[There’s a 11.10.2023 update to this post at the bottom]
Since I did a couple of blog posts (here and here) about the Arizona abuse case, mandatory reporting laws, and the clergy-penitent privilege, I’m taking a hiatus from my hiatus to report the news that the Arizona court dismissed the case against the LDS Church, holding that mandatory abuse reporting laws in Arizona did not apply to the abuser’s confession to his bishop because of the clergy-penitent privilege and that the bishop was therefore not legally required to report the abuse to authorities. The Court acknowledged that the law permitted such a report, but that it did not require a report (as an exemption to otherwise mandatory reporting laws): “Plaintiffs are correct that it would not have been illegal under Arizona law to report the abuse”.
For those keeping track, that means that the Court agrees with my position on the difference between permitting and requiring. So all those people who argued about my legal analysis in my previous posts–ad nauseam–here is a big “I Told You So.” I would like the hours I spent explaining and re-explaining my correct and straightforward position back, thanks.
In any event, because no report was required, there was no duty to report that could have been violated and therefore no negligence claim against the Church (since negligence requires an underlying duty that is violated).
There is something really interesting, and really important, flying under the radar in both the Church’s legal briefing and the Court opinion that bears scrutiny. It’s this: notwithstanding its supposed gold standard on handling child abuse, it is apparently “Church doctrine” for bishops not to report abuse if they don’t have to. At least, that’s what the Church argued in its briefing and what the judge relied on in part for his ruling.
Specifically, plaintiffs had argued that the fact that the hotline attorneys instructed the bishop that he was not allowed to report the child abuse instead of advising him that he was not required to report it supported their legal claim. Indeed, that’s what I’ve focused on in my analysis in earlier posts–that the advice was fundamentally legally incorrect, which means that (a) the Church and its lawyers are morally, if not legally, culpable for allowing abuse to continue by giving incorrect legal advice that prevented the bishop from disclosing abuse to law enforcement, and (b) maybe that could amount to professional negligence on the part of the attorney giving the advice and potentially negligence by the Church if they were willfully instructing hotline attorneys to give incorrect legal advice. Plaintiffs did seem to make that second argument regarding incorrect advice.
The Church’s response? Direct quote: “Regardless of any disclosures of abuse by Paul Adams after his arrest, Bishop Herrod and Bishop Mauzy both had a duty under Church doctrine to maintain the confidentiality of his confessions, and they did so.” (emphasis added). The Court (which is not really allowed to question what “Church doctrine” is, given First Amendment protections) similarly concluded that “Plaintiffs are correct that it would not have been illegal under Arizona law for [the bishop] to report the abuse, but it would have violated Church doctrine, therefore he was not required to make a report.” (emphasis added).
Well, that seems pretty strange to me. Indeed, it seems to contradict what’s in the Church handbook regarding abuse–which is to call the helpline in order to: “Assure that child sexual abuse is stopped; Help victims receive care, including from professional counselors; and Comply with whatever reporting is required by law.”
I really do not see how you do (1) or (2) if “Church doctrine” is to keep confessions of abuse confidential and not report them to law enforcement unless absolutely legally required.
Of course, the confession was not kept strictly confidential–it was disclosed to numerous other Church leaders in connection with the abuser’s excommunication proceedings. Indeed, plaintiffs argued that the disclosure to other Church leaders waived the privilege, but the Court considered those disclosures to be part of the confessional setting and therefore covered by the privilege. I can’t say I disagree on the waiver issue as a legal matter, but it strikes me as really problematic that a bishop will disclose confessions to other Church authorities to conduct Church discipline, but will not disclose confessions to legal authorities so that they can stop abuse and conduct secular discipline. It seems that the Church values–above all else, at any cost–its ability to govern its internal matters as it sees fit and as best protect its image.
I get that one can argue about the value of clergy-penitent privilege & confidentiality. I get that some people think that the privilege actually helps abuse victims because it encourages abusers to seek pastoral care and bring abuse to light so that it can potentially be addressed.
But I don’t think one can argue that it is never, ever a good idea to report abuse to law enforcement. And that is apparently the Church’s position here: that abuse should never be reported unless legally required. That that’s doctrine.
I can’t really come to any other conclusion than that the Church cares more about its ability to manage its affairs internally, and keep those affairs confidential, than just about anything else. It certainly cares more about that kind of secrecy than it cares about complying with federal securities law, or being transparent about how it spends tithing dollars, or, yes, stopping abuse.
That’s its prerogative, I suppose, if it really values confidentiality to that extent. But as that’s the case I would sure love for it to just STOP SAYING how much it cares about abuse victims. It really has no right to credibly claim that. It will sacrifice kids on the altar of “confidentiality” again, and again, and again.
I wish the plaintiffs luck in their appeal.
***Update***
I drafted this post pretty quickly and want to highlight that there are a number of VERY EXCELLENT comments about the “doctrine of confidentiality” that I encourage people to read.
In addition, I could have done a longer post about the opinion but I really was focused on the doctrine of confidentiality piece. Some additional tidbits in the arguments / opinion (both the Church’s brief and the Court’s opinion are available online thanks to mormonr.org) that are their own can of worms for those interested:
- The Church goes to great lengths in its briefing to argue that it is not in any kind of “special relationship” with its members that would impose on it a duty to, you know, stop abuse. As a legal matter that is probably true, but it certainly reads funny to hear the Church basically saying it doesn’t owe a damn thing to members in the way of any kind of duty of care. I mean, I think we all know that it’s true based on its behavior but it’s nice to see them say the quiet part out loud.
- The Church also goes to great lengths to explain why a visiting teacher / ministering sister does NOT represent the Church in ANY official capacity because she doesn’t have the priesthood. Again, thanks for saying the quiet part out loud KMC!!!
QUESTIONS:
- Are you surprised to see the Church argue that confidentiality is “doctrine”? Is that consistent with your understanding of doctrine? What are the implications of that position?
- Would you trust Church leaders to handle reports of abuse in a way that best protects the interests of the victim?
Wheat & Tares 
doc-trine: “a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group”. By that definition, then, yes, I am somewhat surprised that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints characterizes the clergy-penitent privilege & confidentiality as doctrine (a belief held and taught by the Church), vs an administrative rule or practice, even though there is a history of re-classifying past doctrines into practices (“we never taught that, it was just a practice of the time”). So, not totally surprised. But totally disappointed. “Would you trust Church leaders to handle reports of abuse in a way that best protects the interests of the victim? ” No, not if protecting the perpetrator over the victim is DOCTRINE.
