[Mormon] Bishop’s handling of Vernon incest case was correct

Tooele Transcript Bulletin ^ | May 8, 2012 | Merrill Nelson

[greyfoxx39]

A recent Transcript article described the conviction of a 67-year-old Vernon man for the molestation of his minor daughter 18 years ago ( “Father gets six months in jail for seven years of incest,” April 19). The focus of the article appeared to be whether the sentence imposed by the court was too lenientis headline not only shifted the focus from the offender and his sentence, but wrongly assumed that the bishop had a legal duty to report and disparaged the bishop by concluding that he “failed” in that duty.. However, the sub-headline to the story was that the “LDS bishop was informed of abuse 18 years ago but failed to report crime.” This headline not only shifted the focus from the offender and his sentence, but wrongly assumed that the bishop had a legal duty to report and disparaged the bishop by concluding that he “failed” in that duty.

[Excerpt from earlier article]

”A former Vernon resident was sentenced in 3rd District Court Tuesday to six months in jail for abusing his daughter over a period of seven years, 18 years ago.

The 67-year-old man, whom the Transcript-Bulletin is not naming in an effort to protect the identity of the victim, apologized to the court, the victim and his family for sexually abusing his daughter from 1987 to 1994 when she was a child. According to statements made in court Tuesday, the girl reported the abuse to her mother in 1994, and the man subsequently told his LDS bishop what he had done. This resulted in him being excommunicated from the church, but the bishop never reported the crime.”

Read more: Tooele Transcript Bulletin - Father gets six months in jail for seven years of incest

Under Utah law, everyone has a duty to report child abuse, with the express exception of clergy who hear the abuse information confidentially from the offender, as the bishop did in this case. Confidential confessions of abuse by the offender fall within the statutory clergy privilege and cannot be disclosed. Clergy do have a duty to report abuse information from any source other than the offender.

The law was the same in 1994, when the victim in the Vernon case informed her mother and the abuse stopped. The article states that other family members were also informed of the abuse. The offender subsequently confessed to his bishop, who took appropriate church disciplinary action.

Accordingly, because the bishop in the Vernon case received the abuse information confidentially from the offender, the bishop had no duty to report to civil authorities. In fact, the bishop had a legal duty to keep the offender’s confidence and could not legally report. The bishop is the only person in the picture who did not have a duty to report. The mother and the other family members who knew of the abuse did have a legal duty to report. The article makes no mention of their “failure to report.” In any event, the reporting of the abuse was apparently not an issue in the criminal proceeding. The primary issue there was the appropriate punishment for the crime.

Some may claim that there should be no reporting exemption for clergy, that clergy have a moral duty to report abuse. However, the clergy privilege, which legally binds clergy to confidentiality in all states, has been in place for centuries and serves the important public policy of providing a private outlet for confession of misconduct to relieve the burdened soul and begin the process of renewal and recompense. Without that source of spiritual consolation and assurance of confidentiality, offenders would be less likely to come forward, and abuse, as well as other misconduct, would remain undisclosed and allowed to continue. Private disclosure of abuse allows the clergyman, as part of the repentance process, to take steps to stop the abuse, inform others with the offender’s consent, and get help to victims and offenders. In such cases, reporting is then left to the family or other professionals, as in the Vernon case.

We all abhor and condemn child abuse in all its forms and degrees. The Vernon case is a tragic example of the lasting harm to victims and families caused by abuse. Fortunately, the abuse stopped with disclosure to the mother, the victim is healing, and now criminal justice has been meted out to the offender. The bishop’s role was to help the victim and family heal and help the offender reform, and the bishop properly filled that role.

Merrill Nelson is an attorney at Kirton McConkie and chief legal counsel to the LDS Church Abuse Help Line.

[greyfoxx39]

My criticissm has been to the belligerent tone one person here has taken to my honest, thoughtful and reasoned respoonses

Click HERE for "thoughtful and reasoned respoonses"

[GilesB]

I fail to see relevance.

[greyfoxx39]

Of course.

[GilesB]

You are obviously pursuing an agenda of which you have not made me privy, and are unscrupulously using me, and my responses, to carry on your own private conversation for your own pleasure.

I can’t stop you doing that - but I will express my displeasure at your underhanded tactics.

I will ask you - either let me in on your private joke, or refrain from intruding on my exchanges with others.

[Religion Moderator]

This thread is posted in the Religion Forum.

The main guideline here is to "discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal." Attributing motives to other Freepers and reading their minds are forms of "making it personal."

If you do not wish to see RF posts, do NOT use the "everything" option on the browse. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."

[P-Marlowe]

It is a personal matter and none of your business - it has nothing to do with being ashamed, I discuss it freely in the proper forum.

You are posting anonymously on an open forum. This is indeed the proper forum for discussing such a topic. The religion forum was specifically created at Free Republic to allow us to openly and honestly discuss our religious differences.

