As a Bishop my first response to knowledge of abuse, went first to the police and then to the church legal services. Protection of the innocent comes first in my church, reputation and repentance can take its merry time. The church's reputation can handle bad news stories. Perpetrators will have to wait on their repentance, as it will not be a quick process, but damage to the victim, that has to me minimised A.S.A.P.
Our bishop in Virginia called the police when a member/father confessed to him his abuse of his child. The bishop did not call a hotline or church authority, he called police. That man is now in prison Also another member who served as bishop, YSA branch president and also a bishop told me when someone confessed a crime to him he gave them the option of calling police or he would call the police for that person. Last, bishops have temporal jobs and calling as bishop is volunteer. Most have no psychology training and some have no higher education. Sad but a few do not handle it well.
I'm just going to take this another direction too-the problem of failing to protect children does not lie solely with the church in this case. I'm a nurse who has worked ER for a number of years. I've tragically had to report child abuse more than once to CPS. In EVERY case except one, CPS gave the children right back to their parents. One CPS worker told me "well, every parent has different ideas about what is appropriate." This was in a neglect case. The only situation when they actually removed the child was because the baby was in such critical condition (nearly dead) when the parents brought him in that it couldn't be denied. I had to testify against those parents to have their rights terminated. The legal system fails children OFTEN. So yes, let's make church policy protective of children period. If that means we go against legal recommendations in order to do that, well then, let's figure out how we can. The church is only as good as the people they employ at the helpline, so let's get the right people in place. I don't blame the church and I don't think it's a huge conspiracy or cover up. This is a part of a much bigger problem. The law needs to protect the innocent and vulnerable. We need to DO better at this and make it a priority in our nation.
But it IS a coverup. For years victims have been saying this only to be shamed, blamed and abused further by the church leadership. Then the BSA document dump came out during that lawsuit and there's the proof. Yet, here we are with church apologists still denying it. My personal experience is a friend who was sexually abused and her abuser held positions with access to children - specifically girls camp. She reported to the bishop and was silenced so she went to the stake president and he talked to her abuser and to the bishop and again she was silenced and chastized and told to repent. Her unforgiving bitterness was the problem, not the fact that the man who had molested her was going to girls camp! She finally wrote a letter to a general authority explaining the situation thinking that if she got far enough removed (no personal friendships with her father) with the person she reported the sexual abuse to the response would be different. Nope. She received a copy of the "Miracle of Forgiveness" from the GA and her abuser continued to hold callings working with kids over the years. Right up until he was CONVICTED OF RAPING a 9 year old girl decades later. The church absolutely shields sexual predators. 100%. Worse, they are masters at victim blaming.
Sadly, I understand what you mean. Protection of abusive parents is often the case. if a childcare worker does what the parents do to their children they are reported, fired, put in the hands of the law. A parent does the same and "the system" often fails them. Very sad. I have had many Bishops in my lifetime and I guarantee each one would have reported immediatly.
They pointed out there was a grand jury hearing about this case. For those who don't know. Grand juries only decide if there is a possibility the accused did something. The prosecutor at the grand jury has a very low burden of proof because they aren't deciding guilt or innocence. A grand jury allows a trial to happen or not.
I aplogize about any alarm and/or misunderstanding. What I meant, and should have clarified, is that hearing about this situation (without knowing anyone involved) lead him to leave. I know my friend's family really well and I havent heard of anyone getting abused in any way, thankfully. If I do hear about it, I will personally make sure to let Law Enforcement know. Thank you for your concern and the reply to my comment.@@annasteig2923
The problem is systemic when grown men interview children alone behind closed doors. That policy needs to changed.In addition, there are numerous cases where Bishops do not report abuse. They should be mandated reporters.
@@stanleyhall8951 I'm curious to know about the trade-off. I absolutely agree that ecclesiastical leaders should be mandated reporters, but often someone won't disclose abuse or a crime to someone they don't hold in confidence, or they feel uncomfortable disclosing to more than one person. As far as I know from the handbook, any person can ask for or deny a chaperone, but the bishop can't say that no one else can be there. We need to do a better job of making that right known to every member.
You do not seem to be aware of what the policy actually is. When interviewing minors the policy is to have either someone else present, or if the child is uncomfortable with that, have another adult in the outer office where they can see through the window in the door. Many Bishop office doors had windows installed over 20 years ago. Often it is not so much a matter of Church policy, which is to report when legally permitted, but local law. Tha AP article did a horrible jog of explaining the legal nuances that constrain clergy in Arizona.
@@brettmajeske3525 A recent change allows children to have someone in the interview but it is up to them. It is voluntary and not mandatory. Are you unaware of this? So yes, it is systemic until that change happens. As for the second point, no local law says Bishops cannot report abuse. It is the church that directs leaders to not report abuse to authorities that can act upon it. Leaders are instructed to call Kirton-McConkie law firm and they are usually advised to not report. The emphasis is on protecting the corporation, not the child who is being abused.
The AP article, although wrong in a number of points, did lay out something that’s undeniable: the abuse was reported to the bishop, the bishop used the hotline and was advised not to report to law enforcement, and abuse continued. There is no denying that. That alone warrants some degree of investigation. You also can’t ignore the fact that as the family physician, the bishop is a mandated reporter in AZ whether acting in the role of physician or not.
@@boturner8328 there was evidence of abuse. I’m not sure how much evidence you need before taking action, especially after what was potentially an unrestricted admission of guilt.
@@BrendonKing there's a difference from "I did something in the past" vs "I'm doing it right now" I don't know what you hold as evidence of people that lie and twist their stories around.
Do you even hear yourselves?? Why do you think the church is so lawyered up through the channels created by the “help lines”? It’s because they are far more interested in covering their asses for liability than ACTUALLY helping out victims of abuse. Otherwise the helpline would not be a direct line to a law firm but instead would be to mental health support.
I know many mental health professionals who would disagree. Mental health councilors do not have the authority to remove children from a dangerous home the way that police can, when informed properly. One of the motivations of the helpline is so that leaders can follow local laws so evidence is not later dismissed.
Her second point of “abusers can’t have easy access to children” falls flat for me. My dad was molested as a teenager by his bishop, along with a dozen other boys in the ward. Add to that all of the cases against the Boy Scouts. I don’t really buy her argument here. Also add to this the experiences of other young people abused by “family friends”, who are then promoted to positions of authority within the church. What happens when the church is made aware of their past abuses? Nothing, at least not until a huge stink is made and SEVERAL witnesses come forward, and even then the church just sweeps it under the rug. The church has a lot of work to do if it wants to convince the world that it takes sexual abuse seriously.
Your singular third person perspective is vary narrow on evidence and most full of hurt and pain. Sorry for your dad's experience, but that is not the norm nor commonplace nor even frequent. The boyscout issues were not all LDS nor a majority of LDS troops. It was mostly the troops who invited gay men to be leaders. Also, the "promotion" statement is completely inaccurate. There are no promotions and there are no political appointments in the church. You lack understanding and my guess is because you are not an active and faithful member. Your dad in my assumption quit church and dud not raise you in the church so your perspective again by my assumption is one of an uninformed and emotionally charged outsider to the faith. You also did not listen very carefully to the commentary on how IDs and the fact that there are no positions you can request makes things safer. Safer does not mean all children are perfectly immune from all possible abuse. It means by the numbers of all possible abuse scenarios, no other church offers the same level of safety. You also do not seem to understand the nuances of the faith practice where we seek to apply the example of the Savior in our dealings with others. The Savior himself was hung on a cross by his own church essentially, so even a perfect approach does not guarantee optimal results in a mortal perspective. There are elements of an eternal perspective you are completely discounting in all of this if you are to understand the position of the church and the bishop if the bishop was truly relying on tge spirit and not his own thinking. We cannot say if that bishop was acting on either without further inquiry that has not happened. Still, no matter what mistakes were made, we can show love, compassion, and patience to all involved and use thst same approach to help and to move us all forward until Christ returns and we all return to Heavenly Father's presence to be judged.
@@YibuYibu The substance and tone of your comment are exactly why I have distanced myself from the church. The toxic “faithfulness” you and the folks in this video display are proving my point, and the point that others are making - The Church goes to great lengths to cover up abuse. Nothing you said is based on factual knowledge. You made a number of uninformed ad-hominem attacks on me and others whom you do not know, and you make wild, inaccurate, sweeping assertions that come across as vague and banal. I would go so far as to say that the dismissive and derisive attitudes you and the folks in this video display are the chief reason I no longer participate in the church.
I'm sorry that your father experienced this. The member number system she describes as a block for molesters recently became widespread with the advent of computers. The older system was much harder to trace and unfortunately due to the nature of crime can't be used preventively for the first crime. After the first report then yes, it can work preventively.
I am REALLY not a fan of your statement that "we just don't know if the Bishops made these kids lives harder." This is from the sentencing judge's closing comments: "Ms. Adams, if you had done what you should have done and could have done back in either 2010 or 2011, it's a little unclear to me whether it was the one year or the other year, when you first learned for a certainty what your then husband had done with M-1, your older daughter, if you had called the police, if -- well, I didn't hear from the bishop directly, he wasn't here to testify. I'm hesitant to make judgments or pronouncements about his situation when I haven't directly heard it from him--but I will say had he called the police or taken some other action rather than apparently acted out of hope rather than out of some sense of responsibility for these children, had he done something, had you done something Ms. Adams back in 2010 or 2011, these crimes wouldn't have happened. . . . Count 1 happened in June 2015. Count 2 happened from somewhere between or within the time span of March 29, 2015, through February 8, 2017. Those things wouldn't have happened. If when the bishop called you in here, "Listen to what Paul is telling me about raping your" -- at that time your only daughter, if you had done something, if the bishop had done something, if someone had acted out of a sense to help these children and not worrying about, well, am I going to get into a problem with the church or things along those lines, whatever people were thinking. If people were acting out of a sense of responsibility for these children, then these two crimes wouldn't have happened at all against -- the older child, M-1, would still have been the victim of Mr. Adams' conduct up to that point, but it wouldn't have continued. It wouldn't have continued for years, and M-2 wouldn't have been victimized at all, because she hadn't yet been born. But she wasn't protected, she wasn't protected by you, she wasn't protected by the bishop, she wasn't protected certainly not by her father, she wasn't protected by anybody." This judge heard all of the evidence and clearly believed the Bishops did fail these children. That's not to say that the primary damage wasn't caused by the parents, but the damage was exacerbated by the Church too. As for your whole "Ms. Adams is a completely unreliable witness" bit--her statements are what the Church's second press release relies on that you spent time praising. Which is it? I’m sick of hearing the obvious strawman about some grand conspiracy. That was never the claim, but there are wide scale cultural policy changes that need to happen in response to this article.
@@reddish22 The documents regarding the case are sealed. So there’s an awful lot of speculation here on why people did what they did and why they made the calls that they did on this particular case. I think it was absolutely stupid for the bishop to not report it. however, there is so much regarding the circumstances that is sealed and not able to be known. And so people are taking every chance they can get to speculate just to hate on the church.
@@zionmama150 the transcripts I cited from are public records. I’m not speculating. I’m quoting from the record. Do you want the link? They’re easy to find. I’m not hating on the Church, but I view this as a very easy chance for the Church to adjust its policies now we see the unintended consequences of policy decisions made in the past.
