or anyone caring for a child who “reasonably believes” a child has been abused or neglected has a legal obligation to report the information to police or the state Department of Child Safety. But it also says that clergy who receive information about child neglect or sexual abuse during spiritual confessions “may withhold” that information from authorities if the clergy determine it is “reasonable and necessary” under church doctrine.

How could the bishop not “reasonably believe” abuse had taken place when he had more than one source indicating it had (the abuser and his wife)? How could it be construed as “reasonable and necessary” to withhold the info from authorities “under church doctrine” when the church has gone to some length in two statements (as well as its webpage and General Handbook) to say it is church policy to report abuse?

It is unusual for the church to make statements on a case as they have in this one. I think they know the AP is right and the church was wrong, and I think that’s going to catch up with them.

[Anonymous]

If I’m understanding everything correctly, it looks like the church tried to have their cake and eat it too, technically following the law and not reporting it while hoping the issue would get resolved by the bishop.

I’m trying to figure out why they advised the bishop to not report it though. It would have been good for the church’s image. They could chalk it up as a win for stopping a case of abuse.

The only thing I can think of for them not wanting to is they’re worried that it would discourage future confessions. If abusers knew their confessions were going to make their way to law enforcement’s ears, bishops would hear far fewer of them.

Either that, or the church was paranoid they would somehow get bad press. Which is what they ended up getting anyway.

[Anonymous]

This is a topic that can be triggering for individuals. Please be extra careful in your posts and responses. We can have this discussion, but we need to be careful to ensure that it is done in a respectful and productive manner that helps fulfill the mission of StayLDS. Thanks everyone.

[Anonymous]

Oh boy, where to begin? I’m more fired up about this than I was just days ago, so this post is going to be rough. I will say that the church is in a very difficult position, I appreciate that but won’t be giving much nuance in that direction in this post.

[Anonymous]

I wasn’t sure if Roy was referring to my post earlier, but I deleted it. I’m not quite sure how to post.

One of my big problems with this was the revelation that helpline call records are destroyed at the end of each day. How on earth can the the victims be the primary concern when the church makes a special point to erase any trace of them?

I listened to Michael Rezendes on Utah public radio today. He said he’s been deluged with communications from other victims, and he will continue his reporting.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I wasn’t sure if Roy was referring to my post earlier, but I deleted it. I’m not quite sure how to post.

One of my big problems with this was the revelation that helpline call records are destroyed at the end of each day. How on earth can the the victims be the primary concern when the church makes a special point to erase any trace of them?

I listened to Michael Rezendes on Utah public radio today. He said he’s been deluged with communications from other victims, and he will continue his reporting.

Ann, yours was not the post we were concerned with. The post of concern was very inflammatory and was deleted by the moderators, which as you know is rare.

I had read your initial post before you deleted it. I believe you used the term “righteous indignation” and I believe that is spot on. I personally know people who have been victims of abuse in the church and by the looks of things so do others here. And that’s what we know about. I work for an agency whose main focus is dealing with abuse (my agency runs the state hotline) but I work in a different part of the agency. Nevertheless, we get trained on abuse prevention and reporting ad nauseum. That’s in part where my righteous indignation comes from – being aware of this abuse and not reporting it is criminal in and of itself. Bishop or not, if I were aware of (or even suspected) abuse and did not report it as a mandated reporter I would at the very least lose my job and likely be charged with a crime. It’s that serious. That’s why I asked the question about the church being on its heels. Legal wrangling in response to this (and other) lawsuits is one thing. Doing what’s right is another. The church appears to be on the defense.

And yes, I am also troubled by the idea that the records are destroyed daily. In the aforementioned state registry even records of unfounded abuse are kept in perpetuity here. And it’s actually interesting the church keeps records of an individual even if they are ex’ed or had their names removed by request forever, but not something as potentially important as this for more than a day. I suppose from a legal point of view it protects them to destroy the records because then they can honestly say they have no record (although they seemed to know about the “single confession” of this guy in Arizona).

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Oh boy, where to begin? I’m more fired up about this than I was just days ago, so this post is going to be rough. I will say that the church is in a very difficult position, I appreciate that but won’t be giving much nuance in that direction in this post.