I find it utterly fascinating that you were a member of a church which you found to be either preaching doctrines of demons or preaching some kind of oppressive doctrine that you believed to be harmful, yet you refuse to discuss it on an anonymous forum and you then criticize people who choose to discuss the demonic doctrines and practices of the LDS Church and those of us who use this forum as an opportunity to sound the alarm over these problems.

I suppose you would prefer that people not be dragged or coaxed into the church you left and you have your reasons. This is the place to air those reasons. I'd like to hear them and this forum not only gives you the opportunity to do God's work in sounding the alarm, but also gives those who are currently members of that church to air any opposing side and to debate the issues.

Like I said earlier - I have no more interest in discussing this with you. I refuse to be the grindstone for your particular hatchet.

And what particular hatchet is that?

I merely pointed out that the LDS Church claims a biblical priesthood and calls 16 year olds "Priests" and claims that these children have the same calling as Aaron had in the Bible and that the Priests who worked the Temple in Jerusalem had in biblical times. If that is so, then every single male member of the LDS Church can claim that they are "clergy" under the reporting laws and literally none of them can be charged with any crime for not reporting child abuse.

Further, if these 16 year old children are not "clergy" under this law, then neither are their High Priests, Prophets, Bishops or any other ordained office holders. The LDS claims a "lay" clergy and that would necessarily include everyone who holds one of their phony priesthood ordinations.

[GilesB]

I don’t get where you’re coming from. Someone chooses to “make it personal” with me, by posting nonsense in response to my post, and including others in the list - apparently to enjoy the joke at my expense.

All I asked was that they refrain from using me as their foil in a private conversation/joke.

And you pull my post?

I never indicated that I don’t want to see RF posts - but I do think that a request for clarity is not out of order, and when that request is met with even more deriding obscurity, that the post you pulled was very much in order.

Sorry - but nobody has shown me the private handshake to be an accepted member of your RF club.

Besides - I was not making it personal - I was stupidly, ignorantly and innocently responding to posts at face-value...obviously bumbling into a private domain of a chosen few, and I was personally attacked (in response to which you did nothing). Then you reprimanded me for pointing out an obvious bias on the part of that poster. This cuts both ways - or does it only cut againstt someone you perceive to be a newbie, not part of the cult? This last business is someone taking obscure personal potshots at me, and calling in an audience while they do so - which you ignored - but then slap me down for asking that they either explain or leave me out of it.

You call that moderation? Either be even-handed, or quit pretending to be.

[svcw]

THX 1138 place marker

[Elsie]

I have only criticized the way in which you injected your hatred for “Mormonism”...

---

Yup; that HATE stuff can REALLY mess up a meaningful discussion!!

---

---

Questions put to Joseph Smith: "'Do you believe the Bible?' [Smith:]'If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do'. When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119).

Joseph Smith: "for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" (from Pearl of Great Price 1:12). "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270).

 

 

 

Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Journal of Discourses 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199); "And who is there that acknowledges [God's] hand? ...You may wander east, west, north, and south, and you cannot find it in any church or government on the earth, except the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Journal of Discourses , vol. 6, p.24); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).

 

 

 

Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (The Seer, p. 255).

 

 

 

Orson Pratt also said: "This great apostasy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now" (Journal of Discourses

, vol.18, p.44) and: "But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be ...But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance" (Journal of Discourses , 18:172).

 

 

President John Taylor stated: "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses , vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." (Journal of Discourses , 10:127).

 

 

 

James Talmage said: "A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ". (A Study of the Articles of Faith, p.182).

 

 

 

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (Doctrines of Salvation, p.266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282).

 

 

 

More recent statements by apostle Bruce McConkie are also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 3, p.265); "Thus the signs of the times include the prevailing apostate darkness in the sects of Christendom and in the religious world in general" (The Millennial Messiah, p.403); "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (Mormon Doctrine, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, p.269); "Gnosticism is one of the great pagan philosophies which antedated Christ and the Christian Era and which was later commingled with pure Christianity to form the apostate religion that has prevailed in the world since the early days of that era." (Mormon Doctrine, p.316).

 

 

 

President George Q. Cannon said: "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (Gospel Truth, p.324).

 

 

President Wilford Woodruff stated: "the Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called" (Journal of Discourses , vol. 2, p.196).

[Elsie]

I find it utterly fascinating that you were a member of a church which you found to be either preaching doctrines of demons or preaching some kind of oppressive doctrine that you believed to be harmful, yet you refuse to discuss it on an anonymous forum and you then criticize people who choose to discuss the demonic doctrines and practices of the LDS Church and those of us who use this forum as an opportunity to sound the alarm over these problems.

Pete; it's a FOOL that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.

--Everett McGill

[GilesB]

I’m sorry - but I will choose the time and circumstances to reveal things I consider very personal, and I will not be bullied into doing so when I deem in inappropriate - and I so deem it at this time.

“you found to be either preaching doctrines of demons or preaching some kind of oppressive doctrine that you believed to be harmful”

No sir! You cannot narrowly limit the options - I will not be bullied. I had my reasons for leaving - and I may or may not share them here. Frankly, this forum has seemed more akin to a pack of wolves than Christian brothers - and not conducive to eliciting that kind of openness from me.

