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

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.

”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.”

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.

More accurately - when someone “new” refuses to get caught up into the “We Hate Mormonism” arguement, they are beset upon by the likes of you, who enjoy picking at folks with obscure, or unrelated references. When the newbie objects to being made sport of, he is branded “thin skinned” and a “whiner”.

This was made about me by YOU and your cult. I have tried several times to take this thread back on topic - please point out a SINGLE time that you have posted anything relevant to the original topic of this thread....I’m waiting....

Just trying to grasp the obscure cult rules here:
1) Assuming a person is a Mormon defender is OK.
2) Avoiding the “Mormonism is evil” sub-thread by pointing out an obvious anti-mormon bias is NOT OK.
3) Defending oneself from mistatement and attack - NOT OK
4) Asking that oblique references to oneself be clarified or discontinued - DEFINITELY NOT OK!!!!!
5) Asking for clarification of the “rules” - Thin skinned and whining.
6) Making obscure jokes at another’s expense, calling them thin skinned and a whiner - DEFINITELY OK - especially when said whiner was the ONLY poster trying to discuss the original article, because...
7) THIS forum is all and always about how we hate Mormons, and nobody can ride through this valley safely if they don’t openly and often preach about HOW MUCH THEY HATE MORMONISM!

Do I have the rules down?

Please go back through this thread - who is the person trying to address the headlining article? ME! And I’m the one you pull when a little terrier starts nipping at me and linking a post of mine FROM 4 YEARS AGO!!!!?????

I asked for relevance, and I’m sneered at - THAT is acceptable? When I ask to be excluded, and give my bill off particulars for that request - somehow THAT is out of line!!!

Also - asking “Are you a heritic?” is OK????? That is weasel-wording. Much like asking if you still beat your wife. There is no real difference (except honesty) between attack by question mark and a direct statement based on the tone and tenor of a referenced post (which mine were, and my characterization was truthful an accurate).

Your “rules” reward the weasel who puts a question mark at the end of their perjoritive statement, and punishes the honest man who calls the tool digging dirt a spade.

Look back through this thread - you have allowed all manner of folks to post off-topic in an attempt to rope me into some other discussion, and slap me when I call them on it.

I am ridiculed for something? You let those totally off-topic posts stand, but pull my post, which you reference here - I stand by the words you highlight - they are a correct and accurate description of what was taking place; SHAME on you for taking mine down and letting those stand.

This thread has been hijacked - not by me, but by those trying to turn it into a discussion of the evils of Mormonism - and I get slapped because I strongly resist those efforts.

I am an honest poster on FR. I speak my mind - but I will strongly resist those who try to put words in my mouth to further their own agenda, or draw me into some other argument. I don’t play well with others, in that situation.

You have allowed me to be lambasted and personally attacked, while holding a strict line on what I post - even when my words are demonstrably true and accurate - that is petty and unworthy of a moderator. That I object to such treatment is called “whining”????

I am not impressed with this particular community on FR.

svcw - I include you only because the (don’t you think he’s) disgusting?(see the question mark RM?) greyfox included you on his previous post. You and I have made our peace, and I respect that.

Hmmmm:
Hidden agenda revealed - check
Personal attack - check
Unnwarranted (and wrong) assumptions - check
Silly juvenile graphic - check
My repeated contentions validated - check

RM - I believe I have been vindicated.
gf - are you an unmitigated fool? (The all important question mark protects me!)

Take your pleasure as you will - but poking sticks then calling names when the target of your stupid, childish taunts reacts is, well, stupid and childish, isn’t it? (I’m catching on here!)

GOOD JOB RM!!!!! You really managed this one well! You certainly reprimanded the evil doer, didn’t you????????? And you definitly maintained an atmosphere of open, honest debate without personal attacks, didn’t you? Had you been more discerning, and even-handed in your admonishments, this would have likely been avoided. But since you chose me as your newbie target, and ignored the sh!t-flinging child in the room (because he is a “regular” and above reproach)....you got more sh!t!

BRAVO for the denizens of this forum - you are certainly the folks I would rush to to discuss religion. OH, P-Marlowe - I most certainly should be eager to discuss very personal events of my life relating to my beliefs, past and present now, shouldn’t I??? I can hardly wait to display my most innermost thoughts and feelings before you all...and here, let me cast before you the few precious pearls that I have. You are ALL so thoughtful, wise, considerate, welcoming - brimming with Christian brotherhood and goodness! If you are not Christian, you still promote the foundational tenets of your faith by your actions here. YOU ARE ALL TO BE CONGRATULATED!!! You certainly did your part in keeping this forum free of subversive ideas! And you did it with such love and kindness - aren’t you proud???

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.