From the AP article: In a prepared statement, the church said, āWe are pleased with the Arizona Superior Courtās decision granting summary judgment for the Church and its clergy and dismissing the plaintiffsā claims. Contrary to some news reports and exaggerated allegations, the court found that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its clergy handled this matter consistent with Arizona law.ā
Can you just feel the smugness, the arrogance, the “how dare anyone question the authority and correctness of the church” in this statement? And what’s absurd is that it’s so absolutely gobsmacking embarrassing in light of the helpless little children that the church just swept under the carpet for the sake of being legally correct. Here’s a more appropriate statement on this lawsuit from someone the church supposedly follows: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
“The Mormon Church exists to protect sexual predators.”
… is what I want to say, but it’s an exaggeration and also perhaps needlessly blunt.
So instead let me phrase it this way. The church’s leaders at every level consistently, reliably, protect and enable sexual predators. Including through laws like this. And including the laws that mandate sexually abusing young trans kids by denying them social transition.
That is the only relevant fact about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Forget “is it true or not?” This is literally all that anyone needs to know about this god-damned church. And damn anyone who defends it, for any reason, anywhere, ever.
I guess being the “one true church” does not make it the “one right church” as far as victims are concerned.
It’s amazing to me how laws designed to protect the church actually end up showing the hypocrisy of the church.
Thanks for this analysis, Elisa. Your last paragraph really summed up the frustration with the Church’s attempt to have it both ways. They can’t get all teary and sincere about loving abuse victims when their real priority is confidentiality that protects the abuser instead.
Not to overlook the abuse issue, of course, but this framing is intriguing. Let’s assume for a moment that clergy-penitent privilege is Church doctrine as argued in the brief. How, then, does that square with ecclesiastical leaders breaking confidentiality for BYU students and employees and not protecting that doctrinal privilege? Does the doctrine only apply in certain situations? Can doctrine be disregarded under specific circumstances? What are the implications of either of those?
Just curious.
@A, thatās a super good point. āDoctrineā is pretty shaky.
Maintaining orthodoxy at BYU is more important than protecting victims of abuse, I guess.
To define doctrine in such a self-interested way dumbs down the concept of doctrine and makes the thinking member that much more skeptical about leadership priorities. Way to undermine (again) your own legitimacy, church leaders. It’s almost like the organization is led by male octogenarians who have full faith in their own press releases.
If clergy members don’t have a legal obligation to report child abuse, like teachers, doctors, etc., then how is it acceptable for them to supervise children? In all kinds of other organizations that parents entrust their children to, there are safeguards, like background checks, mandatory reporting, etc. Why are churches always exempt when violating human rights because of religious belief? The minute the church leaders knew about the abuse and how the children were endangered, but refused to report it, was the minute those leaders became an accomplice to child abuse.
I think it was in one of the articles, but the lawyer for the victims framed it perfectly when she said the perpetrator’s religious beliefs were more important than his children’s rights not to be raped. The sheer disgusting insanity of that.
If I remember right, I think the bishop encouraged the wife to report the abuse to the police. So why was it doctrinally ok for the bishop to have someone else report the abuse but not doctrinally ok to do it himself? What is the point of that? What would it have cost the church to report the abuse once the bishop learned of it?
@mary wright a million thumbs up. Excellent (depressing) insights.
Great analysis, Elisa. I’ve missed your excellent writing and great insights in recent months…
I am extremely shocked and disappointed that the Church is claiming that absolute ecclesiastical confidentiality is a “doctrine”. I think that most Church members expect their Church leaders to keep their private meetings with them confidential. However, I also think that Church members would also expect Church leaders to break that confidentiality in extreme cases in order to protect other people. This was just such an extreme case where the bishop was justified in breaking confidentiality to save children. The bishop in this case wanted to report abuse but was given incorrect and immoral legal advice (commands?) from the lawyers at the Church hotline. Sure, the bishop was not legally required to report the abuse to the legal authorities, but I’d really like to see the Church found liable for intentionally giving this bad legal advice that prevented the bishop from reporting as he wanted to and led to children unnecessarily suffering at the hands of their abuser.
@A makes a great point about ecclesiatical confidentiality being broken at BYU. While it’s perhaps not exactly the same thing, the Church has a policy of keeping “disciplinary councils” private. However, it does allow for exceptions to the confidentiality rule:
“All Church discipline is carried out in complete confidence. Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews. To protect that confidence, the Church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council. A confidential record of the proceedings is kept by a clerk, but even if an individual decides to publicly share information about the process and seeks to position that process in their own light, the Church will be circumspect in any public statement. In rare cases, the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation.” (https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-discipline)
As you can see, the Church allows for exceptions to the rule of keeping the decisions of disciplinary councils confidential “to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation”. If confidentiality can be broken in order to prevent harm through “misinformation”, doesn’t it also make sense to break it to protect children from a known sexual predator? It doesn’t seem to me that absolute confidentiality is a doctrine at all.
@mountainclimber thatās another really good point! The church will release the confidential contents of a disciplinary hearing to protect its reputation but wonāt do so to protect children from rape. Wow. What a doctrine.
This is a post where the comments are way better than the OP. Appreciate the thoughtful contributions.
Idolatry is putting it lightly. How about gross complicity, or willfully negligent? Or how about the Q15 has a millstone around its collective neck and is drowning in a sea of smug pride, led by Dalin Oaks, the next prophet seer and legalese perpetrator? He can go to hell.
Elisa, what do you think is likely to happen with the appeal?
My God. The Mormon church is morally bankrupt.
Ruth, the judgment followed an appeal on a discovery issue that directly tied to the case. That ruling caused the judge to reverse course. I was surprised this ruling happened so quickly after the other one in the trial court going the opposite direction. But it foreshadows the likely result on appeal.
In context, about twenty years ago or so we had the Church’s general counsel talk with us at a JRCLS meeting in Dallas. He wanted the Church to adopt a policy of mandatory reporting and to claim a religious right to do so regardless of the then state of the law. He also favored passing out a “miranda warning” type card to everyone in the Church telling them to expect immediate reporting to civil authorities. You can tell his opinion didn’t get very far, though I’ve often reflected on it.
I understand the issues. In some countries, if your clergy does not assert the priest-penitent privilege then they aren’t “real” clergy and you aren’t a “real” church. That was a bigger issue twenty years ago than it is today, but it is still significant in some countries and ties into whether you qualify as one of the people of the book and thus not a legitimate target for slave taking or not in some places and whether or not you can build chapels or have missionaries in others. The number of such places continues to shrink, but of course it is an issue for those living there.
I don’t have a solution, but I sympathize with what the general counsel suggested. I’d like to walk into church Sunday and see something like that as an insert in every program being distributed. Yes, I know litigation like this makes that less likely, but that is what I would like to see.
@ruth, as egregious as the facts are here, I donāt see much shot at success on appeal. I just donāt think a court is likely to hold a religious institution liable for failing to report a confession in a state with a clerical exception to the mandatory reporting requirements. If there was no duty to report then they probably just cannot be held liable for not reporting, even if the advice given that prevented the report was incorrect. Incorrect advice is more like a malpractice claim but since plaintiffs were clients I donāt see how they could raise that.