I think this is the righteous indignation mentioned above. I think it’s OK to be fired up, but maybe I only think that because I’m fired up too (which is what led to the post to begin with).

nibbler wrote:

The training mentioned in the response to the AP article isn’t sufficient to change anything. The training may have changed in recent years, I took it pre-covid, but watching an animated slideshow and checking a box isn’t going to move the needle much.

At work we have several online annual trainings (some are even semi-annual) we need to complete. There are basically three kinds. “Click throughs” where one can just click the button at the bottom and go to the next page without reading or listening to anything; ones similar to click throughs but you can’t click until the short audio/video is done (most people turn down the volume and do something else and click when needed); and the minority of them where interaction is required (although BS answers are accepted). These are all longer than the church’s short “training” on preventing and reporting abuse. It’s been a while since I did it, but as I recall it was of the click through variety. Either way I personally witnessed people “completing” it without paying any attention to it. And, I also found it lacking in substance. I get that it’s hard to train millions of people all over the world and make it relevant to all of them. But I still think we could do better, even by making the small improvement of making it more than a one time shot and more in depth.

nibbler wrote:

[*] If we’re talking policies that protect, how about mandatory background checks for people that work with children? Though I admit that even background checks wouldn’t have helped in this specific case. Still, it’s a minimal policy that would protect at least some people.

You’re a genius, Nibbler. Who would have thought of that? 😈 Yeah, it’s not going to catch everybody as evidenced by it not catching every teacher – but it’s going to catch some. Of course that puts the church in a bind – it takes time and usually consent, there is a cost, and the biggest staffing needs are in Primary, SS, and youth programs.

nibbler wrote:

[*] I find the church’s official responses disgusting, especially the second one. The majority of the second response is the church being indignant about how they were characterized. Just check out these quotes:

Quote:

For generations, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have spoken in the strongest of terms about the evils of abuse and the need to care for those who are victims or survivors of abuse. From the thundering rebuke of former President Gordon B. Hinckley to the recent words of healing offered by Elder Patrick Kearon of the Presidency of the Seventy, our feelings are clear. We echo those sentiments and teachings today. Our hearts are broken as we learn of any abuse. It cannot be tolerated. It cannot be excused. The Savior Jesus Christ wants us all to do better and be better.

Quote:

The Church has issued a strong response because this is a topic where there can be no mincing of words, no hint of apathy and no tolerance for any suggestion that we are neglectful or not doing enough on the issue of child abuse. It is a matter that strikes at our hearts and is so deeply offensive to everything that we value. We will not stand by while others mischaracterize or completely misrepresent the Church’s long-term efforts and commitment. Nor will we tolerate the Associated Press or any other media to make such gross errors on the details of such a tragic and horrific incident as what occurred in Arizona.

The second quote is insane. They get sort of fired up about setting the record straight on their views towards abuse (again, talk is cheap, everyone says they’re against abuse) but they get extremely upset at being called to the carpet.

I’d expect a “true” church to be able to exemplify humility and repentance. If a church can’t be an example of those things, what’s the point of having a church?

Saying, “Our policies failed to protect people and we will do all that we can to put better policies in place to ensure that something like this never happens in the future.” might open them up to being liable but that feels more in the spirit of doing what is right and letting the consequences follow than getting upset at the people that point out your liability.

Agreed. As you point out later, this is mostly shooting the messenger with a bit of “how dare they” indignation thrown in. Unfortunately, all the media is not like the Deseret News (or even the Salt Lake Tribune). I think the AP did well at getting the story out there, and I don’t think they “made anything up” (and the church doesn’t accuse them of making things up). “We will do better” is meaningless when it doesn’t look like they’re doing anything to do better.

nibbler wrote:

[*] Going back to that second response…

“limited confession” and “single past incident”: I know they’re not trying to be dismissive of the serious nature of the confession. Right?!?! Because that’s what it comes across as. They’re trying to make out that the initial confession didn’t reveal just how bad things were. Why? In an effort to justify why the abuse wasn’t reported at the onset?