@@brettmajeske3525 that there are social workers who can appropriately take down these reports and are trained to do so, unlike what Jennifer here alleges
@@jessieheartsvintage That actually varies wildly depending on jurisdiction. In some places that statement is absolutely true. In others not so much. One of the problems victim advocate deal with is the lack of consistency from state to state, and sometimes county to county. Large cities do have access to trained, albeit overworked, social workers. During Covid many social workers were let go in Michigan, and I assume other places. I am friends with several who work for CPS who do not know if they are still going to be employed come January. There are far more reports than there are qualified people to take them. Most reporters get sent directly to the local police, who are far less likely to be adequately trained, especially if the reporter is clergy. They ask questions they are not supposed to, and the case later gets dismissed and the children returned to their abuser. That is why the hotline exists, so that reports happen properly. I am not claiming the system is perfect, I don't think anyone at SU is either. My issue is that people complaining do not seem to understand what the system is, why some system is needed, and all of the complexities that exist.
@@brettmajeske3525 oh you mean how these kids returned to their abuser? if you’re going to set up a hot line at least have them be trained on local laws. local law in AZ states that if clergy reports SU they are immune from civil or legal penalties. the fact that you can’t acknowledge that some improvement is needed is frightening- signed your friendly, local AZ based forensic psych
@@jessieheartsvintage You are a bold faced liar. I never said that improvement was not not needed. You are misrepresenting my position. Immunity from civil or legal penalties is irreverent, and has nothing to do with possible rationalities. You are constructing a straw man argument. No one is claiming this is the best possible outcome. You are merely ignoring the complexities and issues that real people need to deal with. My issue is not that the system is perfect and does not need change, I absolutely think change is required. My concern is that without legal changes in Arizona, policy changes on the Church level is meaningless. Remember, the policy, both then and now, is that the Bishop is to always report when legally permitted. To be absolutely clear, it is not a matter of the clergy being punished, but of improper reporting causing the case to be dismissed. That is a real concern that you seem to be ignoring. You also seem to be assuming that the Bishop in question knew more than evidence indicated. This is not a case about a Bishop not reporting ongoing abuse. This is about someone confessing to a single instance of past abuse, without explaining the sexual nature of that abuse, and promising it would never happen again. Under those circumstances lawyers who were experts in Arizona law advised that clergy were not permitted under privilege to report. You seem to ignore the actual law because of your emotional outrage. I understand this is an emotional topic, but please stop lying about my position.
So her first concern with the problem was how will this affect the faith of members? Any of us who feel this way when we read or hear negative history or stories about the church know that you are unhealthily biased. Your first thought should always be, is this true? Then research unbiased sources not the one side that is biased.
@@BrendonKing I understand. As a true apologist, not a faithful one, your job is to stand for truth. A faithful apologist is one who will stand for a group or person as a result of reverie and not a dedication to truth.
Hey Anthony! Jennifer's first concern was not about how the article would affect the faith of members. Jennifer is clear to mention that what happened to the victim (or any victim of sexual abuse) is absolutely reprehensible. As a victim herself, Jennifer emphasizes that the victim's life has been ruined by the actions of the abuser and that the victim deserves all the help that the world has to offer, including any kind of settlement that would help with those resources. Right after she read the article, she immediately started scouring the documents and the research involved, as you mentioned. She's not one to passively wait for the Spark Notes of other people. She came to her own conclusions prior the church giving their lengthy statement. While she is affiliated with some Mormon apologetics, she has only been a member of the Church for 3 years. She doesn't have some kind of blinded agenda. Thanks for your time. - Rachel
@@SaintsUnscripted hey thank you for your response. I noticed that she did that when she was interviewed by you guys. I commend her for that and think that that’s fair. I was responding to a comment someone else and made about that being her job that she protect the church. Also I think she mentioned in her interview when she first read the article her first thought was oh no what is that going to do for the perception of the church.
Probably because he was not active and refused to come in and go before the church court. From my understanding, they would like you to be present at the hearing.
@@kelleynrothaermel2311 and in those three years why did the church ever once stop to consider going to the authorities on this? Clearly their ecclesiastical authority wasn’t going to mete the justice if he didn’t show up.
@@kelleynrothaermel2311 False. They can and do hold the hearings without the person present. They didn't deal with it assertively and in a timely manner because it wasn't a priority. Listen to the experience of the victims and it's a common story.
He could have left the state, hid out, refused to attend the meetings etc. Don't be so quick to blame the leadership. There may be more information we don't have.
It’s not about the “times we’ve gotten it right.” It’s about the times the LDS church has gotten it wrong. Please let your Bishop and/or stake President know the LDS church’s policy is wrong and all clergy should report abuse to the authorities immediately.
Are you aware that in some states that is illegal? Church policy is to report unless the local laws prohibit doing so. Some states have very serious privilege laws. Sometimes the laws ties hands.
@@brettmajeske3525 I would like to know which states/territories explicitly forbid reporting. I can only find a few states were reporting isn’t mandatory.
@@BrendonKing Any jurisdiction that has Penitent privilege and does not specifically exclude reporting. It is the same situation for lawyers. Often the laws will not specifically mention clergy, just privilege in general, and the consequences for violation of privilege. I know that France, Italy, and Spain all have specific restrictions for official clergy. The LDS Church was only recognized as an actual religion in France during the 1990s, and Bishops/Leaders were given a whole packet of rules that now applied. In France the violation of Penitent Privilege can be the loss of recognition for the religion in question if the individual is not removed. California has a weird hodgepodge of contradictory laws where Clergy are obligatory reporters and are forbidden to violate privilege to the point that the state AG a few years ago recommended Clergy who wanted to report should do so anonymously to avoid legal hassles. The public referendum system in California has resulted in many situations were new laws are passed without addressing how they interact with past laws. The City of New York and the State of New York have conflicting laws, one insisting that clergy report, the other insisting they be treated like lawyers. It can be difficult for cops or even CPS to get permission to act when grand juries and investigators are not allowed to even question potential witnesses. Which is why I have a problem with the proportional responses. The mother claimed to have told multiple people, including her husband's boss, who was also an oblatory reporter, who didn't have expectation of privilege. The abuser was himself a cop, and that causes all sorts of complications.
I don't know why are we talking still about the bishop...if the mom knew why on earth did SHE not report?!?! Am I the only one who's thinking about that?????
This is the very reason for mandated reporting laws/reporters. Mom has a few reasons to not want to go forward with the abuse charges (loss of breadwinner, fear of retaliation, etc.).
We are talking about it because the mother was interviewed by a journalist explaining that she had told therapists, teachers, cops, and her religious leader (the Bishop in question) and they didn't do anything so why should she? The abuser was himself a border patrol agent, and people don't like reporting on cops.
Good point, but probably not a big topic because she went to prison. She had knowledge of the abuse, did not act on that knowledge and went to jail. The bishop and other church leaders had knowledge of the abuse as well, might be a reason the focus is on the church. The church claims they were not aware of the extent of the abuse, but I wonder how extensive sexual abuse needs to be before the church will do something about it.
The church is never legally required not to report abuse. The LDS Church could change the policy today to tell Bishops they must report all abuse to the police immediately, and then Bishops could call the helpline for further instructions. I found Jennifer Roach therapist comments dishonest. 5 years ago, people around the world took abuse seriously. To suggest otherwise, in order to provide cover for the church's failure in the case, is disheartening. If the LDS church would just own that they did the wrong thing, and that they will tell Bishops to report abuse starting today, people would move on from this story. The LDS church instead has tried to deflect and take no accountability and make no changes to better protect children. As an LDS abuse victim myself, I found it hurtful when Jennifer Roach stated "What about the many times we've gotten it right." Just because something is done right most of the time, doesn't mean you should not do everything in your power to protect children. It came across like LDS sexual abuse victims are just collateral damage to sweep under the rug. I hope the LDS Church will take this moment to re-evaluate what it means to be a moral leader and start putting children's safety as the highest priority.
I was also victimized in the church, yet I found her comments and thoughts very reassuring, accurate and compassionate. I won't let my trauma define any institution as a whole; that wouldn't be appropriate, especially knowing that ya can't get everything right 100% of the time, no one can or ever will.
I am sorry to hear about your own personal experiences with abuse. I cannot imagine the trauma and continued difficulty that must have/continues to cause in your life. Regarding what was shared in the video though, I didn't find Jennifer's comments to be dishonest at all - simply an honest look at where the Church and the general population is at today vs. where it/they have been in the past. You forget that Jennifer mentioned she too is a victim of abuse from her own childhood - and from a pastor no less. I cannot imagine with her shared experience and the trauma she too endured, that she would then opt to lie about a topic so obviously personal to her as well.
@@DannyAGray I am sorry for what happened to you! I hope you are able to find healing! Sadly the church is made up of humans and humans are never perfect and their actions can be very harmful.
What would Jennifer have to gain from being dishonest and would only hurt herself as a therapist by doing so? Even if things have changed favorably towards abuse 10 or 15 years ago, we still see over and over people who fall through the cracks due to human error or by being bound to the law. How many women have been beaten by their spouses and sought help and yet end up dead each year because the system cannot protect them? How many children are returned back home after being in foster care because the courts can't find enough plausible evidence to keep them from returning to their homes and falling victim to further abuse or ending up dead? Sadly, the system fails. I am sure that the bishop to this day feels tremendous guilt for what occurred. No one can forget something like this easily. It is easy to point our fingers at someone and say we would have done x, y, and z but until we are in such a situation who knows? Right now I have a child who is severely depressed, but because the said child is 15 this child cannot be forced to get help. I have contacted everyone I can think of to help him, but their hands are tied. Only if he tried to physically hurt himself can they step in which is horrible that is how it is in my state. Each state has different rules. What needs to occur in all 50 states is a law that states it is mandatory for all clergy to report the abuse of minors.
@@SaintsUnscripted to call Joseph’s abominable, sinful behavior “shortcomings” is an act of complicity. Muster the courage to do a deep dive into JS’s antics, observe the timing of revelation, read about JS’s close friend & confidant, John C. Bennett. Do not minimize the evil.
As a school employee, it is my responsibility to report any comments made by a student about abuse through the proper channels. It can be that simple. My faith isn't on trial here, but the policies should be looked at, and changed if necessary. I can actually be reported if it is determined I heard and did nothing.
That is a very different circumstance than what happened in AZ. Bishops do report suspect abuse, and have been sued over it. Clergy in many states have the same responsibility for confidentiality as lawyers. Breaking that confidentiality without proper reason can actually prevent police from investigating. Its called "fruit of the poison tree" in legal circles.
@@brettmajeske3525 Actually in where Bishops were sued for reporting, those suits were thrown out in court. So the Bishops really shouldn't have anything to worry about there.
@@jonjahr3403 Just because the Church won the law suits, doesn't mean there was not financial and emotional costs. Of the nine suits I am aware none were dismissed, the Church did win, but only after long legal proceedings. Even winning can be very expensive, not to mention the attention it brings up. More importantly such cases discourages people from talking to clergy in the first place. When penitents do not trust that clergy will be confidential, they do not confess.