Without recourse in the courts, I hope that:
-states remove exceptions for mandatory reporting
-the church changes its practices with respect to reporting and uses the hotline to encourage reporting and provide resources to victims (side note, someone who helps run the hotline told me this IS the purpose of the hotlineāto default to reporting if legalābut that obviously doesnāt square with the ādoctrineā argument here)
-everyone boycotts KMC generally and the attorneys known to have given the advice specifically
-I actually think the physician bishop should lose his license for failing to report. It troubles me that a physician didnāt report. But thatās up to medical boards.
You heard it here first: in about a year or so there will be a revelation to the effect that bishops are to act as mandatory reporters. After some time has past to allow for plausible deniability of being influenced by The World. Someone high up the chain has to realize how bad this is, right? Please?
I personally know how the church treats victims compared to abusive fathers. I experienced it. The church was bending over backwards and had bishops jumping threw hoops for 20 years to get my sexually abusive father to complete his ārepentanceā process and get rebaptized. But they didnāt think they had any responsibility to make sure my father confessed to all that were harmed, or to do much to make restitution to his victims. Nothing at all was done to help my younger sister, because the lying jerk didnāt confess to molesting her. I forced his confession to abusing me. But he pretended he never touched her. And really, all the church did for me was tell my father to pay for 1/10 of the counseling I needed over the years to recover any sense of self worth. But he had weekly appointments with his loving kind bishops for about ten years, while my bishops didnāt have time to bother answering my questions about how the atonement helped me when all I could see was my father was forgiven with no real consequences and my life was a screwed up mess. I had one requirement before I would approve his rebaptism and that was he confess and apologize to my siblings for the crap that was going on. But the churchā¦oh, they asked me if I thought he was ready and I said no because I had asked him to do that one thing, and he wouldnāt. But they went ahead and dunked him in water thinking that they as a church have to power to make him forgiven by God, when he has refused to make a simple apology to all he harmed.
Yeah, the church is all about helping the abuser ārepentā and too damned blind to see when the abuser is not repentant. They let the abuser skip the consequences of their actions by not reporting.
The going to prison is *part* of paying the consequences and if an abuser isnāt willing to face those consequences, they are not fully repentant. So, they keep right on abusing as this one did. And, while my father no longer had young children to abuse, he was still emotionally abusive to the only victim still living with him; my mother.
But she was too angry at the church taking his side in everything all during their marriage that she wouldnāt set foot in a bishopās office after trying to get help when my father physically abused her, and she knew she couldnāt support 5 children, and if she left him, would the church help her feed her children. Nope. She was supposed to go home and apologize for making him so angry by asking him to at least help her father fix our leaking roof. But she was totally at fault for him being a lazy s.o.b. Small children literally didnāt have a decent roof (I remember watching the snow drift in) and all the church cared about was the manās feelings. They were not going to insult the man by helping when he wasnāt the one asking. My mother begging wasnāt enough. They wouldnāt insult HIM.
So, all the church cares about is male feelings, not children who are abused, women who are abused. As the manās property, the man has a right to treat his wife and children any way he wants, and it is just tough shit for them.
The church cares about its priesthood holders and everybody else s just collateral damage.
Yeah, I see posts like this and know that responding isnāt good for me. It just triggers too much. For my own mental health, I should just let Jesus put that millstone around certain bishopās necks, and around some general authorityās necks, and take the a**h***s out and dump them overboard into the deepest ocean. So, for the rest of today, I will paint pictures of church leaders, and church lawyers with big round rocks tied around their necks being dumped overboard.
Does the church even realize that by āprotecting the good name of the churchā they are driving people away?
It seems like Mormon confession is a fairly new ādoctrine.ā Growing up in the 50s and 60s, confession was between the individual and God. Little or no mention of the Bishop interceding. Confession was a Catholic activity.
A few years ago, our Bishop stated that if you donāt feel worthy of partaking of the Sacrament, you need to be in the Bishopās office confessing. That seemed strange to me. A foreign concept.
Related to the OP, the Churchās policy or doctrine needs to immediate protect children. Any other concept is totally unacceptable.
The Churchās response to the law suit is a disaster. Why canāt the leadership stop the avalanche of ugly publicity. The lawyers be damned, humanity must prevail.
@anna, Iām so so sorry. Truly. Thatās really so awful.
Maybe this isn’t relevant to the current ruling, but I thought part of the prosecution’s argument was that the father had waived his clergy confidentiality privilege because he posted the abuse online. If I go out and stab someone, film it, then post it online, then tell my bishop I did that, how is my sin confidential anymore? Does it basically come down to the fact that a bishop can’t talk about what a member discloses to them, even if what the member discloses is public knowledge? Ultimately the clergy can’t discuss it publicly but everyone else who knows about it can because they aren’t bound by confidentiality? One other question, considering that there are numerous stories of bishops discussing sensitive information without a member’s permission, it would seem this confidentiality is applied inconsistently at best. Is there any legal argument that would apply here, where the church doesn’t equally apply confidentiality in all cases, and therefore it’s becomes meaningless?
And we should act surprised that a āreligionā founded by a cabal of predators hides behind their veneer of clergy-penitent privilege?
You know, the same organization that denies women equal status, maintains a long history of discrimination, hoards their money, and protects their male priesthood holders at the expense of abused children.
All in accordance with the teachings of the Savior.
A tragedy like this is a chain of bad decisions and systemic failures – just one break in that chain could have led to a much different outcome for those poor kids. As a result, we’re left with a morally repugnant legal battle. Nobody wins here – least of all the children who were true victims. While I’m disgusted by the whole situation, I’m also not surprised that that church’s lawyers are using every possible legal angle to protect their client from legal exposure…this is what lawyers are for, even if I hate the moral implications. This whole situation is incredibly sad and disappointing.
While the church may have come out ahead in the legal battle at the moment, they have another black eye to match the one they got from the SEC.
This irks me…let’s look at the actual current guidelines from the church:
From the outset, it’s clear that this chapter is directed at any leaders conducting interviews and 1:1 meetings (not just bishops). Moving down to section 31.1.8:
Notice that the very first action to take is “REPORT THE ABUSE TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES.” OK let’s look at the other references mentioned. Here is part of 38.6.2.1:
Once again, “contact civil authorities” is the first thing to do. Now for the reference to “Abuse (Help for the Victim)”
Ok, let’s unpack this…members and leaders are repeatedly instructed to IMMEDIATELY report the abuse to civil authorities then contact the bishop/stake president. Church leaders are NEVER to dismiss a report of abuse or counsel someone not to report criminal activity. But now the “Gospel According to Kirton McKonkie” is that bishops are doctrinally obligated to maintain confidentiality, and only break confidentiality when mandated by law and after calling the phone-a-lawyer hotline?! Come on.