[*] “Prior to and after his limited confession, Paul rarely attended Church or talked to leaders.” Dismissive and an attempt to disassociate. So what if they were inactive. What if someone in a grocery store line admitted to abuse? Do you shrug and say, “My contact with them was pretty limited so…” That whole bulleted list section in the second response read like a list of excuses.

[*] The timeline in the second response leaves a lot to the imagination. Going off of nothing more than what’s listed, it starts off by downplaying what church leaders knew. They then excommunicate the person two years later. If it was such a non-issue to where it didn’t even need to be reported, why did they excommunicate him?

They learn of the severity of the abuse from the media nearly four years after that initial “limited’ confession. So what did they know that led to him being excommunicated two years prior to that? It doesn’t add up.

I think I covered all this in the OP. It doesn’t add up to me either.

nibbler wrote:

[*] I don’t think the help line exists to cover up abuse but I do think it counsels leaders to do the bare minimum required by law and likely counsels people to do no more than that minimum to protect the good name of the church. Protecting the good name of the church is what the second response is all about. I’d rather the church be more focused on protecting children and earning a good name as the natural outcropping of that effort instead of feeling entitled to a good name.

I don’t think the hotline’s purpose is to cover up abuse either, but it does seem to play a part in doing so in at least some cases. I agree, it does seem that protecting the good name of the church us what this response is about, going back to the “how dare they?” No question it looks bad for an organization billing itself as so family oriented (and perceived as such) to appear as though it has looked the other way on multiple occasions of long term abuse.

nibbler wrote:

Policies need to change and to paraphrase GBH, there needs to be a lot of “agitation” to overcome the getting upset with you because you’re upset with me inertia.

Mandatory reporting could be a policy. I’m not sure what effect that would have. Would people confess less because they knew that to confess to a bishop was an automatic confession to legal authorities? If less people confessed as a result, abuse could continue in secret.

This one is more of a sticky wicket, but so what if people confess less if it’s not being reported anyway? It would mean that some cases of abuse are likely to go unnoticed and unreported, but in one way isn’t not knowing and not reporting better than knowing and not reporting as far as the “good name of the church” is concerned?

nibbler wrote:

I also want to say that this AZ case isn’t isolated. I won’t link to an external site, but information is out there. One case happened in a stake I used to live in. I won’t get into specifics but it was similar to the AZ case. There are patterns.

It seems as though many of us are aware of such cases, and that’s a sad commentary by itself.

nibbler wrote:

There’s no easy answers to this but I don’t think attacking the messenger (press) gets us to a better place.

Agreed, response two was all about attacking the AP. I think the AP is actually taking the high road and standing by their story which seems to be supported by facts (their article does reference the thousands of pages of documents). Likely some of the Deseret News/Church News/”follow the prophet” faithful are ready to pick up pitchforks against the AP. At the same time there are plenty of people who can think for themselves and look at multiple facets objectively and recognize the AP is not as evil as some others might have us believe (members and non-members alike).

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I wasn’t sure if Roy was referring to my post earlier, but I deleted it. I’m not quite sure how to post.

Sorry for the confusion Ann. I think your post was fine. I did need to remove a post on this topic for inappropriateness and I probably should have made that clear in the thread that the offending post had been removed.

The reminder that I posted is just for everyone to be considerate of others with our words. There can be individuals reading these posts that may have been victims of sexual abuse or have a close relationship with someone that was victimized. I think as long as we keep that in mind that we should be fine.

[Anonymous]

(Thanks, Roy and DJ, for explaining the caution post to me.)

The other question from my original post: How can the highest priority be the victims when a bishop contacting the church’s lawyers automatically creates attorney-client privilege, and everything between them is protected information? They’ve got all that “going for them,” and the victim has nothing.

[Anonymous]

DJ wrote:

Quote:

And yes, I am also troubled by the idea that the records are destroyed daily. In the aforementioned state registry even records of unfounded abuse are kept in perpetuity here. And it’s actually interesting the church keeps records of an individual even if they are ex’ed or had their names removed by request forever, but not something as potentially important as this for more than a day. I suppose from a legal point of view it protects them to destroy the records because then they can honestly say they have no record (although they seemed to know about the “single confession” of this guy in Arizona).