Bad things have happened in every denomination and belief system in the world...im not lds but i didn't appreciate those people trying to make lds look bad...let the offending sinner look bad and pay for his sin dont make everyone else pay too
@A Laputa its always good to go to God in prayer but yes i agree sometimes Police need to be involved and mental health experts i totally agree being a bishop doesn't qualify them for everything
Problem is, mormons LOVE to say they're "the only true church on the face of earth".... But when these things happen, the same mormons say similar things like: "it happens in all other denominations"... So, if it happens in ALL denominations (including the mormon church), then the mormon church is no different and therefore cannot be "the only true church"🤷🏻♂️
@@AlejandroMartinez-fr6hj no they are not the only true church...in my belief true church is in your heart not inside a building...i can take good things from different churches even if its only a small minor thing or big.. kinda like bruce lee took parts from different fighting styles scrapped the rest and learned a very highly affective discipline..same with church there are good and not so good and bad in all of them take the good apply it to yourself scrap the bad
@AlejandroMartinez-fr6hj Yes, the LDS Church does make the claim that it is the "only true and living church" on the earth, and there are reasons why it makes that claim. But what is common to ALL churches is that they are made up of imperfect people. That is in fact why Christ established a church in the first place, with specific organizational positions and roles (occupied by imperfect people) - He Himself being the Chief Cornerstone - until we can all come to a unity in the faith.
It's not the church's fault, that so many people that join the church, are not who they pretend to be ! Many people in this day and age have ill intent towards the church ❗ 🙏🌸🌷🌸The gospel is still perfect, and always will be, it's God's church ❗ However people are not Perfect, and many people have mental illnesses and we are seeing this more and more these days ❗🙏💟The gospel is still true, many churches go through this because there are so many people, and as long as you have large numbers of people,the odds are much higher with mental illness!
13:12 -- "Do you do you think that the church is doing enough in their efforts to to address child abuse?" No. I don't say that because I think it of my own knowledge, but because I know that would be the Church's answer. The Church will relentlessly examine and consider, over and over, everything that can be done, and will constantly look for better ways to deal with this. Saying "yes" would mean, "We are satisfied with our current practices". I don't think the Church will ever say that.
I am actually surprised this was brought up. As much as I no longer consider myself a friend to the church, I do believe the actions or inaction of a single individual or a small group of individuals hardly constitutes negligence on the church overall. I think the bishop in this instance really dropped the ball as an individual. EDIT: I will also add that the church’s responses to the AP article could have been much, much better. The initial reaction on KSL and Deseret was definitely not the slam dunk the church PR team was looking for.
I agree, but at the same time if the church went out and said by the way we are so terribly sorry for what happened our bishop dropped the ball it would then open itself to legal action. What it comes down to is that bishops receive very little training when it comes to matters like this! They are not therapists or counselors. Did the bishop do his best? Maybe-Maybe Not! We really don't know all that happened. Should he have reported it? Hindsight is 20/20! We all make mistakes! I am sure he had beat himself up over not reporting it! I know I would feel horrible for not getting it right! Hopefully, some changes were made so that this won't occur again.
@@kelleynrothaermel2311 the church has enough money to weather pretty much any legal battle/or storm. I want to see someone accountable, regardless of who they are or the role they played in the church.
That’s right, we should blame schools if a teacher molests a student. Then spray paint the schools with messages like “predators”. It isn’t the INDIVIDUAL TEACHER’s fault after all… nope! It is the school’s. The school is the reason the teacher molested the kid 🙄
The Church’s response was just fine. It helps affirm the truth that these slandering church-haters are basically lying to find some reason to bring the Church down.
@@zionmama150 not a good analogy. It’s as if a teacher had been told by the parent of a child that they were molesting their child, and then the teacher sat on their hands and did nothing. Maybe called a hotline and was told by the school district or county that it was a privileged conversation and therefore couldn’t be relayed to the proper authorities. And then that student continued to be molested throughout the years while the school district was aware.
Bishops shouldn't be thrown under the bus when the handbook instructs them to call the helpline if they are made aware of abuse and the helpline tells them not to report. In the Arizona case the bishop did as the handbook instructed called the hotline and was told by them that he could be sued if he reported, that it was AZ law (which was false). Most bishops are not going to risk breaking the law and being sued.
@@brettmajeske3525 "The records - two pages from a log of calls fielded by a law firm representing the church and the deposition of a church official - show that Utah Republican State Rep. Merrill F. Nelson took the initial call from a bishop reporting that church member Paul Adams had sexually abused his daughters. Nelson also had multiple conversations over a two-year span with two bishops who knew of the abuse, the records show. A transcript of the deposition and excerpts of the call log were attached to a legal filing in the Arizona Court of Appeals made by lawyers for the plaintiffs. Three of Adams’s children are battling the church, widely known as the Mormon church, for access to records the church insists are confidential. The church took the case to the Court of Appeals after a Cochise County judge ruled in favor of the victims. According to the plaintiff’s legal filing, Nelson advised Bishop John Herrod not to report the abuse and told him “that he could be sued if he reported, and the instruction by counsel not to report Paul to the authorities was the law in Arizona and had nothing to do with Church doctrine.” But Arizona’s child sex abuse reporting law grants blanket legal immunity to anyone reporting child sex abuse or neglect." (By: Associated Press Posted at 8:35 PM, Sep 10, 2022 and last updated 7:35 PM, Sep 10, 2022)
@@annsertrue8782 Conversations between lawyers and clients, which this would be considered, are considered privileged. It would seem very likely that the court of appeals would overturn opening confidential documents. That is the whole point of being privilege, which both lawyer/client and clergy/penitent communications are consider in Arizona. Clergy in fact are specifical forbidden from testifying in Arizona about confessions, even if they were to report. I don't think anyone is disputing that that the call was made, which is all the call logs could indicate. I personally also find it curious that claims are made, but not actually quotes from the deposition. Because if anyone had talked about the details of the phone call that would be a violation of the privilege statute as well, The Church Newsroom has repeatedly disputed the AP article as misrepresenting the nature of the communication. I would be curious where exactly the plaintiff's acquired access to privileged information. If true, a mistake was certainly made. Not that it makes any difference in the lawsuit, which is doomed from the start. Given the specific exclusion to reporting in Arizona law, neither the Church or the Bishop can have any legal liability even if there was a misunderstanding about the consequences of reporting, a claim that is so far unverified.
@@annsertrue8782 As I have mentioned in our threads, I am not a lawyer, but I have had conversations with a retired paralegal who spent 30 years specializing in victim advocacy and is not herself a lawyer. I just asked her about this issue, and apparently in other states there is president of people being sued for violation of privilege even when there is protection for reporting. The Church and/or LDS Bishops have been sued for reporting at least nine times in the last 30 years. The Church only lost three of those cases, but just defending can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Any lawyer who claimed in a deposition to have given the kind of mistaken advice claimed in the lawsuit would not only be quickly disbarred but be vulnerable to a claim of ineffective council themselves. It maybe they are jumping to conclusions, confusing "you are not allowed" with "or else you will be sued".
Jennifer was 100 percent correct. Don't let the actions of a deranged man affect your faith. His fault alone. That should be all that is said about it.
Jennifer spoke at a fair conference a while ago. Her presentation was title "why LDS youth benefit from time alone with their bishop.". It was awesome and I'm glad they got her for this.
@Kevin m I'm sorry to hear that you felt uncomfortable with a bishop you had and I hope you don't let a few be representative of the rest of the group. I can only speak from my experience and none of my Bishops ever made me feel uncomfortable or probed with uncomfortable questions. I know I'm very blessed with that and I'm sorry you didn't have the same.
@@Sunshine-eo2sp too bad it's not that way all across the board. If they are all inspired and acting in the name of Christ, all responses and interviews should be the same
@@JulieSnowstudiojuliesnow3698 I wouldn't say "the same" per se. Turning every Bishop, Elders Quorum President, RS president, etc., in to robots to fulfill their calling removes the God given humanity from it all. Plus, Jesus didn't respond to everyone the same, but he did love everyone the same. Everyone is held to the same expectations, if we love him we will keep his commandments. Saying "if they're inspiried by God they all should be the same" doesn't hold well to me just looking at people in the scriptures themselves. Peter and John the Baptist were both very inspired by God, but went about their inspiration in very different ways. I'm not saying Kevins bishop was inspired to make him uncomfortable, what I am saying is that number 1) neither of us can verify whatever the questions were with Kevins bishop, so we have no way of knowing the validity of his story. I don't trust everything I read at first glance. And number 2) if they were all "the same" in the way that I am understanding you, the spirit wouldn't be there.
Ms. Roach makes several problematic and disingenuous statements in this discussion: *“He 100% believed he was not allowed to report. Why he believed that, I don't know.”* In the August 6, 2022 episode of the Leading Saints podcast (1), Ms. Roach *herself* says, “There's three versions of [mandated reporting]. [Y]ou must report, no exceptions. … [Y]ou must report, but there are some exceptions. … In the third version… *you may not report*. [In 2016, a bishop in Oregon] reported to the police, *which at that time was against the law in his state*” (emphasis added). In the same podcast, she uses the phrase “in a state where it's illegal to report”. In other words, Ms. Roach, despite being a professional therapist, herself believed only six weeks ago what she’s now so incredulous that this untrained bishop believed. *“Was it the right thing for him to believe? I don’t know.”* Given that Ms. Roach is now, at least, aware what the bishop believed is false, this was categorically *not* “the right thing for him to believe”. *“They were TRYING to get this family to report, trying all the things that they thought they COULD do”* Again, the problem is that the hotline provided false information to the bishop. The (again, untrained) bishop believed that his options were limited because that’s what the helpline told him. Even though the family didn't report, the bishop could and should have. *“I wish I had great numbers for you; I don’t” … “Where exactly did this process break down? That is not yet clear.”* These numbers do not exist, and the breakdown is unclear, because the helpline destroys all of its records at the end of each day. However, despite this obstacle, *the church can avoid this “process breakdown” in the future simply by requiring all bishops to report.* 1: leadingsaints.org/reporting-abuse-church-helpline-the-bishop-an-interview-with-jennifer-roach Leading Saints podcast transcript: files.leadingsaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/06180442/Reporting-Abuse-Church-Helpline-and-the-Bishop-An-Interview-with-Jennifer-Roach-transcript.pdf
You guys are nuts. This affects the child and not only the members of the church. It’s horrific because THE CHURCH DIDNNT CALL THE POLICE. It’s disgusting . I am a member after so many years being gone and this gutted me. Unbelievable that there has been many abuse cases. You’re making so many excuses. No the case got on the news because the father was abusing, sharing imagery and bragging about his abuse to his kids . Gross and evil. The people of the church are supposed to protect the most innocent. And they did nothing. NOTHINGGGGGGG. The helpline didn’t help. It covered up. Just like the Catholic Church. Horrible. Nahhh he didn’t take away my faith. However, the church is not where I want to be anymore. The Church is at fault. The bishop didn’t even report to the police? All because he didn’t think he was allowed? This is a church not the white house . Insane .
It isn't a churches role to protect children, it is the parents and caregivers. Obviously, if something goes down it needs to be reported to the proper authorities but the blame needs to be shared.
I think we can take some context from the ancient Israelites. They successfully attacked Jericho and were trying to attack a small city but when they tried they failed terribly. Why? Because one man didn't obey the Lord. One person's actions killed many. The same happened in our day. One person on the line said something wrong causing much suffering. The Israelites were led by a prophet of the true God but the people failed. The same is true today.
Every now and then, I'd think about my mental trials 10 years ago, and I recollect the problems I could not control that led to losing who I still consider a good friend. Do I have any infatuation for her? no. I knew then my boundaries, but I didn't know then the extremes in my expressions, even to realize now that I didn't even get my intention across, being the desire for an assisted euthanisation for myself. I needed help then, and I'm grateful for the help I have now so I can let go, even though my brain has gone through a lot of decay over the years. Multiple Sclerosis, amiright?