This smells of a desperate legal Hail Mary pass that happened to work (at least for now). This “doctrine” is contradicted all over the place in current LDS church publications and policies. I hope the appeal in the higher court rips this right open.
As others have mentioned, this new “doctrine” being on the legal books could open a whole can of worms for the church in many other domains, and I hope it does. I can’t wait for the first lawsuit filed against a jerk student bishop at BYU and the honor code office.
I think it’s pretty clear that there isn’t a lot of evidence that confidentiality is “doctrine” given the actual church handbook + actual church practices. And, in case this was buried in a comment, I had a conversation very recently with someone who literally runs the KMC hotline who told me that their default is to tell people to report except in states (not Arizona) where it is illegal. So that seems TOTALLY contrary to the argument lawyers at the same law firm are making in the briefing.
But, I don’t really think that changes the legal outcome of the case. In fact, part of what’s so strange about that line of argument is that I don’t think it was necessary. The Church didn’t have a legal duty to report (true) so there can be no negligence claim (true). Whether or not it was “doctrinally” prohibited from reporting honestly doesn’t seem all that relevant to me.
As far as the court getting into the weeds on doctrine (if it were relevant), that’s a tough needle to thread. A court is definitely not going to make value judgments about whether a particular doctrine is “valid” – that would violate the First Amendment.
I do think it’s in line with the First Amendment for a court to conclude that, contrary to an argument in a legal brief, something a Church CLAIMS to be doctrine is not in fact doctrine (that’s not questioning the validity of the doctrine, but whether it’s actually a fact that it exists). But I think a court would be VERY reluctant to go down that path.
***
I could have done a longer post about the opinion but I really was focused on the doctrine of confidentiality piece. Some additional tidbits for those interested:
-The Church goes to great lengths in its briefing to argue that it is not in any kind of “special relationship” with its members that would impose on it a duty to, you know, stop abuse. As a legal matter that is probably true, but it certainly reads funny to hear the Church basically saying it doesn’t owe a damn thing to members in the way of any kind of duty of care. I mean, I think we all know that it’s true based on its behavior but it’s nice to see them say the quiet part out loud.
-The Church also goes to great lengths to explain why a visiting teacher / ministering sister does NOT represent the Church in ANY official capacity because she doesn’t have the priesthood. Again, thanks for saying the quiet part out loud KMC!!!
This doctrine of deception is found in the same book that explains the doctrine of using shell companies to hide assets. Of course this book is only found in the law library of the church attorneys. One should conclude that the literal business of the LDS corporate church is so unpleasant the leadership really, really does not want anyone, especially its membership, to know what they are doing.. Does the leadership really think they can get away with its secrets? The Scriptures say no.
“There is nothing which is secret save it shall be revealed” ~ 2 Nephi 30:17
“And the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed.” ~ D&C 1:3
“For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.” ~ Luke 2:2-3
I’m sorry. I don’t understand these men at all. If someone told me they were having sex with their 6 MONTH OLD baby, I would call the cops immediately. If the Church released me from my calling, so what! If the State wanted to charge me? Bring it on. I’d have no problem standing up in the from a jury of my peers saying I “breached confidentiality” in that particular situation. Have we no Lions in this Church? I’m a lawyer, but for hell’s sake – we all know right from wrong. I once had a fellow attorney tell me “We are going to get sued. We just need to decide which side we want to defend.” This is the side we wanted to defend?
@lily, the church does not teach its members how to know right from wrong or make a moral judgment. It teaches us to do what our leaders say to do. And asks us to literally shut down our own inner knowing if it conflicts with what a church authority (or lawyer?) tells us.
Per D&C 42:84-86, we report robbers, and thieves, and liars to the law of the land. To the degree we as a church have been complicit in shielding child rapists from the legal consequences of their actions, as sure as divine justice exists there will be hell to pay.
Of all the issues that I have with the church these days, this is the one that just drives me crazy, because the right answer is so obvious. If it didn’t piss me off so much, I’d spend some time rewriting the lyrics of “Do What is Right” to “Do What is Legal” but it wouldn’t come out funny, just angry.
In 3 Nephi 11, Jesus says that to declare anything more than repentance and baptism as doctrine is to build on a sandy foundation. That seems like a pretty apt description for what the attorneys for the church are doing on its behalf in this situation. The church would do well to stop ever using the word “doctrine” anymore. Every time the church or one of its leaders goes around using that word, they end up digging a hole that their future successors will have to dig back out of.
The church wants its members to be able to trust the local leaders. Not just that, they want the members to accept the local leaders as divinely inspired people whose integrity and words are generally not to be questioned. Especially not publicly. This creates a problem. For if the church takes measures to place restrictions on local leaders in order to more greatly protect against predators, then in so doing it acknowledges that sometimes the local leaders can’t be fully trusted. This undermines the whole “gift of discernment”, “divinely inspired” narrative. It further undermines trust in the higher-ups’ ability to be able to consistently choose the best leaders.
The church wants to just pretend that it is immune from abusers and sweep it all under the rug and attack people who attack it with smokescreens and mental gymnastics. But an abuse case is going to happen again. The next one could have serious ramifications for the church. Church leaders have every reason to take predatory behavior seriously. I say that it start by changing rules for local leaders. At the very least, leaders should not be doing worthiness interviews with teens unless there are two leaders present. They should probably scrap worthiness interviews altogether, since they are pointless and sometimes even abusive.
It’s really great to see you post Elisa, notwithstanding the horrible topic. I hope you are well.
The sad thing is that most members will never hear about this issue, and those that do will be told the church won in court and the details aren’t useful. The house always wins.
This makes me very sad.
@quentin, right.
I am wholly uninterested in doctrine vs policy vs whatever because I donāt think thereās anything special about ādoctrineā to begin with.
But for many folks, itās a designation that carries real weight. To use it here is reckless and ridiculous.
@Elisa – after reading your last few comments, the newfangled doctrine of confidentiality seems even more weird. Your conversation with the person running the hotline would certainly line up more with actual church publications.
This comment says to me that the church should not actually be legally liable for damages and that the court got it right. I’m not saying that the church doesn’t have a moral obligation here, but that from a purely legal viewpoint, the dismissal of the lawsuit seems like a correct call from the judge. I don’t like it…and I’d suspect that the judge didn’t like it either but genuinely tried to correctly interpret the law.
So is this a case of sophomoric lawyering from KMC? The legal rep on the hotline gave incorrect legal advice that led to continued abuse, and the church and KMC were legally saved by luck because reporting was not mandatory in AZ. They then added a seemingly unnecessary (and contradictory) “doctrinal” argument to the case.