Yes, the church is nothing if not a good record-keeper. If the explanation for the destruction of the calls is that it’s just too much to keep on hand, we know that’s not true. So we’re left assuming that they destroy them to limit their liability.

Edited to add: In calmer moments I have a lot more generosity, especially for the two bishops. I assume they wanted the abuse to stop, but were getting instructions that let it continue. I feel sorry for the mess they now find themselves in, the regret they feel, the legal problems, all of it. But most of all, I’m glad the children have loving homes. And that’s where this has to go, it has to “most of all” be about innocent children, not clergy, not the institutional church.

[Anonymous]

The Mormonland podcast did an interview with Michael Rezendes, author of the original AP article. I have not listened to the podcast yet, but the Salt Lake Tribune is running an article with some excerpts. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/21/theres-just-no-transparency/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/21/theres-just-no-transparency/

Podcast link: https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/

It seems Rezendes shares some of the sentiments some of us here do.

Quote:

Do you think that this is a pattern for the LDS Church?

I don’t think I ever said it was a pattern. But, you know, because of the Arizona case and the West Virginia case and some others that had been filed, I thought it was interesting and important to describe what I learned because the entire operation of the help line and the reporting of child sex abuse cases to the church is enveloped in secrecy. It struck me that we have no idea how many reports are being made and how many of those reports are referred to law enforcement. I would assume that quite a few are. And how many are not? There’s just no transparency whatsoever. So, I thought that the thing to do is just to describe the process. And the process is that all the records of calls that are made to the help line are destroyed at the end of each day. When there’s a serious case, someone answering the help line refers it to an attorney with the law firm Kirton McConkie. Those conversations, the church insists, are all covered by the attorney-client privilege. When you have a disciplinary proceeding, those records are also confidential. It just seems like it’s kind of a lockbox when it comes to allegations of child sex abuse in the Mormon church. And I thought, you know, this is a box that in the interest of the safety of children really needs to be pried open. And that was really the purpose of the story.

Quote:

What surprised you the most in your reporting?

Well, I guess what surprised me the most and continues to surprise me to this day is that two bishops and attorneys for the church in Salt Lake City could allow abuse of this nature to go unreported for so long. I don’t know, as a human being, I find that difficult to understand. Now, what the church says is that [the bishop] only learned it on one occasion and didn’t know the abuse was ongoing. However, the bishop was seeing Paul Adams for counseling, so he was coming in on a regular basis for counseling. At one point the bishop called in Paul Adams and his wife and made him tell her about the abuse so she would know what was going on if she didn’t already, so that she could make some attempt to help protect their children. And at one point, he said, one of the purposes was to see whether the abuse had stopped.

Quote:

Do you think that this bishop knew the extent of it?

Well, yes, of course. And, you know, there are two indications [of that]. [The bishop] was also Leizza Adams’ personal physician. And he told the federal agents that in his view, she met the definition of, as he put it, “battered woman syndrome.” And when they discussed the older daughter, the victim of Adams’ abuse, [the bishop] said, without any prompting from the federal agents, something to the effect of, “I don’t think she’ll ever be the same again.” So, it’s pretty clear he had some idea that Leizza Adams was not capable of protecting her children and that the older daughter had been severely damaged by it, and yet he did nothing, really.

Quote:

What has been the response to the article?

I have been deluged, frankly, with email and Twitter direct messages and every other form of communication, mostly from Mormons and former Mormons alike. And it seems that everybody has a tale about child sex abuse not being reported in the Mormon church. Maybe 10% of the communications I received have come from supporters of the church. But, you know, even the people who say that they believe in the church, they believe in church doctrine, a lot of those people have also said something could be done to make this a better process, one that does more to protect children in the church.

[Anonymous]

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/8/19/23297074/should-clergy-be-required-to-report-sex-abuse-cases

Quote:

Cases regarding this dilemma of law and religion in Arizona, Louisiana and elsewhere have raised the profile of these issues. An ongoing Arizona case involves a man who sexually abused his two young daughters. The girls are suing two bishops and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleging the clergy should have broken the confidentiality of their father’s limited confession to them.