Bishops may be counseled not to report due to confidentiality laws of whatever state they live in. Some bishop may actually break the law and be subject to prosecution if they report abuse in a state that has this kind of disclosure law. The church is really careful to follow the law and not get embroiled in lawsuits that may actually end in the abuser getting off free.
That's not true. Bishops are NEVER legally required to NOT report abuse. Sometimes the law allows them to choose whether or not to report, but there is no law saying they cannot report. The church CHOSE not to report the abuse in this case.
@@spagoli7430 It depends on the state, different laws some of which due explicitly states clergy cannot report. Arizona specifically says clergy cannot testify.
@@brettmajeske3525 We're not talking about testifying. We're talking about reporting. The AZ law says the Bishop was legally mandated to report abuse, but he had a clergy exemption to not report if it was "reasonable and necessary" within the concepts of the religion. Can you tell me why it was reasonable and necessary for the Bishop NOT to report known child sexual abuse?
@@thomasveech7456 If members would look at the number of victims who've publicly talked about being abused in the church, and the number of sexual abuse lawsuits against the church, they might realize its a bigger problem than they believe. Over 2,000 people have come forward about their abuse in LDS Boy Scouts.
I am so grateful you addressed this. Yesterday, I had a conversation with a member who was extremely angry with the church for its lack of help towards the children in this situation and she felt the church expressed no empathy and was gaslighting us. Here are a few additional thoughts I had that were not mentioned. 1) When we talk about Bishops we need to realize that they are not trained therapists, counselors, or policemen. All training comes on the job. They di their job as a bishop as a part-time gig secondary to their full-time jobs. 2) In the state of Arizona he was not required to report the man. Does it mean he shouldn't have? Yes, and why he didn't who knows, but I think this goes back to point number 1? 3) I do not think that the church had anything to gain by trying to cover up or harbor the father's behavior. We need to remember the church is not the monster here, but the father. In regards to the church not coming out with a full-on apology, from a legal standpoint if the church did that they would then open themselves up to legal action. I am sure the church would love to issue a statement saying that somehow the bishop and counselors missed the mark on this situation and we fully apologize. Can the church do better? For sure! Another aspect of this situation is the confidence that is held in the privacy between a bishop, pastor, clergy, and its members. When you go into that office you believe what you say will be kept private. Again, in this situation who cares about the member because the child should be more important, but it is similar to that of a lawyer and his client? In regards to how the church has put things in place to protect the child: Every teacher who is involved with children must take a child safety course, Every teacher has a partner that they teach with. All the doors have windows on them. We are asked not to give rides how to minor children that aren't our own. I think that is it! If we are really angry, we need to call our legislators making it mandatory for clergy/bishops to report all cases or possibilities to the authorities. We can also send our General Authorities a letter and beg them to give more training to our bishops so that when situations like this occurs they are more prepared to know what to do in the future.
Your point #2, why the bishop did not report the abuse, who knows? Why he didn’t who knows? Did you read the AP article? We don’t have to speculate as to why the bishop did not report, he did not report because he was instructed not to. That was the direction he received when he called the hotline. The church claims they didn’t know the extent of the abuse, how extensive does abuse need to be before the church instructs a bishop to report it? You’re right, this man is a monster, and church leaders were aware of that fact and did nothing to stop the abuse and protect the children he was harming.
@@brettmajeske3525 moreso on your statement that this confidentiality has the same legal standing. I'm not seeing that myself, but then again, I'm not a legal expert, or a legal expert in the state of AZ.
What do the saints say about the pgad issue that some struggle with also in their lives ? How would one be able to live temple covenants if they ran into this issue?
@@brettmajeske3525 Only you could read my comment in such a perverted way, Brett. As you've shown in these comments, you too are defending the indefensible.
A bit extreme, but i understand the sentiment you’re expressing. You have to also remember this guest is affiliated with FAIR so her whole objective is apologetic defense. Granted apologia doesn’t really apply to current sex allegations, but that’s why the guest takes the stance she does.
@@BrendonKing She couldn't take the stance because she is professional therapist who specializes in victim advocacy? I think the missing element in this discussion is comparing how many abusers choose to voluntarily confess to their Bishop, verse the number of victims who are only willing to seek help from their Bishop because they have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. As anyone who actually a part of victim advocacy is aware the vast majority of victims do not want to be retraumatized by the police, who care more about convictions then help. The number of attempted suicides following police interviews is astounding. How can a victim trust Clergy who violate privilege without all due consideration? Less important is how violation of privilege discourages other abusers from coming forward. Even though the Bishop was unable to convince this one to turn himself in, this whole media circus is only going to make it less likely for the next sinner seeking repentance to actual ask their Bishop for help. I am aware of multiple cases of people who turned themselves in to the police on the recommendation of their pastor/bishop/priest. It is the most common reason for the few who do turn themselves in. And it depends on a pre existing expectation of privilege.
You can still have faith in Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. I just wish that bishop reported it - I wonder why the bishop thought he couldn’t report it. I feel Heavenly Father would of pushed this bishop to report it to the right authorities. I feel that bishop should be investigated and church leaders need to learn how to handle these things. what else does he know or past bishops … I feel people are upset with the church steps and choices not really faith on Heavenly Father just faith in the church’s organization
From what I've read in other comments, it's the messy and complicated law, that's at fault. This would be quite correct from my understanding of how the law works. In other words if the Bishop reported it then he'd face a lawsuit prosecuting him and having the abuser walk free. Legalism is really messy and complicated and this is on purpose. Because the adversary is in the control of the state and the state agents are his agents.
@@antyrak7905 there is no penitent privilege for reporting. There is however for testifying in a court of law. The bishop also failed to meet his requirements as a mandated reporter as the family physician. Either way the bishop needs to be held accountable.
@@BeileighCp Easier said and done when you are talking about possible legal action against you. I have a child right now who needs mental health help but he won't get it. No one, not his doctor, not the police, not the school, no one will reach out and help him because they are bound by the law. They can only take action if he tries to kill himself. Pretty sad state of affairs. I have been living a life of pins and needles for the last two years because my child refuses to get help. He claims nothing is wrong with him. So not so easy when you have a mother who lies, a father who is a monster, and children who may or may not lie in response in order to protect their father. We also need to remember that our bishops are not trained therapists or counselors and are not always trained on the law. I find it very unlikely he went home and felt good at night about the situation. Why do you think so many people fail to help those in need on the street when they clearly need help? Not because they are not caring, but sometimes it can turn against them. That fear is real!
Background checks only reveal if someone is on the terrorist watch list, sex offenders list, or has a felony conviction in the past seven year. Any convictions older that seven years are not mentioned. Arrests that do not result in a conviction are not mentioned. Since over 90% of abuse cases involve people with no prior convictions, the benefit in minimal. Since they are also expensive, many people think it would be cheaper and easier to just check the Sex Offenders list (which can be done for free) instead of paying $100 for a background check. Jennifer did not say that background checks are useless, just that they do not do what many people think they do. They cannot tell if someone is safe, only that they have not been convicted. Case in point, in the Arizona example, the offender had passed his mandatory background check every year that he was abusing his daughters.
Why does the church think if you are 'nice' to media, they will treat you honesty, balanced and fair? Are they living under a rock? Re testimonies. All are called to look out for our ward members and neighbors. Zero tolerance for abuse. That said, I do not fault the church when it was ALL surrounding that family that let them down. My testimony is not shaken when a strong breeze blows. We place our faith in the Savior and not in people or no one would leave their abodes and become hermits.
The church does, at least at a local level, carry some blame. That’s the big question being asked now though: how much did the church’s actions or inactions play into this atrocity? Discovery is going to be fascinating and jarring at the same time.
@@BrendonKing No. If the law was such that clergy confidentiality was involved then no. But what about the teachers, child protective services, neighbors, grandparents? They too were involved in their lives. So, sue them too.
@@suem6004 The way the case is developing, it does not appear AZ recognizes any clergy confidentiality in this instance. Per the judge, confidentiality was waived the moment the perpetrator posted the videos on the Internet. That said, teachers may not have known, and therefore didn't report. Family members aren't mandated reporters, unfortunately, so you couldn't sue them for failing a duty they don't have from a legal stance. Obivously morality would dictate otherwise. Regardless, looking at this issue the way you are might be missing the point. The scope of the case is 'plaintiff v. church', and as such that's what matters.
At the end of the day, there's only so much you can do, sadly. It's nice to think that we can just stop all abuse. But we can't. We can do better, but it's hard. It's really hard. We will never get it 100% right.
As Voltaire said, perfect is the enemy of good. It's nuts to think that just because you'll never be perfect, you can't be better. The article (which is not as inaccurate as they make it sound), shows horrific abuse and extreme incompetence from Church leaders. At this point, yall are not in a place to shoot for 100%. You are shooting for 40%. Don't shrug and say, "well, we're never going to be perfect" when y'all need to be doing the bare minimum.
You are not the only religious group to go through this--all major religions (and non-religious groups!) have experienced it. Work on changing the culture without kind of giving up before you've even started
@@pplucker9486 But most of the evidence the article uses is from a case in South Carolina more than ten years older than the one in Arizona. From all the actual evidence, the Church did far more than the bare minimum. It still was not enough. The Bishop testified that he learned about the ongoing abuse the same time everyone else did, from the news. He knew there were problems in the family, but not the extent of those problems.
I'm going to share a story from a general conference talk. I don't remember the name of the talk, speaker, or which session it was in, but here it goes. A missionary was having a hard time on his mission. He went to his mission president and told the president that he didn't think he could finish his mission. The mission president said that he wasn't trying hard enough and needed to study the Book of Mormon and put more effort into serving his mission. The missionary tried but came back saying he didn't think he could finish his mission. The mission president again said to the missionary that he needed to study the Book of Mormon and lose himself in the work. This was repeated a third time. On fourth time, the mission president asked why he believed that he couldn't finish his mission. The missionary replied "I can't read." The Spirit is difficult to hear even for leaders. As such, when a leader trusts in his own wisdom and doesn't rely on the Lord's guidance, then additional adversity can occur. Child abuse blatantly goes against God's teachings. Thus God wouldn't give revelation to not report abuse. I honestly suspect either the bishop or the hotline person wasn't diligent in inquiring of the Lord. That being said, we do need to support our leaders. All support given needs to be with love and compassion. Our leaders aren't perfect, but by supporting them we can help them to learn and grow. For example, questions are fine but arguing brings contention.
@@radybay9088 I do. Are you saying the outcome of a situation is the best way to determine whether god was instrumental in the decision-making process?
I have no doubt the church cares about protecting the children in their trust. but I wish you guys would better understand that the church cares more about protecting their image. Both of the church's responses shows that and this needs to change. LDS church, please do the right thing and let the consequences follow, just like you taught/expected me to do.
@@brettmajeske3525 are you sure?? What church department does the help line go straight to? I'll answer that for you. Risk management department. That's right the help line is run out of the risk management division. Not family services, not the welfare department, not a division to help victims but a division to help the church asses and mitigate risk to the good name of the church.
@@jessea2871 Am I sure privilege helps more victims than abusers? Yes I am very sure. What do you think is more common, victims going to a Bishop for help, or abusers going to a Bishop to confess?
@@brettmajeske3525 I have no idea. But what I know for damn sure is the church is very concerned about protecting it's good name and in my opinion more so than properly reporting and seeing to the victims safety. Opinions differ and there is no way of really knowing because we as members and church leadership are really good at only showing the good and like to portray that all is good in Zion when in fact not all is good but we must pretend that it is because of the implications of what it means when not all is good. To be honest and upfront, whatever evidence I have of this subject is anecdotal and my experiences in the church don't mean that much to anyone because we all have our own and that's where we harvest truth from. Brett, I really don't have much of an interest in getting into a back and forth with you, I apologize if you don't agree with me and if I may have offended you. I'm humble enough to admit that I could be wrong. How's bout you? Rhetorical question.