Childwelfare.gov has a whole report on clergy reporting laws in the US:
33 states (including Arizona) clergy are specifically listed as mandatory reporters but clergy can be exempt from mandatory reporting regarding “pastoral communication.” Meaning if someone confesses to being the abuser, they may not be legally required to report; however, if they learn of the abuse outside of a confession setting then it’s mandatory that they report. There also some differences here. In AZ and most other states in this group, clergy are specifically listed as mandatory reporters, whereas in states like Utah clergy is mentioned specifically but the law says “any person” is a mandatory reporter.
Only 7 states/territories deny clergy-penitent privilege outright for cases of child abuse.
16 States/territories don’t specifically address clergy-penitent privilege at all.
In this case it seemed like there was more evidence of the abuse in play that wouldn’t fall under the umbrella of “pastoral communication,” but maybe since mandatory reporters in AZ are specifically enumerated (versus “any person” like in Utah), maybe evidence outside the clergy-penitent umbrella wasn’t in scope of the legal case.
> I get that some people think that the privilege actually helps abuse victims because it encourages abusers to seek pastoral care and bring abuse to light so that it can potentially be addressed.
I also get that some people hold this view, but I don’t think that it holds up to scrutiny. I also suspect Elisa doesn’t either, but I want to elaborate on this.
It’s clear that it didn’t help the abuser in this specific Arizona case. The perp got to indulge in grievous and damning sin for an additional 7 years and *then* committed suicide when it caught up with him. There’s no evidence they were ever able to repent. Under LDS theology things are not going to go well for this person. It probably would have been better for them if they’d been imprisoned and stopped.
And why would we expect any other outcome? Sure, the idea of pastoral care as a voice of conscience guiding the abuser back to redemption is nice. But it’s pretty unlikely the problem is that the abuser doesn’t know it’s wrong. Someone who is willing to confess already understands at least at some level that the deed is wrong. The most reasonable assumption is that such a person comes to situations like this because they’re lacking in the ability to effectively control themselves in the first place. That means this is a situation any effective intervention is going to involve (a) social efforts to control this person (like law enforcement) and/or (b) effective counseling that helps them change/control themselves.
You *might* get the odd lay clergy member who has a talent or training for (b), but short of that, you’re relying on a miracle. The church believes in miracles of course but they’re hard to systematize and rare by definition. Even with generous assumptions about the virtue in lay leaders (and I have known some I think deserve that), it’s irresponsible to rely on them to change abusers short of observable evidence supporting frequent success. I’m not aware of this evidence and I suspect if it were available to the church it might figure into its defense (either in public-facing statements or in court).
Come to think of it, I’d really love to hear about anything *anyone* has ever done that shows success in voluntary cooperative rehabilitation of an abuser, that would gratify my christian outlook to no end, and maybe show a better path forward internally.
As it is, though, Elisa’s suspicion that “the Church cares more about its ability to manage its affairs internally, and keep those affairs confidential, than just about anything else” seems pretty well-founded. And I’m not even really clear on what we think we stand to lose by more open cooperation with broader society or even accountability in areas like child abuse.
Typo correction to my last comment: clergy ISN’T specifically enumerated in states like Utah, but is covered under “any person.”
Also, based on the report, there are no states where it’s illegal for clergy to report…so I wonder why your hotline contact mentioned that. I think the hotline may cover Canada too, and maybe there’s something like that in Canada.
This whole situation is layer upon layer of failure…just one person or one small change in policy could have prevented so much suffering. The church needs to be public about an investigation into the failure and make public the results of the investigation and subsequent changes. I honestly don’t care they call it a “new revelation” about all abuse reporting being mandatory unless it’s explicitly outlawed in a particular country (then give an explicit list of places where it can’t happen, and some sort of statement about hoping those governments will enact better protections for the abused). I don’t know that it’ll happen, but I hope that it does once the legal dust settles.
@pirate priest, thanks for the legal rundown. I had also heard that *no* state makes it illegal for clergy to report, but I had not verified it. And you’re right–that makes the hotline really unnecessary. Report, report, report. (I seriously doubt Canada prohibits disclosure, but I don’t have time to look it up right now.)
@W, you’re right that I’m skeptical of any benefit to penitent privilege in terms of encouraging abusers to confess. I just didn’t want to make a bold claim about that without having done the research about whether there’s any statistically significant differences in states that do not exempt clergy from mandatory reporting vs. states that do or turn this into a debate about public policy behind those laws. So I made the much more narrow claim that at least in some circumstances it is better to report so there’s no reason that the absolute default is “do not report.”
I am pretty sure Angela has pointed out that in Catholicism, the priest-penitent privilege really is a big deal. But otherwise, it’s not anything rooted in LDS doctrine (until KMC willed it so in its legal briefing!).
I also think that what we know of sexual predators shows that probably meeting with a bishop once isn’t going to stop the abuse. Maybe we didn’t realize that in the 70’s or whatever when we knew less about sexual predation and also perhaps had more faith in ecclesiastical responses to that kind of behavior, but I think we pretty well know that now. It’s why bishops really aren’t supposed to try to handle these things. So we ought to update our policies to reflect a better understanding of abuse, predators, and harm to kids.
It’s also so weird to me that they never reported him after they excommunicated him. At that point, what relationship was there to salvage? He was no longer a congregant and they no longer his “priest.” He clearly had not changed his behavior.
That is what make this case so insane. Like, there are a lot of bad abuse cases but I have never heard one with error upon error upon error stacked like this.
Unbelievable! Please call me to the jury.
Also, once the wife confirmed abuse, it is not a confession from her, so it should not fall under the confidentiality of a confession. At that point, he legally had a duty to report with no shield for it being a confession. Because the wife saying āyes there is abuseā is not a confession, but a report that even a bishop is required to report.
@Anna – right, this is where the ice feels thin to me. The scumbag tells the bishop, the bishop wants to report, the hotline wrongly says he’s legally prohibited from reporting…Which according to Elisa’s contact is a real concern of the hotline, except there’s not actually any states where it is illegal to report (just states where it’s illegal not to). Then the wife confirms the abuse but isn’t confessing any sins of her own…which seems like AZ law would then require clergy to report. But now confidentiality is a some long-standing doctrine…but not really, and it isn’t necessarily legally relevant anyway.
The lawyers don’t seem any more of handle on this now than they did on the hotline. This is all just shameful CYA at this point.
What I don’t understand is why the church fought the suit? Why not just use the money they were going to use on lawyers and settle with the victims. Pay for their counseling. Apologize for any general confusion or failures on the part of leaders to protect those children. To me this action would have met every gospel principle of following Christ and ministering to the downtrodden. But instead they have to publicly prove they are “right” legally. Can’t they see being legally right isn’t more important than the needs of the victims? Can’t they just admit there were mistakes made and help these victims that need help?
