|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 05/24/2012 1:08:09 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Skip to comments.[Mormon] Bishop’s handling of Vernon incest case was correct
Posted on 05/23/2012 9:20:15 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
There was another sexual abuse case in AZ where the local bishop failed to notify legal authorities.
the bishop had no duty to report to civil authorities
The law doesnt say that he must not...
What decent person would just stand by and do nothing while such an evil sin was being committed ???
This “bishop” person had a duty to report, the crime. I am glad he is going to jail.
This “oh we don’t pay our “bishops or clergy”, is so bogus.
What do they think tithes (in part) are for - to support the religious leader so they are not burdened by everyday needs.
Misread - thought the none reporting “bishop” was going to jail.
“Confidential confessions of abuse by the offender fall within the statutory clergy privilege and cannot be disclosed.”
I can’t speak directly to the law, but the lawyer’s statement above says that clergy cannot disclose, when the information comes from the offender.
It is one of the moral conflicts of clergy. On the one hand, if he reports (if he can legally report), nobody will come to him for counsel, and he becomes much less effective. On the other hand, if he doesn’t report, the person may continue harming others.
In this case, it sounds like the offender stopped his abuse (that’s a positive). It also sounds like the bishop gave help to all concerned.
As clergy, his concern should be for souls, not vengence, or even punishment. If the abuse continued, that places a heavy burden on the bishop, but does not, I think, remove his responsibility of confidentiality.
I do note that the offender did not escape punishment from the church - so, from what we have from the attorney, the bishop did as much as he was legally allowed to do - to stop the abuse (by advising and punishment) and to help the victim(s). If the abuse stopped, a good outcome. The only thing missing is the punishment, and the perp is getting that now.
BTW - bishops are not paid. Tithes support the church, its administration and paid officials - but not the bishops or elders.
The question actually should be, are lds “bishops” really clergy?
BTW The concept of tithing which comes from the Old Testament was to first support the religious leaders so they would not burdened with everyday necessitates and be of council to the flock, then the meeting place, then the store house.
It’s called tithes, offerings and alms.
I know about the Old Testament use of tithes - however, we were talking about how the LDS church uses its tithes: They are not used to support bishops and elders.
Who, other than the church, has the right to answer the question of who they designate as their clergy? If the Mormon church considers them clergy, then I accept that they are LDS clergy.
The law defines what a clergy is, they can call the ‘bishops” fish for all I care.
You might be wrong.
Do you really want the government deciding who is and who is not clergy? I certainly don’t.
According to #3, if the LDS says their bishops are clergy, they are clergy.
I don’t care what the lds call these people.
They are untrained in counseling (in any aspect of human relationship), part time guys who randomly think they have all the answers to problems and issues they have no business dealing with.
This brings up an interesting conundrum. Since every LDS male over the age of 16 is ordained a “priest” is any LDS male obligated to tell the authorities about child sexual abuse that is admitted to them by any other LDS member? Or is every priesthood holder exempt?
We're just MISSIONARIES!
"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church, January 5th, 1982
"Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, [unwed] pregnancy, and abortions - all ugly sins - but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins. They awaken lust and stir evil thoughts and sex desires. They are but parts of the whole family of related sins and indiscretions. Almost like twins, 'petting' and fornication are alike."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 65
"Also far-reaching is the effect of the loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 196
"And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth." (Genesis 4:9-14.) That was true of murder. It is also true of illicit sex, which, of course, includes all petting, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and all other perversions. The Lord may say to offenders, as He did to Cain, "What hast thou done?" The children thus conceived make damning charges against you; the companions who have been frustrated and violated condemn you; the body that has been defiled cries out against you; the spirit which has been dwarfed convicts you. You will have difficulty throughout the ages in totally forgiving yourself."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965. Often-used quote still used today in LDS seminary classes.
"I do not find in the Bible the modern terms "petting" nor "homosexuality," yet I found numerous scriptures which forbade such acts under by whatever names they might be called. I could not find the term "homosexuality," but I did find numerous places where the Lord condemned such a practice with such vigor that even the death penalty was assessed."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965
"If adultery or fornication justified the death penalty in the old days, and still in Christ's day, is the sin any less today because the laws of the land do not assess the death penalty for it? Is the act less grievous? There must be a washing, a purging, a changing of attitudes, a correcting of appraisals, a strengthening toward self-mastery. There must be many prayers, and volumes of tears. There must be an inner conviction giving to the sin its full diabolical weight. There must be increased devotion and much thought and study. And this takes energy and time and often is accompanied with sore embarrassment, heavy deprivations and deep trials, even if indeed one is not excommunicated from the Church, losing all spiritual blessings."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Page 155
"How like the mistletoe is immorality. The killer plant starts with a sticky sweet berry. Little indiscretions are the berries -- indiscretions like sex thoughts sex discussions, passionate kissing, pornography. The leaves and little twigs are masturbation and necking and such, growing with every exercise. The full-grown plant is petting and sex looseness. It confounds, frustrates, and destroys like the parasite if it is not cut out and destroyed, for, in time it robs the tree, bleeds its life, and leaves it barren and dry; and, strangely enough, the parasite dies with its host."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967.
OK - I see where you’re coming from. No need for me to continue conversing with you about this.
Here’s how I would judge:
If the church member is coming to, and confessing to another church member BECAUSE of their position of authority in the church, then that person should be accepted by law as clergy - since it is their role in the church that elicited the admission in the first place. Since every male is a priest, there is nothing about holding that position that would draw another member to discuss deeply personal and troubling matters with them; as I would go to my pastor in similar circumstances.