@@jessea2871 This is a subject that is very triggering for me. Without going into messy details, sexual abuse of children and adults have impacted many of my close friends and family. I know too much of how police focus more on conviction than victim advocacy. I know how important it is for survivors to feel like there is a safe haven, someone they can speak with who is not required to retraumatize them by going to the police. I have not served as a Bishop, but I think I have an idea from an Executive Secretary point of view of the kind of people who tend to seek help. I know too many victims who did not get the help they needed and are now dead or in jail themselves. I understand that people who only hear the biased report from the AP feel outrage and that something needs to be done. Too little of the actual facts of the case are known, in my opinion, to determine if the Bishop acted correctly with the information he had at the time. I do get upset when people say they cannot imagine why the Bishop did not come forward. Apparently they all hate survivors and want them to suffer is the only possible conclusion I can think of. Arizona law requires reporting from both medical professionals and clergy, but each with specific exceptions. Medical professionals are not to report if doing would inhibit the treatment of the patient. Clergy do not need to report if doing would violate reasonable concepts/doctrines of confidentiality. Usually this called the "Seal of the Confessional" by the media. As the Bishop in this case was also physician, he would understand that privilege applies. He consulted with lawyers knowledgeable about Arizona law. We don't know exactly what was confessed, but seem to think any knowledge should have been reported even if doing so would have made things worse. Arizona law forbids clergy from testifying, even if they were the ones who reported. Without testimony to a judge or grand jury, police/CPS can't even remove the children from the home. The father was a member of law enforcement himself, another obstacle. Privilege protects survivors from being revictimized. Every time it is broken without need, those in need have a harder time trusting it will apply to them. The default position of most organized religions, and mental health professionals, is that privilege should be the rule not the exception. Both Clergy and therapists need trust. I am not convinced the Bishop did the right thing 10 years ago, but I am not convinced he was wrong either. The public will likely never learn enough to make an informed decision. I am bothered by so many responses who act like there is no nuance or complication. I pray they never find themselves in situations where their confidence is ignored.
You can't do that because of the membership record number system she mentioned. If you just show up on Sunday and tell a bishop, "hey I just moved to your ward, I'm a member," they'll ask for your record number so your records can be moved from your old ward to that ward. If you don't have a number to give (like you don't have it memorized (most ppl don't) and you don't have it written down anywhere there are other ways they can try to find you, but if your record doesn't exist there's nothing to find. Records have been lost before, but I don't think on such a scale that it has ceased to exist. You wouldn't be put in any callings without that and wouldn't be able to put in those positions with kids.
Jennifer is awesome and provides unique perspectives. The LDS leaders followed the AZ law. The hotline did its job, telling the bishop what the law said and what to do. A limited 2011 confession by the father, and no consent from father/mother to report limited the options for the bishop/Church. The father and mother failed their family. The LDS Church isn't doing in this case what occurs far more regularly in other churches: church leaders themselves abuse their congregants.
@Mykel Alexandria Take a look at the somewhat recent shakeup in the Southern Baptist Church and the huge lawsuit against them and you'll see exactly what Neal's statement is based on.
IDK if the hotline accurately counseled the bishop. I know the AZ AG has also made mention that Kirton McConkie doesn’t have any legal authority to provide legal council on matters within the state of AZ, so that’s another storm brewing on the horizon. If the bishop acted on ‘illegitimate ’ legal counsel, the church might have a whole other problem to slog through.
@@BrendonKing "I don't know if the hotline accurately counseled the bishop..." How would you know? Would you look to AZ law to see if they counseled the bishop, according to the law? Ever been involved in a lawsuit? Are you an attorney yourself? What expertise do you have? Like most who post here, the answer is likely zero or close to zero. Instead, most who post here know little and primarily cheer against the church with little knowledge of facts or law. The Church isn't involved in this over 10-year-old case. The hotline has worked effectively for decades. There's no doubt counsel from SLC is legal and effective. Other churches would do well to have a similar hotline. Would have been much better if the Roman Catholic Church had followed our protocols and procedures in the last many decades. You show your naivete and biases with your comments that are not tethered to the real world. Hope you one day can appreciate the good the church does in people's lives. And not blindly cheer against them.
@Mykel Alexandria Indeed, why didn't the child's own family do the right thing? Father and mother do what was in the kid's best interest? They failed. In 2011 the abusing father provided a limited confession about abuse from the past. Not recent abuse. He and mother refused to allow the bishop to report. There was insufficient evidence. And the parents themselves refused to cooperate and self-report. Would you turn your neighbor in for something without sufficient evidence? I wouldn't advise that. You'd open yourself up to a lawsuit. You might want witnesses and a strong timeline. Not a single incident with insufficient evidence. I'd advise you follow the law. Maybe call a hotline and get good legal advice. Like Brendon above, sounds like you're not a world-class attorney yourself. The bishop doesn't go to the home of all less-actives in the ward and investigate for sexual abuse. Your expectations are unrealistic.
@Mykel Alexandria "THE LAW... the hook that the church wants to hang it’s hat on." That is the hat everyone must hang his/her hat on. We live in a society where the rule of law is supreme, without respect for personal position, etc. "confessed to raping my son…you think the law is gonna protect me?" You would be asked follow-up questions. Was it yesterday? How often? Are you on drugs? If you were truly confessing in a sheriff's office they would follow the law. And you'd be processed accordingly. If, however, you change the scenario and instead confessed to a clergy member in many states, different laws apply. We live in the USA. Not Russia, China, Mexico, or elsewhere. Another fact you may not appreciate: In American states with mandatory reporting you get less (around 10% less) reporting or confessions of abuse. Turns out, you in your hypothetical and other real abusers won't confess as frequently when abusers know they're gonna be reported automatically. Does that -- required reporting -- protect the victim? In some cases, sure. But not in all. In fact, nobody hears about victims in 10% fewer cases, cuz the law discourages confessions to clergy. "The church creates its own rules bc IT is not attached to reality. It seems to believe it’s above it." What evidence do you have of that?
Satan will tempt our church strongly because we are The church of Jesus Christ. So when our members are lackadaisical about the gospel and their membership they think that they are ok and it is ok for them to do these horrid things
I am surprised anyone gives any main stream media any time and validation. Since the 60’s with operation mockingbird I am shocked that people waste their time with it.
Unfortunately, although the background checks are an easy thing to do, they don't do them. I hope they will start using them. Stopping the abuse should be a top priority.
Do you even know what a background check is? How expensive they are? Or how little they actually reveal? And the Church does use background checks. Not for every callings, but they are used. I am curious why you think the Church doesn't use background checks? In this case the perpetrator kept passing his background check every year that he was abusing. Background check were being made, and the abuse was passing them. Acting like they are some sort of silver bullet is ignoring reality.
@@brettmajeske3525 The church doesn't use them, and in fact only uses them in places where they're legally required. Now personally I've had to submit to checks several times as part of a job application process and as a foster parent and it didn't cost much at all. Personally as an abuse victim myself, a foster parent, advocate against abuse and a former elementary school employee, I feel background checks can go along way to prevent abuse at least in cases where the abuser has already been convicted. Thus they could greatly reduce chances of abuse. That said I think any expense would be worth it. To put it simply better to be safe than sorry.
@@jonjahr3403 I would be interested in knowing your source that the "church doesn't use them". Especially since there is not a requirement to inform someone before running a background check on their behalf. Potential Bishops and other leaders are vetted before they are interviewed for the potential calling. I am not objecting to the idea of background checks, but I do not believe them to be the silver bullet most critics seem to suggest they. In the Arizonia case the preparator did go through annual back ground checks that didn't catch anything. Many people over estimate what back ground checks can and can not reveal.
@@brettmajeske3525 Whoops sorry I misspoke I meant to say the church doesn't always use them. And only does so in places where it is usually legally required.
@@jonjahr3403 Again, what is your source for that statement? Just because we only know about situations where the Church is legally required doesn't mean that they are not being used in other situations. People seem to assume that if they do not know about if background checks are being used that means that they are not. I do not think that is a wise assumption. I know of multiple situations were a Bishop or Stake President submitted names for a calling only to be denied by Salt Lake. Some sort of background check must be taking place even if most members do not know about it.
I see you cite the church membership number with accompanying clergy comments as a safety feature. I see it as a scarlet letter system whereby clergy can pigeonhole members. For example: Jane Doe is a great leader and should be the relief society President, young womens president, and primary president over and over and over again. Or Jane Doe has a bad attitude and skips Sunday school (referring to a 16 yr old) or Joe Schmo had a few struggles with tithe paying this year or Joe Schmo made a comment in Sunday school that indicated his lack of faith Etc! Totally biased, untrue comments that harm members, not help, are being input into the system by bishops and then follow members around forever. I believe that law enforcement has the means to identify abusers to the community and it’s the sex offender registry. Why the duplicate system that does so much harm to the members?
As a bishop I can tell you those kinds of comments are not in the membership record. There are only certain flags like: "cannot work with children", or "cannot manage church finances". There's not a way to store any notes like you are thinking..
So 2 things. 1. Nearly every actively participating member is part of the clergy in some fashion. 2. How Membership record annotations are handled is explained in the church handbook section 32.14.5. (You may also want to look in section 33) Your characterization of it is incorrect. A Bishop or stake president has to file a report and it only lists a certain set of behaviors, all of which have to do with protecting people and the Church. An annotation can also mark if the member is transgender since that is important to know for ordinances and other priesthood stuff.
The AP article had an obvious agenda ignoring some of the nuance of the law. It put the burden of responsibility on ecclesiastical leaders even though there is a specific penitence exemption. Many states recognize that clergy have the same responsibility as lawyers and doctors when it comes to confidentiality. The idea is that people who need help will not seek it out if they know that asking for it can be used against them. Clergy are not allowed to testify in court if the person confessed with the expectation of confidentiality. The Arizona law does not say that the clergy has the choice to report or not. It states that if the clergy believes the principles of their religion forbids reporting then they do not report. The LDS Church does have a principle of confidentiality.
@@BrendonKing That isn't what the Arizona law says explicitly. Admittedly the law itself is not clear, which may be part of the problem. The condition established for exception is not personal choice, but the concepts of the religion. The helpline is not the only group of lawyers who have interpreted in the same way. The AP article ignores the legal precedent in Arizona where DA's choice not to investigate privileged reporting due to the legal complications. Different judges make different decisions, but it is not clear now, and certainly was not ten years ago, if an LDS Bishop is allowed to report under the current law. Arguments can be made for both interpretations. This is something the legislature needs to fix.