Even though they won the suit it’s still morally wrong for them to use my tithing money to pay lawyers to relieve them of liability. The morally correct thing to do would be to accept liability and satisfy the victims. It’s not like they don’t have money to do it with. They could have chosen to do it in a way that would ultimately be good PR for the church. Settling publicly would have gone a long way towards helping members like me feel like their tithing really goes towards helping mankind, maybe the church can be trusted? Instead they pay lawyers to prove they areright, which effectively proves they are wrong. What am I missing about this?
@lws two things.
First, plaintiffs may have been making a huge settlement demand. Who knows. They may have been unwilling to settle because they wanted to make this public. I am not sure we know.
Second, itās likely that the church doesnāt want a reputation of settling. They may think that makes them a target for more lawsuits for people hoping for a quick settlement. I know plenty of companies (and the church is a company except worse because it claims not to be) who avoid settling even if it costs as much to fight because they donāt want a target on their backs.
Perhaps we can make improvements in our practices vis-a-vis reporting. Even so, for those who may have doubts about how the church compares–generally speaking–to other organizations with regard to abuse I recommend this page:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/home-page/current-events/abuse-and-the-church
Jack, I donāt care about what the church says about how much abuse theyāre in among members. They lie to make the church look good. When I was doing graduate work for my social work masters, at a nice Catholic university, I ran across a book that talked about an extensive study. The study had broken down which traits religions have that correlate to higher levels of child sexual abuse. Paying attention to the religion of the abuser because the victim is a child. The child is really too young to have their religion be important, because eight is average age of the abused child, so the child doesnāt really matter, they are just who is available to the abuser. So letās look at the attitude of abusers. The traits of a religion that had the highest numbers of child sexual abuse were those with:
1. An all male priesthood (except Jews)
2. Strong emphasis on traditional gender rolls.
3. Pressure to keep families together
4. Strong emphasis on no sex outside of marriage.
(So far it looks like Mormons and evangelicals)
5. A history of strange sexual practices such as polygamy.
(Oops, we just eliminated the evangelicals)
You know, why didnāt the study just say Mormons have the highest rate of sexually abusive men?
I could go into why each of those things leads to more sexual abuse of children, but I donāt have time for a long post.
And for those who want more information, the study is too old to be on the internet, and I donāt remember the books name, and it was a special school for graduate social work, so very specialized library. So, sorry but I donāt remember. That was 40 years ago. (I am too honest to have stolen the book, but I have sure wished I did.)
Lsw and Elisa, the church makes victims sign non disclosure agreements when it does settle, so that the amount is kept secret, so they are really paranoid about all the victims out there that might decide to sue. And we saw the lengths the church will go to when it is clearly in the wrong to make the victim look crazy in the Joseph Bishop case, just to not give the victim any money. They would rather ruin a victimās reputation and sanity than help her.
What do we expect when they have lawyers in the first presidency and q of 12, but not one psychologist, social worker, or any kind of mental health professional.
They worry about saving the abuserās soul, but have no concept of what sexual abuse by a trusted adult does to a personās ability to trust God let alone church authority, or believe that God could love them. And those children who are not rescued but live with it for years and the most damaged. The general authorities have zero empathy for the victims/survivors, because as alpha males, they cannot empathize with the powerlessness of a child. They can go to hā¦.outer darkness.
@Anna: I’ll say it: they can go to hell, and Jesus himself said they should be drowned in the sea with a millstone around their neck. I also don’t really care what the PR machinery at the LDS church tries to spin. On those fronts, you and I completely agree
I’m going to push back on the claim that Mormon men have the highest incidence of child sex abuse. Making a claim like that based ln memory of an unknown book from an super-specialized library in an unnamed university from 40 years ago isn’t enough evidence to make such a sweeping claim about Mormon men.
To be clear, I’m not questioning your credentials or even necessarily that you read such a book. I’m also in no way saying that sex abuse is Mormonism isn’t a real problem. However, saying that “Mormons have the highest rate of sexually abusive men” is a very serious and specific claim that shouldn’t be thrown around without very specific evidence that it’s true.
There is some fairly recent research on religion and sexual abuse:
There’s a 2014 German study by Nina Sprƶber that involved the German hotline for abuse. This is the conclusion taken from PubMed:
“The results suggest that child sexual abuse in institutions is attributable to the nature of institutional structures and to societal assumptions about the rights of children more than to the attitudes towards sexuality of a specific religion.”
There’s was a research review an the University of Alberta in 2020 ( the article can be viewed on phys.org) that highlights specific differences between abuse in religious and secular institutions.
It’s no secret that some of the fundamentalist Mormon groups have a very high rates of child sex abuse, especially insular, secretive groups like the FLDS church with leaders like Warren Jeffs. However, extending that umbrella to ALL Mormon men is a claim that requires evidence.
@Anna: I’ll say it: they can go to hell, and Jesus himself said they should be drowned in the sea with a millstone around their neck. I also don’t really care what the PR machinery at the LDS church tries to spin. On those fronts, you and I completely agree
I’m going to push back on the claim that Mormon men have the highest incidence of child sex abuse. Making a claim like that based ln memory of an unknown book from an super-specialized library in an unnamed university from 40 years ago isn’t enough evidence to make such a sweeping claim about Mormon men.
To be clear, I’m not questioning your credentials or even necessarily that you read such a book. I’m also in no way saying that sex abuse is Mormonism isn’t a real problem. However, saying that “Mormons have the highest rate of sexually abusive men” is a very serious and specific claim that shouldn’t be thrown around without very specific evidence that it’s true.
There is some fairly recent research on religion and sexual abuse:
There’s a 2014 German study by Nina Sprƶber that involved the German hotline for abuse. This is the conclusion taken from PubMed:
“The results suggest that child sexual abuse in institutions is attributable to the nature of institutional structures and to societal assumptions about the rights of children more than to the attitudes towards sexuality of a specific religion.”
There’s was a research review an the University of Alberta in 2020 ( the article can be viewed on phys.org) that highlights specific differences between abuse in religious and secular institutions.
It’s no secret that some of the fundamentalist Mormon groups have a very high rates of child sex abuse, especially insular, secretive groups like the FLDS church with leaders like Warren Jeffs. However, extending that umbrella to ALL Mormon men is a claim that requires evidence.
Jack, I know you love the church and want to defend it. Iām sure it pains you to hear it criticized and have its image tarnished. But why defend the indefensible? If the church is what it claims to be, it canāt just be better than other organizations. It canāt just follow the law. It must do the right thing. Christ was clear when he talked about protecting children. The church failed these innocent victims and is now smug about it.
Anna,
Take a look at the page that I linked to. It’s put together by Jennifer Roach. She’s highly credentialed and she knows her stuff.