That case has frustrated those who believe any information about possible abuse of a child should be reported immediately. The laws in seven states now make it mandatory for clergy to report child sexual abuse even when it is learned only through a religious confession. A total of 24 other states also list clergy as mandatory reporters but provide the priest-penitent privilege, shielding confessions from reporting. The other 19 states and the District of Columbia do not list clergy as mandatory reporters. (See a state-by-state breakdown at the bottom of this report.)

So what is clergy-penitent privilege? Why does it exist? Where is it limited by law? When and why do laws require priests and others who receive confessions to report them to the government? What will happen to spiritual confessions if those who want to confess no longer believe their words will be confidential? If confidentiality is removed, will it actually bring fewer cases of abuse to light?

And perhaps most importantly, how much is gained and what is lost if legislatures remove the privilege?

The article overall makes the case that questions the effectiveness of mandatory reporting laws and posits that they can actually be harmful by removing a survivor’s “Autonomy and control over the decision to report.” The specific topic is mandatory reporting in the case of confessed child sexual abuse. I can imagine three broad categories that might have different approaches.

1) The abuse is ongoing. My understanding from reading through the church response to this Arizona incident is that if the bishop knows the abuse is ongoing the bishop will report.

2) There was abuse, it is claimed that it stopped but there is opportunity for it to resume (children still in the home with the abuser). This is what the church appears to be claiming happened in the Arizona case and seems to be arguing that there should be some flexibility in to report or not.

3) There was abuse that happened long ago and there is no longer opportunity for it to reoccur. The now adult survivor of the abuse divulges the abuse to their religious leader. This is what I understand that the article is contemplating in wanting to protect the survivor’s “Autonomy and control over the decision to report.” I think the counter argument to this is that even though the particular survivor is no longer in a position to be abused, there may be other victims by the same abuser that are still vulnerable.

The article does make some interesting points, however I am suspicious of the source. Deseret news is owned by TCOJCOLDS that has an interest in keeping the “priest-penitent privilege.”

[Anonymous]

The Deseret News tremendously long article sketched out arguments for priest-penitent privilege. And the whole subject is complicated, I agree. But…

What other religions have done for millennia is usually not a concern of ours. So it read like pretty desperate hand-waiving.

Autonomy and control for the victim (DN was referring to older victims, I know, and no one would suggest very young victims have any autonomy) strikes a *really* sour note right now while the Arizona case is being discussed, since this is a young girl and a baby.

On another point, I think the church was probably too quick to describe the abuse as limited . One incident, long ago, or however they said it. They can’t contemplate that a giant mistake might have been made. If they were just a little less quick to defend themselves it would go along way towards maintaining the goodwill of the public. But they are so strenuously defending the “good name of the church” that they’re giving it a bad name. It would be good, in my opinion, for some bishops to come forward and talk about their experiences with the helpline. Anonymously? The Arizona bishops are being sued, so who would risk that.

Edited

[Anonymous]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/utah-rep-told-mormon-bishop-not-to-report-abuse-docs-show/ar-AA11BPb4?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bcf3637f29974ad2964b62e76a292801

Quote:

“The Mormon Church implements the Helpline not for the protection and spiritual counseling of sexual abuse victims, as professed in Mormon church doctrine and literature, but for Kirton McConkie attorneys to snuff out complaints and protect the Mormon church from costly lawsuits,” the lawsuit says.

Yes, passing off the helpline as existing to benefit abuse victims seems false.

[Anonymous]

I’m still confused about the Arizona law.

Quote:

The church’s lawyers have said Herrod, and later bishop Robert “Kim” Mauzy, legally withheld information about MJ’s abuse under the state’s clergy-penitent privilege. Arizona law generally requires clergy members to report child neglect and sexual abuse, but allows them to withhold information obtained during a spiritual confession.

The AP article also says –

Quote:

Arizona’s child sex abuse reporting law grants blanket legal immunity to anyone reporting child sex abuse or neglect.”

Was Nelson correct when he told the bishops they could be sued? I’m not asking out of sympathy for the church’s law firm, but just wondering how this particular case will play out.

The whole thing still leaves my head shaking for reasons I already posted about.

[Author]

Posts