Skip to comments.LDS Church Responds To Brock Sex Case
Posted on 04/20/2011 7:21:49 AM PDT by Colofornian
PHOENIX -- The newly released Chandler police report paints a troubling picture of what Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock knew about his wife Susan's sexual involvement with a teenage boy, and when he knew it.
While Susan Brock sits in prison for the next 13 years for the molestation, investigators in Chandler try to determine if Fulton Brock was "pretty much in the dark on this stuff," as he said during the initial search warrant on their East Valley home in October 2010.
"If he has knowledge that his wife is having inappropriate sexual contact with a minor... then there's going to be a pretty strong responsibility to report," said Mel McDonald, a former U.S. attorney.
Police discovered a handwritten note, believed to be questions by Fulton Brock for a defense attorney. The note reads in part, "mentally insane defense?" and "avoiding prison goal."
Investigators have taken a handwriting sample from Fulton Brock, to see if it's the same.
But the report also detailed a meeting in October 2009 -- one year prior -- with leaders of the Brocks' church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, along with the boy and his parents, who confronted Susan about sex with their son. In that meeting, both Susan and the boy allegedly denied wrongdoing.
The police report later said, "Susan Brock had admitted to LDS Bishop Meyers she had performed oral sex on [the victim] at least two times."
So why aren't the LDS leaders being arrested for not going to police with the information?
"Where it becomes touchy is if you're a member of the clergy," McDonald said.
Arizona law gives religious leaders a special privilege in regards to reporting crimes. The statute says, "A member of the clergy... may withhold reporting of the communication or confession... if the clergy determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion."
On Saturday, LDS Church spokesperson Kim Farah responded with this statement: "Any allegation that Church leaders knew of abuse but did nothing is inaccurate and offensive. The Church is extremely proactive in its efforts to protect children from abuse of any kind, and works diligently to support and assist victims of abuse. When abuse does occur we work to see that it is reported to the authorities.
The Pinal County Attorney's Office insists this case is not over yet.
Time for this Mormon politician to come clean -- and also go to jail -- for covering up his wife's ongoing over-year-long trail of rape & sexual abuse.
From the article: the report also detailed a meeting in October 2009 -- one year prior -- with leaders of the Brocks' church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, along with the boy and his parents, who confronted Susan about sex with their son. In that meeting, both Susan and the boy allegedly denied wrongdoing. The police report later said, "Susan Brock had admitted to LDS Bishop Meyers she had performed oral sex on [the victim] at least two times." So why aren't the LDS leaders being arrested for not going to police with the information?
Good question. The abuse and rapes upon a minor by this 49 yo went on for a year after the October meeting. What about the so-called "clergy privilege?" That Lds bishop, like just about ALL Lds bishops, has a full-time job. They are essentially unpaid volunteers.
But the REAL problem with "clergy privilege" as a defense in this case is that the victim was also a Mormon -- and the victim's family initiated contact with THEIR Mormon bishop.
When the boy's parents were told...rather than immediately call police, they also contacted their bishop in the Mormon Church. As the father of the victim...told police, after meeting with Church leaders, he was "under the impression" cops would be called. But they weren't -- as the boy's father was waiting for Church leaders to alert authorities...he figured he'd just call them on his own. But that wasn't the first time the Mormon Church learned of suspicions that Brock was abusing the boy...about a year before Susan Brock's arrest, the Brocks and the victim's parents met with leaders in the Mormon Church. The topic of conversation: suspicions that Susan Brock was having sex with the teenage victim.
Mormon Church Denies Prior Knowledge of Susan Brock Affair With Teen Boy, Which is a Lie
Using clergy privilege in this case is an outright deception when the victim's family contacts their Mormon bishop. At that point, the bishop was obligated to contact authorities. It no longer is an issue of a perpetrator confiding in his bishop. Which ever bishop was the bishop of the victim's family is the one who needs to go to jail. A message needs to be sent that this crap just can't be forever covered up just because it involved an important Mormon politician and his family.
No wonder KPHO.com says 69% of their viewers are "outraged" over this story. And what's even more outrageous is for the Mormon church now to get involved Public Relations wise and defend these indefensible non-actions -- claiming that they "work to see" these crimes get reported...what's to "work to see" about picking up a telephone and placing the call???
So the pervert said she told her “bishop” about the sex, yet the official lds leaders are saying they didn’t know.
Can’t paint the LDS with a broad brush here. WAY too many “clergy” are involved in such things from ALL denominations.
Damned sad, really.
If the church hierarchy is covering up a crime, and is NOW doing so after the fact with press releases, yes you can.
