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

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

[greyfoxx39]

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

[Excerpt from earlier article]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GilesB]

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.

[P-Marlowe]

Here’s how I would judge: ... 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?

[GilesB]

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.

[svcw]

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.

[GilesB]

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.

[svcw]

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.

[GilesB]

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.

[GilesB]

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.

[svcw]

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.

[Religion Moderator]

Your hatred of everything Mormon is clouding your good sense.

Reading the mind of another Freeper and/or attributing motives to him - are forms of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[P-Marlowe]

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?

[Elsie]

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.

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.

---

Extrapolating further...

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

* http://newsroom.lds.org/article/church-seeks-to-address-public-confusion-over-texas-polygamy-group

[Elsie]

You may be interested with a bit of Utah history; considering your screen name.

It’s either Giles or Gilestown

https://www.google.com/search?q=gilestown&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7ADRA_enUS475#hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7ADRA_enUS475&sclient=psy-ab&q=gilestown%2C+utah&oq=gilestown%2C+utah&aq=f&aqi=g-K1&aql=&gs_l=serp.12..0i30.6354.8301.0.13366.6.6.0.0.0.0.228.965.0j5j1.6.0...0.0.cdFSpmUDc3Q&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=10402d88455d8ac7&biw=1093&bih=479

[Elsie]

My newest edition of the BoM was picked up at this location.

Someone had left it sitting on a windowsill.

[Elsie]

Someone has attempted to create a tourist stop at the river crossing, but it appears not to be doing so well...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

You can barely see the old streets in the view found in GoogleEarth:

 

  38°21'39.58"N

 

110°50'46.58"W

 

The structure is located right near the highway, UT-24

 

 

The tourist thing is about 1 3/4 miles west of the ruin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Bentonite soil

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobpalin/2237281619/

 

 

 

[GilesB]

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.

[GilesB]

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.

[svcw]

THX 1138