S,
I’ve been a member long enough to know that the church isn’t perfect. But I think that because the criticisms leveled against the church over what happened in Arizona are largely ideological in nature there is going to be some disagreement on the morality of the church’s actions. And that’s assuming that we’re aware of all the details–and I don’t think we are.
@jack, Iām not going to let you talk to Anna about abuse. I will delete future comments.
The LDS doctrine of confidentiality: Sometimes your bishop or stake president keeps information received in an interview confidential — and sometimes he doesn’t. In other words, there is a *claim* of confidentiality but not an established and enforced practice. I doubt any bishop has *ever* been disciplined for breaking supposed confidentiality. But courts are very deferential to any and all denominations and religions when it comes to doctrine, so don’t expect courts to step in and fix the problem.
The story here is more about institutional behavior. Every institution, the Church included, will defend itself from threats and competition. They’ll use every legal defense available when in litigation and use good PR skill to defend against bad stories in the press. It is almost naive to expect anything else from an institution, including the Church. In a church with millions of members, any single member is dispensable compared to the institution’s financial security and good reputation. That includes victims in abuse cases. What is surprising, given these institutional imperatives and legal realities, is that in some cases LDS local leaders *do* report abusers and *do* subject them to a church court and *do* protect the victims. It doesn’t always happen, and maybe it doesn’t generally happen, but it does happen.
But the important thing, the bottom line for any LDS victim or anyone counseling an LDS victim, is this: DO NOT DISCLOSE OR REPORT A CASE OF ABUSE TO AN LDS BISHOP. Go to law enforcement or a social worker or a teacher or a doctor/nurse — professionals who receive training on how to deal with a report of abuse and who are under a legal duty to report the disclosure to law enforcement. LDS bishops are amateurs who receive little or no training, who receive questionable advice when they call the hotline, and may very well do more harm than good in their dealings with victims and perpetrators. Good intentions are not enough.
I’m sorry. I read through the comments and can’t stomach a few of them. The aftereffects of child sexual abuse is the most horrific thing I’ve had to witness. There is no justification for any human being to fail in doing everything legally possible to end the abuse of another. I don’t care how much good a person or institution does on all other fronts, it is simply a major failing in our humanity to fail a child in such a situation.
There is no excuse, no justification, no scenario in which it should be shrugged off. It is a violation of trust, a violation of covenant to love one another. One who dismisses the pain and anguish of a child has lost their humanity and can certainly never lay claim to Christian discipleship as long as they continue to do so. I fear that much of the blood shed in Gethsemane was due to the great crimes committed against children. The full realization of this would certainly make the Son of God groan and cringe in agony.
I know that taking that one study and saying āMormon men have a higher rate of child sexual abuseā is taking the actual evidence even further than that book took it. The book just gave the characteristics of the religions with higher rates. And it didnāt say ācurrent odd sexual practicesā it said a āhistory ofā and I am pretty sure the fundamentalists have a higher rate. The study probably didn’t have enough fundamentalist Mormons to even categorize and they probably got thrown in with those with the history. And it did not name any religion, except Jews having a lower rate but still having an all male priesthood. But if the shoe fitsā¦. Seriously, look at those traits of a religion with high rates of abuse. It *is* us.
So, anyway my point is not how bad Mormon men are, but to STOP pretending that we do not have a problem in our church. We have a big problem.
You want my personal experience working with child sexual abuse? The biggest percent of clients were LDS, by much higher of a percentage than our local population was. Say I lived in an area with 45% Mormons, and we had 80% of our clients LDS. For the adults molested as children, only one out of about 50 felt their bishop supported them. Of course I didnāt work for LDS FS where the percentage will be higher. An example of the offenders is ādadā who had sexually abused his 2 daughters who constantly wore a t-shirt that said āFamilies are together forever.ā He talked LDS doctrine in group constantly. The group didnāt mind because most/all? of them were Mormon. I have worked in groups for the offenders, the mothers, and the adults molested as children, as well as a group for teen boys who molested in family. Seeing as the town had less than 50% LDS, and many LDS were referred to LDS FS (which wasnāt far away) we should have had less than 50% LDS, but it was much higher, around 80%. Why wasnāt it down where one would expect it to be?
And I donāt mind Jack replying to me. He will expose most of the Mormon prejudices, and those should be talked about, because too many people somehow think we are ābetter than thatā and that things like child sexual abuse or physical abuse of children or spouses should be lower than average if not completely nonexistent in the church. I am far enough along in the healing process that idiots wonāt hurt me, and as far as the church handling these things very badly, I suppose you could say I am used to it, but sometimes I still want to personally put the millstone around some necks and drop the guy overboard. So, I canāt exactly say the church is totally forgiven all the time, because they just keep on ignoring the damage of sexual abuse while protecting the institution. But when I am feeling fragile, I just wonāt post.
@anna, good to know. Iām not trying to protect you from Jack as you seem capable of handling yourself but I personally am not willing to referee his comments. Too draining.
Anna, thank you for your comments.
I was married for 25 years to a woman who suffered from bipolar disorder. I suspected she had been abused and suggested she get counseling for it. She denied it and refused counseling. She had a sister who was really upset about a news article about an accused molester dying before his trial. She thought he should rot in hell. I said that maybe he was but we didn’t know his background and that maybe he came from such an environment somewhat like we’ve learned happens in alcoholic families. She wouldn’t talk to me for 6 months.
Well as time went on, I ended up divorced, which is another story and has other elements which I feel sad about but won’t go into here. Afterward, my ex and her sisters went to one of those “healing self-help seminars” that the church eventually said people shouldn’t participate in because they should talk things over with their bishop. Somewhere in the multi-week classes and process they finally talked to each other about the abuses that went on in their family. My ex had been abused by her uncles, and her sisters by their father, all the while he went to the temple and exalted himself in his role as the patriarch of the home. He had passed away a few years before our divorce and their mother was suffering from Alzheimer’s so they couldn’t really deal with it directly. It was sad because when their mother died, everyone at the funeral kept talking about how she must be so happy to be finally again with her husband. So there was a real cognitive dissonance about what happened.
My ex got remarried but her husband passed away after 7-8 years and she’s never really dealt with her depression. Her sister got divorced and remarried and has left the church. She speaks a lot about how angry she is and how the church hides and protects sexual predators. All of my children and two stepchildren have left the church after finding out about this and all but one of my ex-sister-in-laws children have done the same. Between them, they had 13 children. I think the saddest thing is that her family can trace their genealogy back to Navaoo for most lines and Kirkland for a few of the lines. In other words, they are an old church family, which makes me wonder how long this issue has been there. I know my ex’s generation had to suffer and that it was present in her father’s generation (he was the oldest of 12 and his sisters have hinted at the issue) but they are even more tight-lipped about it.