That means they are throwing its entire weight into defending a bishop who didn't report a crime.
When you do that, it shows you a part of the problem. You then go down with the ship reputation-wise.
WAY too many clergy are involved in such things from ALL denominations.
And when these clergy are, their churches are liable. [Hence the massive payouts by the RC church, for example]
These payouts show that these church bodies indeed have taken some measure of responsibility, even if in some cases there was a lack of it going on at some level accountability-wise.
Press releases like what we see in this article indicate a lack of assumption of responsibility when you know the facts of the case indicate no "clergy privilege" could be extended...[due to a victim and his family coming forward to them].
My point is simply....it ain’t just them.
Here they are.
Man (such as Catholic priest) performing sexual acts on teenage boys = despicable, foul, horrific behavior.....take the guy out and hang him .....oh and castrate him before he's hung.
Woman performing sexual acts on teenage boy = HOT!!!
Married woman performing sexual acts on teenage boy with husband's knowledge and consent= SCORCHING, RED hot!!!!......forum rules.....photos of the perp must be posted to determine if she's "guilty" or "not guilty".
Just in case you're wondering why it's fairly quiet in here.
Do those "posting rules" also apply if she's 59, 69, 79, 89, 99?
Because we all know criminals and sexual deviants never, ever, ever lie to cops. Other than the fact that they like to have sex with children they're as honest as the day is long.
Do you have any hard admissable evidence that they are doing so? If you do, have you contacted the relevant authorities to make them aware of your evidence?
Since you haven’t apologized for false accusations on a recent thread - & until you do - you are worthy of “ignore” status...with great potential for permanent ignore.
"When local clergy learn of alleged abuse, Church policy states that their first priority is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse. But as anyone with experience in the area knows, dealing with alleged abuse can be very complex. Because its clergy are laymen without professional training or qualifications in social work, in 1995 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints established a 24-hour help line and instructed its ecclesiastical leaders to call it immediately when they learn of abuse. The help line is staffed by licensed social workers with professional experience in dealing with abuse. They advise clergy about how best to protect the victim from further abuse, protect others from abuse, deal with the perpetrator and aid the healing process for victims. Child abuse is a crime with serious legal consequences. The help line provides legal counsel to aid clergy in complying with the law and working with law enforcement".
From what I can find, Arizona law is somewhat murky on the responsibilities of mormon clergy on the reporting of child abuse. I suspect that there was a call to the "help line" and legal council by these bishops. Remember, there is much mormon influence within the state legislature when making law.
IIRC, the "unpaid clergy" has figured in defending against the mormon church's liability in various cases.
That said, it very much appears that these bishops abrogated their moral duty to inform law enforcement immediately. From articles regarding mormonism/child abuse being published in the past few days, the leaders are worried.
I'm truly sorry I expressed my honest opinion of you publicly.
Now, do you have any specific, admissable, and verifiable evidence of the complicity of others in this heinous crime? If you do have you notified the relevant authorities of your evidence?
Such a conclusion would necessarily undermine your credibility on this and any other future threads you might post on the subject. I'd really hate to see that happen.
So it's probably best for everyone involved if you just respond to the very, very simple questions I posted originally. I'll post them again for everyone's convenience:
Do you have any hard, admissable evidence that others were involved in this heinous crime? If you do, have you passed that evidence along to the relevant legal authorities?
Thanks and have a very, very nice day.
Nice out hiding in THIS word!
Ok then; tell us:
DID the 'leaders' know of it?
If they did; then WHAT did they 'do'?
Have no fear; the authorities ARE on this case!
Not to worry: I’ve got the time...
And I find the very DEFINITION of MORMON 'clergy' to be quite murky!
WHICH 'heinous' crime are you asking about?
The one in which the 'ladies' in question VICTIMized the poor MORMON lad, or
the one where Church Officials alledgedly failed to NOTIFY appropriate secular legal professionals in a timely manner?
Here, they don't want to be like the Christian churches. Here, they for years made much of negative to-do in their temple ceremonies -- up til about 1990 -- about paid clergy in Christian churches...and now, it's "convenient" for them to claim their bishops...working full-time beyond Mormondom...are "clergy"
Either one will do nicely.
Seriously, L. When are you going to condemn the perp and stop ragging on posters?
You are correct. You notice however, the mormons have a very difficult time (being generous here) condemning the perps if they are also lds. I have not seen that in Christians and Catholics.
I believe I did that. Go back up the thread and read my posts slowly. Feel free to move your lips while you do if that helps.
Name it and claim it!