@@brettmajeske3525 this is not accurate. A person shall not be examined as a witness in the following cases: 1. A husband for or against his wife without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, as to events occurring during the marriage, nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, without consent of the other, be examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage. These exceptions do not apply in a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by the husband against the wife, or by the wife against the husband, nor in a criminal action or proceeding against the husband for abandonment, failure to support or provide for or failure or neglect to furnish the necessities of life to the wife or the minor children. Either spouse may be examined as a witness for or against the other in a prosecution for an offense listed in section 13-706, subsection F, paragraph 1, for bigamy or adultery, committed by either spouse, or for sexual assault committed by the husband if either of the following occurs: (a) Before testifying, the testifying spouse makes a voluntary statement to a law enforcement officer during an investigation of the offense or offenses about the events that gave rise to the prosecution or about any statements made to the spouse by the other spouse about those events. (b) Either spouse requests to testify. 2. An attorney, without consent of the attorney's client, as to any communication made by the client to the attorney, or the attorney's advice given in the course of professional employment. 3. A clergyman or priest, without consent of the person making the confession, as to any confession made to the clergyman or priest in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the clergyman or priest belongs. 4. A physician or surgeon, without consent of the physician's or surgeon's patient, as to any information acquired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable the physician or surgeon to prescribe or act for the patient. Very clearly the law indicates that the bishop could not be called as a witness to testify under Arizona Law. I do have relatives who both practice and enforce the law in Arizona. Point 3 is the point that people are splitting hairs over. Source is ARS section 13-4062
@@BrendonKing You have accurately shared the section on testifying, but not the section on reporting. It seems you are trying to do the same thing as the AP article. This establishes that there is the same expectation of confidentiality between a penitent and clergy as between a client and lawyers. The law on reporting explicitly states: "A member of the clergy... who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy... in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy... belongs may (has permission or is authorized to) withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy... determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts (not whether abuse is reasonable, but the expectation of confidentiality/privacy) of the religion." "May" here is used to indicate conditionality, not personal choice. The determining factor is the "concepts of the religion", such as the "seal of the confessional" in Catholicism or the confidentiality clause in the Handbook of Instructions. When making a legal distinction it is important to quote the relevant law.
@@brettmajeske3525 I don't think this improves your argument. If anything, This may actually damn the procedure followed more than what I provided. This subsection, or the bit that you have happened to share (I doubt you left any context out but merely trimmed the fat of the article) does not indicate any external force or outside entity prohibiting the report or twisting the arm of the church as it were, but leaves it up to the clergy to determine based upon reasonable expectation of privacy whether or not a report would be in the best interest of all parties involved. This would lay the blame directly at the feet of the bishop in question, and the church for advising him not to go forward with the report.
The LDS church is not a cult. I think that claim is so wrong that I don't even see why people think that, a lot of the time. HOWEVER, it is so clear in this video that you are only making the video to defend the church. It doesn't look good--it looks like the institution is the end all be all, not the actual people affected. Y'all can talk about the errors in that article all you want, but you didn't anything substantial that they got wrong...it comes off like you want to discredit the article so people will not read it and see how gravely the Church erred. Jennifer, you cannot be an effective therapist if you are primarily focused on apologetics. You are also a mandated reporter. I am concerned about how you would respond if a fellow member disclosed abuse to you.
@@pplucker9486 I am not sure you were listening to what Jennifer was saying. She gave several interviews that go into more detail but are over an hour long. She talks in those about her own experiences, both a victim and as a mandatory reporter. Less than 10% of reports result in arrests and only about 10% of arrests result in convictions. Part of the problem is "fruit of the poison tree" where evidence collected improperly is dismissed. Proper reporting matters. Jennifer is not saying reporting should happen, nor is she defending the situation in Arizona beyond saying, we do not know what the facts are. According to court testimony, the Bishop claimed he did not know about the ongoing abuse. He does not mention the helpline. He didn't report because he didn't know about the abuse, nothing to do with the helpline. The AP report is conflating evidence from South Carolina with Arizona. Why is pointing out those problems a "farce".
Bishops let it happen for 7 years!🤷🏻♂️... They're just as guilty as the perpetrator, even if these bishops "believed" keeping it quiet was the best thing!
Let what happen? If you bother to read the court documents and listen to the interviews, the Bishop says he found out about the abuse the same time everyone else did, from the news. He was asked point blank in court why he didn't report, and his answer was that he didn't know what was happening. The wife of the abuser testified that she told the Bishop there were "problems", without explaining what those problems were. Problems, without knowing what those problems are, is not the same as permitting abuse to take place. Never the Bishop nor the wife even mentioned the helpline. It was the AP reporter who assumed that "problems" meant a full confession, assumed the Bishop called the helpline, and that they were the ones to tell the Bishop not to report. There is no evidence that the Bishop knew about the abuse let alone "let it happen". The wife testified that she told several people that there were "problems", including the abuser's boss and her daughter's principle. The reason the AP went after the Bishop is because he refuse to talk about what was said. The Bishop never made the claim that the helpline told him not to report. People are just making stuff up because he has refused to talk in detail.
I don't think the Bishops thought not reporting was the best thing to do. One of the few things in this I agree with these people on is that bishops were conflicted about the matter and they legitimately believed the church's attorney on the hotline when he incorrectly advised them that the law prohibited them from reporting.
@@jonjahr3403 Why do you think the hotline attorney told the Bishop not to report? The Bishop has never said that happened. According to court filings, when asked about the conversation on the stand, the Bishop was preventing from answering the question because of attorney/client privilege. Which means we do not know what was talked about or what the advice was. When ask why he didn't report, the former Bishop said it was because he didn't know what was happening. According to the wife, the Bishop was told that the perp had a sexual relationship with his own mother, not his children, and that it had ended. That is the situation he would have asked about. As sick and twisted as even that would be, it would obviously put the children in danger. We do not know what was said or what advice was given.
Yall need to read the handbook of the Church: “Any abuse that occurs during a Church activity should be reported to civil authorities. The bishop should be contacted immediately. Instructions for members are in 38.6.2.7. Instructions for bishops are in 38.6.2.1. For definitions of abuse, see 38.6.2.3 and 38.6.2.4.” It also says: “Abuse Help Line In some countries, the Church has established a confidential abuse help line to assist stake presidents and bishops. These leaders should promptly call the help line about every situation in which a person may have been abused-or is at risk of being abused. They should also call it if they become aware of a member viewing, purchasing, or distributing child pornography. The help line is available for bishops and stake presidents to call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. … Bishops and stake presidents should call the help line when addressing situations involving any type of abuse. Legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions. These professionals will also give instructions about how to: •ASSIST VICTIMS help protect them from further abuse. •HELP PROTECT potential victims. •COMPLY WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS for reporting abuse. The Church is committed to complying with the law in reporting abuse (see 38.6.2.7). Laws differ by location, and most Church leaders are not legal experts. Calling the help line is essential for bishops and stake presidents to fulfill their responsibilities to report abuse. A bishop should also notify his stake president of instances of abuse. In countries that do not have a help line, a bishop who learns of abuse should contact his stake president. The stake president should seek guidance from the area legal counsel at the area office. He is also encouraged to counsel with the Family Services staff or the welfare and self-reliance manager at the area office.” The helpline is there to make sure the Bishops don’t get in trouble with the law unintentionally.
As a Bishop my first response to knowledge of abuse, went first to the police and then to the church legal services. Protection of the innocent comes first in my church, reputation and repentance can take its merry time. The church's reputation can handle bad news stories. Perpetrators will have to wait on their repentance, as it will not be a quick process, but damage to the victim, that has to me minimised A.S.A.P.
Our bishop in Virginia called the police when a member/father confessed to him his abuse of his child. The bishop did not call a hotline or church authority, he called police. That man is now in prison
Also another member who served as bishop, YSA branch president and also a bishop told me when someone confessed a crime to him he gave them the option of calling police or he would call the police for that person. Last, bishops have temporal jobs and calling as bishop is volunteer. Most have no psychology training and some have no higher education. Sad but a few do not handle it well.
I'm just going to take this another direction too-the problem of failing to protect children does not lie solely with the church in this case. I'm a nurse who has worked ER for a number of years. I've tragically had to report child abuse more than once to CPS. In EVERY case except one, CPS gave the children right back to their parents. One CPS worker told me "well, every parent has different ideas about what is appropriate." This was in a neglect case. The only situation when they actually removed the child was because the baby was in such critical condition (nearly dead) when the parents brought him in that it couldn't be denied. I had to testify against those parents to have their rights terminated. The legal system fails children OFTEN. So yes, let's make church policy protective of children period. If that means we go against legal recommendations in order to do that, well then, let's figure out how we can. The church is only as good as the people they employ at the helpline, so let's get the right people in place. I don't blame the church and I don't think it's a huge conspiracy or cover up. This is a part of a much bigger problem. The law needs to protect the innocent and vulnerable. We need to DO better at this and make it a priority in our nation.
CPS is an evil organization the really should be washed out and started over.
But it IS a coverup. For years victims have been saying this only to be shamed, blamed and abused further by the church leadership. Then the BSA document dump came out during that lawsuit and there's the proof. Yet, here we are with church apologists still denying it. My personal experience is a friend who was sexually abused and her abuser held positions with access to children - specifically girls camp. She reported to the bishop and was silenced so she went to the stake president and he talked to her abuser and to the bishop and again she was silenced and chastized and told to repent. Her unforgiving bitterness was the problem, not the fact that the man who had molested her was going to girls camp! She finally wrote a letter to a general authority explaining the situation thinking that if she got far enough removed (no personal friendships with her father) with the person she reported the sexual abuse to the response would be different. Nope. She received a copy of the "Miracle of Forgiveness" from the GA and her abuser continued to hold callings working with kids over the years. Right up until he was CONVICTED OF RAPING a 9 year old girl decades later. The church absolutely shields sexual predators. 100%. Worse, they are masters at victim blaming.
Sadly, I understand what you mean. Protection of abusive parents is often the case. if a childcare worker does what the parents do to their children they are reported, fired, put in the hands of the law. A parent does the same and "the system" often fails them. Very sad. I have had many Bishops in my lifetime and I guarantee each one would have reported immediatly.
They pointed out there was a grand jury hearing about this case. For those who don't know. Grand juries only decide if there is a possibility the accused did something. The prosecutor at the grand jury has a very low burden of proof because they aren't deciding guilt or innocence. A grand jury allows a trial to happen or not.
It was this exact reason my best friend since childhood told me he left the church. I'm glad you are talking about this.
I'm sorry to hear about your best friend. Was his abuse ever reported to Law Enforcement?
I aplogize about any alarm and/or misunderstanding. What I meant, and should have clarified, is that hearing about this situation (without knowing anyone involved) lead him to leave. I know my friend's family really well and I havent heard of anyone getting abused in any way, thankfully. If I do hear about it, I will personally make sure to let Law Enforcement know. Thank you for your concern and the reply to my comment.@@annasteig2923
The problem is systemic when grown men interview children alone behind closed doors. That policy needs to changed.In addition, there are numerous cases where Bishops do not report abuse. They should be mandated reporters.
My Bishop (good on him) has someone with him in his interviews. They all need to do this.
@@stanleyhall8951 I'm curious to know about the trade-off. I absolutely agree that ecclesiastical leaders should be mandated reporters, but often someone won't disclose abuse or a crime to someone they don't hold in confidence, or they feel uncomfortable disclosing to more than one person. As far as I know from the handbook, any person can ask for or deny a chaperone, but the bishop can't say that no one else can be there. We need to do a better job of making that right known to every member.
You do not seem to be aware of what the policy actually is. When interviewing minors the policy is to have either someone else present, or if the child is uncomfortable with that, have another adult in the outer office where they can see through the window in the door. Many Bishop office doors had windows installed over 20 years ago.
Often it is not so much a matter of Church policy, which is to report when legally permitted, but local law. Tha AP article did a horrible jog of explaining the legal nuances that constrain clergy in Arizona.
@@stanleyhall8951 That is the standard Church policy. I do not understand why so many people think otherwise.