Because of the role they play in the church, an LDS bishop most closely parallels a pastor in most other denominations; an LDS priest is simply an acknowledged member of the church.
Every male LDS member is technically a member of the Clergy since they are all ORDAINED priests. Unless the conveyance of the Priesthood means NOTHING (which is what I believe BTW) then a 16 year old priest is as much a member of the Clergy as a 55 year old Bishop. Neither position is paid in the LDS Church and all are technically voluntary. Hence any LDS man charged under this law with failing to report child abuse after another LDS member confesses to them would have this defense available.
Are you willing to admit that the LDS Priesthood is just a lot of fluff and has no legitimate spiritual or legal significance or is it your position that LDS Priests are really "Priests" in the Biblical sense?
Is it just a stupid title to make 16 year olds feel important or are these children really holding some kind of significant ecclesiastical position of authority?
Well, my knowledge of LDS practices comes from my friendship with a Mormon in high school - so I have’t done much research.
I believe they use 1 Peter 2:9 (But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.) to support their priesthood of all members.
The Aaronic priesthood is for males 12-18, and one would be hard pressed to make the case for their conversations being protected. They are more like alter boys, except there are more of them.
It is an LDS construct that has no clerical parallel in other Christian churches, nor authority is scripture other than the passage from 1 Peter I quote above.
My experience with mormonism has come as long ago as 1962, and my huge mormon family and many mormon friends.
There are many here who are former mormons who can trace their family ties back to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
Knowing a nice guy from high school, is not knowing much about mormonism.
Perhaps you should research it.
Why should I want to research Mormonism? I have no intention of joining them.
I have my own history with the church in which I was raised; I don’t believe in their teaching, I’m happy to help any who are trying to break out, as my family did - but I am not on a crusade against that church.
I feel no threat from Mormons. I pray for Mormons - I don’t feel compelled to study their beliefs.
Ok, then I would suggest that you cease in trying to explain mormonism when you have said you don’t know about it.
How do you help people leave something you know nothing about? What would your arguments be for leaving something you do not know.
Oh get hold of yourself! I have never tried to “explain mormonism” just pointing out that a Mormon bishop is rightly considered a member of the clergy. I don’t need to know very much about Mormonism to know that.
Your anti-Mormon prod gets very tiresome, very quickly.
I will continue to post when, where and how I want - go grind your axe somewhere else, if you don’t like what I post.
Not every church a person leaves is the Mormon church. I have very extensive knowledge of the church of my upbringing - it just isn’t the Mormon church...and I never said, or implied, that it was.
Your hatred of everything Mormon is clouding your good sense.
I do not hate mormons.
I do however detest mormonISM.
You are free to post whatever you want, it’s an open site.
I disagree on the term “clergy”.
mormons may call their “bishops” anything they want, they are not clergy by traditional understanding.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
What was wrong with your church and why should anyone leave it?
And why are you so ashamed to say what church it was that you left?
And why do you find it necessary to criticize those of us who left the Mormon church?
What religion did you convert into?
So the sign on the outer wall of their church building could just as easily lead to THIS mnemonic: LDP
The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Priests.
The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Non-Gentiles
The OTHER major branch of MORMONism (Sorry SLC headquarters; that's just a fact*) already had the RLDS sewn up, or the SLC folks could have been even MORE accurate:
The RESTORED Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints
You may be interested with a bit of Utah history; considering your screen name.
It’s either Giles or Gilestown
Someone had left it sitting on a windowsill.
Someone has attempted to create a tourist stop at the river crossing, but it appears not to be doing so well...
I don’t care to discuss my reasons for leaving, nor the church I left. 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.
I haven’t criticized any who left the Mormon church, I have only criticized the way in which you injected your hatred for “Mormonism” (which is another way of saying everything Mormon) into a discussion about clergy and legal standing - you don’t get to make up your own rules about who is and who isn’t clergy. By your standard, nobody in the Mormon church would be clergy - and that is utter foolishness in a societal or legal sense.
I suppose none of the 12 apostles are rightly considered to have been clergy? They had no formal training as counselors either.
Like I said earlier - I have no more interest in discussing this with you. I refuse to be the grindstone for your particular hatchet.
Sorry - didn’t see that it was you who posted. My apologies.
My previous response generally stands - except I didn’t express to you previously that I didn’t want to discuss this further, and I haven’t sensed that you have an axe to grind in this discussion - I have taken your questions at face value. My response about considering bishops clergy because of lack of training was regarding a previous post that wasn’t yours.
Anyway - I still don’t think this is the forum for discussing why I left my childhood church, or what church it was. Those specifics have no bearing here. I brought it up only to express understanding what it is like to leave a controlling church.
My anger and hate toward that church and its controlling ministers disappeaared when I realized that they had no power or control over my life any longer. It vanished, and I was able to forgive them, and only then was I truly free.
Let me reiterate - I have ZERO criticism for leaving the Mormon church. I applaud it, and I understand the difficulty, spiritually, socially, financially in taking that step. My criticissm has been to the belligerent tone one person here has taken to my honest, thoughtful and reasoned respoonses to the topic at hand. Somehow it was taken as a defense of Mormonism and worthy of attack because of that perceived defense.
I have never defended Mormonism - but I do defend the idea that the Mormon church is entitled to the legal rights of clergy, the same as other churches - and the position that parallels that of a pastor in most other churches is called a bishop in the LDS church.
I fail to see relevance.
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.
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."
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.
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.
THX 1138 place marker
Yup; that HATE stuff can REALLY mess up a meaningful discussion!!
Pete; it's a FOOL that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.