So the bottom line for me is the court case in Arizona is just another way that religion corrupts our society not only with what it does but how religion can influence politics, judges, laws, and how we run our society. I wish the influence would be for the good, to help the poor and needy, etc but usually it’s to protect the self-interests of the religion and religious leaders.
Insterneo, your exās family situation sounds so much like my own, except my abuser was middle of 12. Wonder if you married one of my cousins. I have over 60.
I hate that I am embarrassed to be a member of the ācorporateā church. I assume the 15 are all behind these actions. I personally know those who are receiving lifetime mental health care benefits from the church because of this chaos. I have served in positions where I made calls to church legal counsel for these issues. I am unsure if I would ever accept such a callings again if offered.
For what it’s worth, I read the link that Jack posted. She asks some good questions but is completely ill equiped to answer them…but she tries anyway.
She does indeed have two masters degrees: a “Master’s of Counseling Psychology” from the now-defunct Argosy University, and a “Master’s of Divinity” from the Seattle School of Theology and Psychology. Her background may makes her a good therapist for people with a religious background, but she is really not qualified as a researcher at all.
She admits in her presentations that she’s not great at statistics. She is completely unpublished academically from what I can see. She conducted this “research” on her own as a grad student and her only peer review was, “I called up a friend who is a statistician (sic) expert.”
She also seems to have no understanding of rudimentary legal principles (e.g. she states that the statute of limitations is based on the age of the victim, not the time since the crime happened).
I can see why she only sampled documents from the BSA’s (now public) “perversion files” – all the interesting data is trapped inside ~20,000 PDF files. I wish someone would tabulate all the data from at least the cover sheets, but it would take a bit of work to do.
She is right that this is a complicated issue with lots of factors in play. Some of the questions she asks are good and genuinely worth exploring. but she falls woefully short in her attempts to answer them and offer meaningful solutions.
The Pirate Priest,
Jennifer Roach has her limitations–but we have to ask ourselves who else is doing this kind of work in the church? Hopefully what we’ll see is other experts building on the foundation that she’s trying to establish. That said, I think her best work has to do with how the church’s organizational structure mitigates abuse–at least when compared to other similar organizations.
@jaredsbrother –
āThinking member,ā may be an oxymoron, or close to that if not for a few PIMOs.
@Jack If she’s truly the only person doing this kind of work, the church is in real trouble…She’s pretty bad at it.
The church does indeed have some things in place to try to prevent abuse, which is a good thing. Roach isn’t providing any valuable insight here though, she just sort of lists what is already there.
The church needs to work through exactly went wrong and why in this situation. It will require a culture of psychology safety (for both the church and KMC), and needs objective analysis of the layers of failure. Is that something the church can accomplish with the current leadership climate? I hope so, but I honestly don’t know
Anna, it would be interesting to find out but I’m hesitant in a public forum.
I am confused and dismayed at the down-votes on most of the tender and sensitive comments here. Shame on whoever you are.
Iām reading them with a very sad and disappointed mindset. The whole case was so disturbing and poorly handled and I hate how the church has taken a corporate mindset when so many innocents have been harmed. It breaks my heart and is one more contribution to the cobwebs falling from my eyes.
The news coverage is abysmal.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2023/11/13/child-is-raped-the-clergy-stays-silent-then-comes-the-shocking-part/71532639007/
Here’s the most recent offering by Jennifer Roach–a must read, IMO:
https://www.deseret.com/2023/11/16/23964370/latter-day-saint-what-ap-missed-arizona-abuse-case
@jack – which of the items listed in that op-ed would have helped the children in this horrific case?
Presumably only one–the help line–which in this case actually failed. The lawyers advised the bishop to do the legally right and morally wrong thing.
The rest of the items Roach lists are irrelevant to this case, and honestly it’s disingenuous to list these things as actual safeguards in this context or even more broadly in discussions about protecting children from abuse.
— Most buildings still don’t have windows, despite years and years of members demanding them.
— Female supervision is laughable because ultimately women have no authority and often end up “supervising” people the bishopric selected for the callings.
— Sustainings are a rubber stamp. I can’t point to a single time in my 40+ years of church experience that a no vote changed the outcome.
— Training is a joke. It is only effective inasmuch as a local leader cares to provide it and enforce that those working with youth actually complete it.
All is not well in Zion.
Jack,
Thank you for sharing the article. It’s important to look at both sides of the issue. It’s good to remember that the bishop wasn’t told the child was currently being abused. There was no perception of immanent danger, which may be why the help line advised as it did. The father reported one instance of abuse way in the past and the mother confirmed the father’s statement, so the bishop depended on this information.
However, for a person with experience or training working with people with sexual compulsions and domestic abuse, the information provided cannot be depended upon as the truth. Perpetrators try to confess to get the guilt off their chest but are afraid to admit to the whole truth. This is like a man I know who was regularly commiting adultery who visited the bishop and confessed to “kissing a girl”. He wanted support from the bishop with his guilt and feelings that no one could accept him with this sin, while still failing to be honest with the bishop. This is a common pattern in confession that this bishop needed more training on.
It’s also problematic to expect the wife to tell the truth in this situation. She was a victim herself on some level and probably knew if she contradicted her husband in any way she would face abuse of some sort at home. She probably even talked herself into believing her own lie.
As far as female supervision, I agree with S’ comments. Women are often only advisors in LDS wards. If they do have an influence it’s only because they have a benevolent bishop with the confidence to listen and delegate. The bishop has the authority to micromanage and make every decision for Primary presidencies and young women presidencies and sometimes they do (I have experienced this). Though the handbook says he shouldn’t pick her counselors and staff without first getting recommendations from her, often the bishopric will actually tell her who to recommend. She knows if she speaks up or disagrees, she will be released, sooner, rather than later.
The authority of leadership is such a strong component of our culture that we automatically raise our hands to support our leaders. It takes amazing courage to do otherwise, and after you speak up you know you will have lost social credibility in the ward and stake community. Likely as not they will disregard what you tell them anyway. It certainly is in their power to do so.
I know reporting to the authorities doesn’t necessarily solve problems for children either. However every effort should have been made to try to help those kids, including by calling the authorities. It’s sad no one helped.
interesting comment from the most current abuse scandal,
“According to the church, all information about child sexual abuse passed from church members to their bishops is confidential under the clergy-penitent privilege, and all information passed from the help line to church attorneys is confidential under the attorney-client privilege. Meanwhile, Rytting and other church officials have said in sworn testimony that the help line either keeps no records or destroys all records at the end of each day.
Or does it? During his conversations with Chelsea and Lorraine, Rytting said he could find out whether John Goodrich had previously ārepentedā for his relationship with Chelsea by checking help line records, seeming to contradict his sworn testimony in another child sex abuse case against the church.
In its comments to the AP, the church declined to answer questions about the apparent contradiction.”