@@brettmajeske3525 A recent change allows children to have someone in the interview but it is up to them. It is voluntary and not mandatory. Are you unaware of this? So yes, it is systemic until that change happens. As for the second point, no local law says Bishops cannot report abuse. It is the church that directs leaders to not report abuse to authorities that can act upon it. Leaders are instructed to call Kirton-McConkie law firm and they are usually advised to not report. The emphasis is on protecting the corporation, not the child who is being abused.
The AP article, although wrong in a number of points, did lay out something that’s undeniable: the abuse was reported to the bishop, the bishop used the hotline and was advised not to report to law enforcement, and abuse continued. There is no denying that. That alone warrants some degree of investigation. You also can’t ignore the fact that as the family physician, the bishop is a mandated reporter in AZ whether acting in the role of physician or not.
In a nut shell!
You also can’t deny the fact that that is not what happens most of the time. 🤷♀️
The details of the abuse weren't what we now know.
@@boturner8328 there was evidence of abuse. I’m not sure how much evidence you need before taking action, especially after what was potentially an unrestricted admission of guilt.
@@BrendonKing there's a difference from "I did something in the past" vs "I'm doing it right now" I don't know what you hold as evidence of people that lie and twist their stories around.
Do you even hear yourselves?? Why do you think the church is so lawyered up through the channels created by the “help lines”? It’s because they are far more interested in covering their asses for liability than ACTUALLY helping out victims of abuse. Otherwise the helpline would not be a direct line to a law firm but instead would be to mental health support.
I know many mental health professionals who would disagree. Mental health councilors do not have the authority to remove children from a dangerous home the way that police can, when informed properly. One of the motivations of the helpline is so that leaders can follow local laws so evidence is not later dismissed.
Her second point of “abusers can’t have easy access to children” falls flat for me.
My dad was molested as a teenager by his bishop, along with a dozen other boys in the ward.
Add to that all of the cases against the Boy Scouts. I don’t really buy her argument here.
Also add to this the experiences of other young people abused by “family friends”, who are then promoted to positions of authority within the church. What happens when the church is made aware of their past abuses? Nothing, at least not until a huge stink is made and SEVERAL witnesses come forward, and even then the church just sweeps it under the rug.
The church has a lot of work to do if it wants to convince the world that it takes sexual abuse seriously.
Your singular third person perspective is vary narrow on evidence and most full of hurt and pain. Sorry for your dad's experience, but that is not the norm nor commonplace nor even frequent. The boyscout issues were not all LDS nor a majority of LDS troops. It was mostly the troops who invited gay men to be leaders. Also, the "promotion" statement is completely inaccurate. There are no promotions and there are no political appointments in the church. You lack understanding and my guess is because you are not an active and faithful member. Your dad in my assumption quit church and dud not raise you in the church so your perspective again by my assumption is one of an uninformed and emotionally charged outsider to the faith.
You also did not listen very carefully to the commentary on how IDs and the fact that there are no positions you can request makes things safer. Safer does not mean all children are perfectly immune from all possible abuse. It means by the numbers of all possible abuse scenarios, no other church offers the same level of safety. You also do not seem to understand the nuances of the faith practice where we seek to apply the example of the Savior in our dealings with others. The Savior himself was hung on a cross by his own church essentially, so even a perfect approach does not guarantee optimal results in a mortal perspective. There are elements of an eternal perspective you are completely discounting in all of this if you are to understand the position of the church and the bishop if the bishop was truly relying on tge spirit and not his own thinking. We cannot say if that bishop was acting on either without further inquiry that has not happened. Still, no matter what mistakes were made, we can show love, compassion, and patience to all involved and use thst same approach to help and to move us all forward until Christ returns and we all return to Heavenly Father's presence to be judged.
@@YibuYibu The substance and tone of your comment are exactly why I have distanced myself from the church.
The toxic “faithfulness” you and the folks in this video display are proving my point, and the point that others are making - The Church goes to great lengths to cover up abuse.
Nothing you said is based on factual knowledge. You made a number of uninformed ad-hominem attacks on me and others whom you do not know, and you make wild, inaccurate, sweeping assertions that come across as vague and banal.
I would go so far as to say that the dismissive and derisive attitudes you and the folks in this video display are the chief reason I no longer participate in the church.
@@robotnate good fortune you to have your own mind. Go hate on some other church.
I wonder why people are so abusive? Rather crazy are they?
I'm sorry that your father experienced this. The member number system she describes as a block for molesters recently became widespread with the advent of computers. The older system was much harder to trace and unfortunately due to the nature of crime can't be used preventively for the first crime. After the first report then yes, it can work preventively.
I am REALLY not a fan of your statement that "we just don't know if the Bishops made these kids lives harder."
This is from the sentencing judge's closing comments:
"Ms. Adams, if you had done what you should have done and could have done back in either 2010 or 2011, it's a little unclear to me whether it was the one year or the other year, when you first learned for a certainty what your then husband had done with M-1, your older daughter, if you had called the police, if -- well, I didn't hear from the bishop directly, he wasn't here to testify. I'm hesitant to make judgments or pronouncements about his situation when I haven't directly heard it from him--but I will say had he called the police or taken some other action rather than apparently acted out of hope rather than out of some sense of responsibility for these children, had he done something, had you done something Ms. Adams back in 2010 or 2011, these crimes wouldn't have happened.
. . .
Count 1 happened in June 2015. Count 2 happened from somewhere between or within the time span of March 29, 2015, through February 8, 2017. Those things wouldn't have happened. If when the bishop called you in here, "Listen to what Paul is telling me about raping your" -- at that time your only daughter, if you had done something, if the bishop had done something, if someone had acted out of a sense to help these children and not worrying about, well, am I going to get into a problem with the church or things along those lines, whatever people were thinking. If people were acting out of a sense of responsibility for these children, then these two crimes wouldn't have happened at all against -- the older child, M-1, would still have been the victim of Mr. Adams' conduct up to that point, but it wouldn't have continued. It wouldn't have continued for years, and M-2 wouldn't have been victimized at all, because she hadn't yet been born. But she wasn't protected, she wasn't protected by you, she wasn't protected by the bishop, she wasn't protected certainly not by her father, she wasn't protected by anybody."
This judge heard all of the evidence and clearly believed the Bishops did fail these children. That's not to say that the primary damage wasn't caused by the parents, but the damage was exacerbated by the Church too.
As for your whole "Ms. Adams is a completely unreliable witness" bit--her statements are what the Church's second press release relies on that you spent time praising. Which is it?
I’m sick of hearing the obvious strawman about some grand conspiracy. That was never the claim, but there are wide scale cultural policy changes that need to happen in response to this article.
What are some of those "wide scale cultural policy changes" you propose need to happen in response to this article?
People are speculating an awful lot here to justify hatred towards the church.
@@zionmama150 Since you're replying to me--in what way is the quote directly from the sentencing judge "speculation?"
@@reddish22 The documents regarding the case are sealed. So there’s an awful lot of speculation here on why people did what they did and why they made the calls that they did on this particular case.
I think it was absolutely stupid for the bishop to not report it. however, there is so much regarding the circumstances that is sealed and not able to be known. And so people are taking every chance they can get to speculate just to hate on the church.
@@zionmama150 the transcripts I cited from are public records. I’m not speculating. I’m quoting from the record. Do you want the link? They’re easy to find.
I’m not hating on the Church, but I view this as a very easy chance for the Church to adjust its policies now we see the unintended consequences of policy decisions made in the past.
I guess Jennifer has never heard of forensic psychologists, forensic mental health staff, and forensic social workers.
I am not sure of your point here.
@@brettmajeske3525 that there are social workers who can appropriately take down these reports and are trained to do so, unlike what Jennifer here alleges
@@jessieheartsvintage That actually varies wildly depending on jurisdiction. In some places that statement is absolutely true. In others not so much. One of the problems victim advocate deal with is the lack of consistency from state to state, and sometimes county to county. Large cities do have access to trained, albeit overworked, social workers. During Covid many social workers were let go in Michigan, and I assume other places. I am friends with several who work for CPS who do not know if they are still going to be employed come January.
There are far more reports than there are qualified people to take them. Most reporters get sent directly to the local police, who are far less likely to be adequately trained, especially if the reporter is clergy. They ask questions they are not supposed to, and the case later gets dismissed and the children returned to their abuser.
That is why the hotline exists, so that reports happen properly. I am not claiming the system is perfect, I don't think anyone at SU is either. My issue is that people complaining do not seem to understand what the system is, why some system is needed, and all of the complexities that exist.
@@brettmajeske3525 oh you mean how these kids returned to their abuser? if you’re going to set up a hot line at least have them be trained on local laws. local
law in AZ states that if clergy reports SU they are immune from civil or legal penalties. the fact that you can’t acknowledge that some improvement is needed is frightening- signed your friendly, local AZ based forensic psych
@@jessieheartsvintage You are a bold faced liar. I never said that improvement was not not needed. You are misrepresenting my position. Immunity from civil or legal penalties is irreverent, and has nothing to do with possible rationalities. You are constructing a straw man argument.
No one is claiming this is the best possible outcome. You are merely ignoring the complexities and issues that real people need to deal with. My issue is not that the system is perfect and does not need change, I absolutely think change is required. My concern is that without legal changes in Arizona, policy changes on the Church level is meaningless. Remember, the policy, both then and now, is that the Bishop is to always report when legally permitted.
To be absolutely clear, it is not a matter of the clergy being punished, but of improper reporting causing the case to be dismissed. That is a real concern that you seem to be ignoring. You also seem to be assuming that the Bishop in question knew more than evidence indicated.
This is not a case about a Bishop not reporting ongoing abuse. This is about someone confessing to a single instance of past abuse, without explaining the sexual nature of that abuse, and promising it would never happen again. Under those circumstances lawyers who were experts in Arizona law advised that clergy were not permitted under privilege to report.
You seem to ignore the actual law because of your emotional outrage. I understand this is an emotional topic, but please stop lying about my position.
Coming back to this a couple of days later, I see that reception has been predominantly negative in the comments.
It is an emotional story. It is not surprising that people are reacting emotionally.
As a nevermo, I never cease to be amazed at how much spin apologists offer to protect a corrupt church.
As an exmo, I can say the apologists go to crazy lengths to protect the church.
I think she is more qualified to discuss it than you are.
@@emilywilson9632 - I'm sure the church would love to keep this in-house exclusively. They hate having their dirty laundry aired in public.
@@emilywilson9632 How is she qualified? She first became a therapist in 5/21! She's a recent convert! How exactly is she an expert on this topic?
So her first concern with the problem was how will this affect the faith of members? Any of us who feel this way when we read or hear negative history or stories about the church know that you are unhealthily biased. Your first thought should always be, is this true? Then research unbiased sources not the one side that is biased.
Have to remember she’s affiliated with a Mormon Apologetics group. Her job is to do exactly that.
@@BrendonKing I understand. As a true apologist, not a faithful one, your job is to stand for truth. A faithful apologist is one who will stand for a group or person as a result of reverie and not a dedication to truth.
Hey Anthony! Jennifer's first concern was not about how the article would affect the faith of members. Jennifer is clear to mention that what happened to the victim (or any victim of sexual abuse) is absolutely reprehensible. As a victim herself, Jennifer emphasizes that the victim's life has been ruined by the actions of the abuser and that the victim deserves all the help that the world has to offer, including any kind of settlement that would help with those resources. Right after she read the article, she immediately started scouring the documents and the research involved, as you mentioned. She's not one to passively wait for the Spark Notes of other people. She came to her own conclusions prior the church giving their lengthy statement. While she is affiliated with some Mormon apologetics, she has only been a member of the Church for 3 years. She doesn't have some kind of blinded agenda.