Regarding the hatchet - as I later posted to you, that was an erroneous response to another poster, and we have cleared things up privately.

You seem to be taking the position that the LDS church is not deserving of protected, confidential conversation because they have a lay ministry. That is not what the law says - nor does the law demand that 12-18 year old boys be afforded that privilege. I stated my positiion very clearly - that the Mormon equivilant of a church pastor (I.e. bishop) should righly be considered clergy for purposes of the clergy privilege - no more and no less than other churches.

I have no where, at no time derided anybody for leaving the Mormon church. My objection was to the obviously heated attack on my observations from a strictly legal standpoint of the standing of a bishop in matters of law; an attack that came out of left-field, and as you confess here, was obviouly motivated by strong disagreement with the teachings of the Mormon church - about which I had not commented - BUT it was wrongly assumed (by your admission here) that I was defending Mormon practices and teachings (hmmm, wonder why the “moderator” didn’t find that bit of “mind-reading” worthy of reprimand?)

I defend the right of the Mormon church, in the United States, to have the same rights of clergy confidentiality as any other church. I find it simply and consistent to grant that privilege to the pastoral equivilant, a bishop, but not to the unique office of “priest” that is uniquely defined in the Mormon church (in other words, they shouldn’t have expanded privilege because of their unique practice and definition) - and that was what my commentary was about. I resent that others, including yourself, have dragged me into your attack on Mormon beliefs. I want no part of that. I don’t agree with those beliefs, but I am not in the practice of attacking them, or any other beliefs at every opportunity. I just don’t believe that expands God’s Kingdom. This was (supposedly) a discussion about whether or not a bishop’s conversations should be legally privileged - NOT about Mormon teaching, my childhood religion, nor my current faith.

Someday - and not in a situation where I am defending myself from ravenous and underhanded attack - I may share some of my personal story here. But I haven’t seen much from any here (from attempts to drawing me into some other argument, to private jokes/conversations at my expense) to encourage it.

[Elsie]

Someone chooses to “make it personal” with me, by posting nonsense in response to my post, and including others in the list - apparently to enjoy the joke at my expense.

What 'nonsense'?

[Elsie]

Besides - I was not making it personal - I was stupidly, ignorantly and innocently responding to posts at face-value...obviously bumbling into a private domain of a chosen few, and I was personally attacked (in response to which you did nothing).

Your hatred... sounds MIGHTY 'personal to me!

[GilesB]

follow the thread.

[greyfoxx39]

[GilesB]

It might be considered so - but in the circumstances it was in response to an attack on me that was obviously driven by some other anger - I correctly identified it, and I have had a private conversation with that poster - we have made amends. I do NOT apologize for responding honestly and accurately to unwarranted aggression.

Nor do I appreciate your posting massive off-topic screeds to me simply because you incorrectly perceive me to be a defender of Mormonism. (More “mind-reading” that is allowed by the “moderator”)

[Elsie]

.. and I was personally attacked (in response to which you did nothing).

We, of the law office of Canwe, Sue'em and Howe are well versed at extracting judgements from those on FR who DARE to 'personally' attack others!

Stop by our office during business hours, with the EVIDENCE, and we'll get them slimey jerks who have offended you!

[GilesB]

Aaaaaah - so oblique reference at an unwitting participant’s expense, referring to a 4 year old post with no apparent relevance, is fair play, and not personal? When politely asked to elaborate as to the relevance, same unwitting poster is derided for their ignorance - then when the scoffer is politely asked to either enlighten or desist, THAT request is deemed too “personal” to leave up.

And this last post of yours is certainly not “personal”, because you, greyfoxx are one of the chosen, you know the handshake and the inside jokes - so anything you post is certainly OK.

Ya’ll are pathetic, you are certainly not welcoming to any stranger who might post something not directly in line with your strict orthodoxy - whatever that might be - and NOBODY can say the most benign thing regarding Mormonism without getting set upon as a Mormon defender.

[greyfoxx39]

When someone highjacks a thread by making it all about themself, whining is usually resorted to when their bullying tactics fail.

[Religion Moderator]

I will restore post 44 so that you can see it in context but the sentence that was "making it personal" by attributing motive and/or reading minds was this one:

You are obviously pursuing an agenda of which you have not made me privy, and are unscrupulously using me, and my responses, to carry on your own private conversation for your own pleasure.

Religious debate is often contentious and easily spirals into flame wars. For that reason, the RF has additional guidelines to nip flame wars in the bud - chief among these is to discuss the issues, not the Freepers personally.

Reading minds, attributing motives, making the thread "about" individual Freepers, following Freepers from thread-to-thread, accusing a Freeper of telling a lie and badgering him with the same question over-and-again are all forms of "making it personal."

RF regulars generally know how far they can push the envelope without being warned. For instance, questions are rarely "making it personal." If you said "Are you a heretic?" it would not be making it personal, but if you said "You are a heretic." it would be.