Thanks for your time. - Rachel
@@SaintsUnscripted hey thank you for your response. I noticed that she did that when she was interviewed by you guys. I commend her for that and think that that’s fair. I was responding to a comment someone else and made about that being her job that she protect the church. Also I think she mentioned in her interview when she first read the article her first thought was oh no what is that going to do for the perception of the church.
Why did it take 3 years for him to be excommunicated?
Probably because he was not active and refused to come in and go before the church court. From my understanding, they would like you to be present at the hearing.
@@kelleynrothaermel2311 and in those three years why did the church ever once stop to consider going to the authorities on this? Clearly their ecclesiastical authority wasn’t going to mete the justice if he didn’t show up.
Three years is actually fairly standard when it comes to membership councils. Excommunication is always a last step.
@@kelleynrothaermel2311 False. They can and do hold the hearings without the person present. They didn't deal with it assertively and in a timely manner because it wasn't a priority. Listen to the experience of the victims and it's a common story.
He could have left the state, hid out, refused to attend the meetings etc. Don't be so quick to blame the leadership. There may be more information we don't have.
Grateful for your perspective, Jennifer. Thanks for sharing your experience with us
It’s not about the “times we’ve gotten it right.” It’s about the times the LDS church has gotten it wrong.
Please let your Bishop and/or stake President know the LDS church’s policy is wrong and all clergy should report abuse to the authorities immediately.
Are you aware that in some states that is illegal? Church policy is to report unless the local laws prohibit doing so. Some states have very serious privilege laws. Sometimes the laws ties hands.
@@brettmajeske3525 I would like to know which states/territories explicitly forbid reporting. I can only find a few states were reporting isn’t mandatory.
@@BrendonKing Any jurisdiction that has Penitent privilege and does not specifically exclude reporting. It is the same situation for lawyers. Often the laws will not specifically mention clergy, just privilege in general, and the consequences for violation of privilege.
I know that France, Italy, and Spain all have specific restrictions for official clergy. The LDS Church was only recognized as an actual religion in France during the 1990s, and Bishops/Leaders were given a whole packet of rules that now applied. In France the violation of Penitent Privilege can be the loss of recognition for the religion in question if the individual is not removed.
California has a weird hodgepodge of contradictory laws where Clergy are obligatory reporters and are forbidden to violate privilege to the point that the state AG a few years ago recommended Clergy who wanted to report should do so anonymously to avoid legal hassles. The public referendum system in California has resulted in many situations were new laws are passed without addressing how they interact with past laws.
The City of New York and the State of New York have conflicting laws, one insisting that clergy report, the other insisting they be treated like lawyers.
It can be difficult for cops or even CPS to get permission to act when grand juries and investigators are not allowed to even question potential witnesses. Which is why I have a problem with the proportional responses. The mother claimed to have told multiple people, including her husband's boss, who was also an oblatory reporter, who didn't have expectation of privilege. The abuser was himself a cop, and that causes all sorts of complications.
@@brettmajeske3525 "The abuser was himself a cop," Ahh, checks out.
@@DIYWeekend And his wife told his boss at Border Patrol, among others. And they didn't do anything either.
I don't know why are we talking still about the bishop...if the mom knew why on earth did SHE not report?!?! Am I the only one who's thinking about that?????
This is the very reason for mandated reporting laws/reporters. Mom has a few reasons to not want to go forward with the abuse charges (loss of breadwinner, fear of retaliation, etc.).
We are talking about it because the mother was interviewed by a journalist explaining that she had told therapists, teachers, cops, and her religious leader (the Bishop in question) and they didn't do anything so why should she? The abuser was himself a border patrol agent, and people don't like reporting on cops.
Good point, but probably not a big topic because she went to prison. She had knowledge of the abuse, did not act on that knowledge and went to jail. The bishop and other church leaders had knowledge of the abuse as well, might be a reason the focus is on the church. The church claims they were not aware of the extent of the abuse, but I wonder how extensive sexual abuse needs to be before the church will do something about it.
@@brentwagstaff9454 I think we'll find out soon enough just how egregious the abuse was, and how long the church knew about it.
The church is never legally required not to report abuse. The LDS Church could change the policy today to tell Bishops they must report all abuse to the police immediately, and then Bishops could call the helpline for further instructions. I found Jennifer Roach therapist comments dishonest. 5 years ago, people around the world took abuse seriously. To suggest otherwise, in order to provide cover for the church's failure in the case, is disheartening. If the LDS church would just own that they did the wrong thing, and that they will tell Bishops to report abuse starting today, people would move on from this story. The LDS church instead has tried to deflect and take no accountability and make no changes to better protect children. As an LDS abuse victim myself, I found it hurtful when Jennifer Roach stated "What about the many times we've gotten it right." Just because something is done right most of the time, doesn't mean you should not do everything in your power to protect children. It came across like LDS sexual abuse victims are just collateral damage to sweep under the rug. I hope the LDS Church will take this moment to re-evaluate what it means to be a moral leader and start putting children's safety as the highest priority.
I was also victimized in the church, yet I found her comments and thoughts very reassuring, accurate and compassionate. I won't let my trauma define any institution as a whole; that wouldn't be appropriate, especially knowing that ya can't get everything right 100% of the time, no one can or ever will.
I am sorry to hear about your own personal experiences with abuse. I cannot imagine the trauma and continued difficulty that must have/continues to cause in your life. Regarding what was shared in the video though, I didn't find Jennifer's comments to be dishonest at all - simply an honest look at where the Church and the general population is at today vs. where it/they have been in the past. You forget that Jennifer mentioned she too is a victim of abuse from her own childhood - and from a pastor no less. I cannot imagine with her shared experience and the trauma she too endured, that she would then opt to lie about a topic so obviously personal to her as well.
@@DannyAGray I am sorry for what happened to you! I hope you are able to find healing! Sadly the church is made up of humans and humans are never perfect and their actions can be very harmful.
@@kelleynrothaermel2311 no worries! 😊 it doesn't control my life. A chapter doesn't make or break a novel.
What would Jennifer have to gain from being dishonest and would only hurt herself as a therapist by doing so? Even if things have changed favorably towards abuse 10 or 15 years ago, we still see over and over people who fall through the cracks due to human error or by being bound to the law. How many women have been beaten by their spouses and sought help and yet end up dead each year because the system cannot protect them? How many children are returned back home after being in foster care because the courts can't find enough plausible evidence to keep them from returning to their homes and falling victim to further abuse or ending up dead? Sadly, the system fails. I am sure that the bishop to this day feels tremendous guilt for what occurred. No one can forget something like this easily. It is easy to point our fingers at someone and say we would have done x, y, and z but until we are in such a situation who knows? Right now I have a child who is severely depressed, but because the said child is 15 this child cannot be forced to get help. I have contacted everyone I can think of to help him, but their hands are tied. Only if he tried to physically hurt himself can they step in which is horrible that is how it is in my state. Each state has different rules. What needs to occur in all 50 states is a law that states it is mandatory for all clergy to report the abuse of minors.
Some would say Joseph Smith was an evil deranged man. But we are just supposed to ignore the things he did? Or not even learn about them?
We have an entire playlist about Joseph Smith, which includes significant detail about his shortcomings. Feel free to check it out!
@@SaintsUnscripted to call Joseph’s abominable, sinful behavior “shortcomings” is an act of complicity. Muster the courage to do a deep dive into JS’s antics, observe the timing of revelation, read about JS’s close friend & confidant, John C. Bennett. Do not minimize the evil.
As a school employee, it is my responsibility to report any comments made by a student about abuse through the proper channels. It can be that simple. My faith isn't on trial here, but the policies should be looked at, and changed if necessary. I can actually be reported if it is determined I heard and did nothing.
That is a very different circumstance than what happened in AZ. Bishops do report suspect abuse, and have been sued over it. Clergy in many states have the same responsibility for confidentiality as lawyers. Breaking that confidentiality without proper reason can actually prevent police from investigating. Its called "fruit of the poison tree" in legal circles.
@@brettmajeske3525 Actually in where Bishops were sued for reporting, those suits were thrown out in court. So the Bishops really shouldn't have anything to worry about there.
@@jonjahr3403 Just because the Church won the law suits, doesn't mean there was not financial and emotional costs. Of the nine suits I am aware none were dismissed, the Church did win, but only after long legal proceedings. Even winning can be very expensive, not to mention the attention it brings up.
More importantly such cases discourages people from talking to clergy in the first place. When penitents do not trust that clergy will be confidential, they do not confess.
Bad things have happened in every denomination and belief system in the world...im not lds but i didn't appreciate those people trying to make lds look bad...let the offending sinner look bad and pay for his sin dont make everyone else pay too
@A Laputa its always good to go to God in prayer but yes i agree sometimes Police need to be involved and mental health experts i totally agree being a bishop doesn't qualify them for everything
Problem is, mormons LOVE to say they're "the only true church on the face of earth".... But when these things happen, the same mormons say similar things like: "it happens in all other denominations"... So, if it happens in ALL denominations (including the mormon church), then the mormon church is no different and therefore cannot be "the only true church"🤷🏻♂️
@@AlejandroMartinez-fr6hj no they are not the only true church...in my belief true church is in your heart not inside a building...i can take good things from different churches even if its only a small minor thing or big.. kinda like bruce lee took parts from different fighting styles scrapped the rest and learned a very highly affective discipline..same with church there are good and not so good and bad in all of them take the good apply it to yourself scrap the bad
@@adamhawkins3036 EXACTLY. There's NO true church whatsoever
@AlejandroMartinez-fr6hj
Yes, the LDS Church does make the claim that it is the "only true and living church" on the earth, and there are reasons why it makes that claim. But what is common to ALL churches is that they are made up of imperfect people. That is in fact why Christ established a church in the first place, with specific organizational positions and roles (occupied by imperfect people) - He Himself being the Chief Cornerstone - until we can all come to a unity in the faith.
It's not the church's fault, that so many people that join the church, are not who they pretend to be ! Many people in this day and age have ill intent towards the church ❗ 🙏🌸🌷🌸The gospel is still perfect, and always will be, it's God's church ❗ However people are not Perfect, and many people have mental illnesses and we are seeing this more and more these days ❗🙏💟The gospel is still true, many churches go through this because there are so many people, and as long as you have large numbers of people,the odds are much higher with mental illness!
Ted Bundy was baptized, right?
13:12 -- "Do you do you think that the church is doing enough in their efforts to to address child abuse?"
No. I don't say that because I think it of my own knowledge, but because I know that would be the Church's answer. The Church will relentlessly examine and consider, over and over, everything that can be done, and will constantly look for better ways to deal with this. Saying "yes" would mean, "We are satisfied with our current practices". I don't think the Church will ever say that.
I am actually surprised this was brought up. As much as I no longer consider myself a friend to the church, I do believe the actions or inaction of a single individual or a small group of individuals hardly constitutes negligence on the church overall. I think the bishop in this instance really dropped the ball as an individual.
EDIT: I will also add that the church’s responses to the AP article could have been much, much better. The initial reaction on KSL and Deseret was definitely not the slam dunk the church PR team was looking for.
I agree, but at the same time if the church went out and said by the way we are so terribly sorry for what happened our bishop dropped the ball it would then open itself to legal action. What it comes down to is that bishops receive very little training when it comes to matters like this! They are not therapists or counselors. Did the bishop do his best? Maybe-Maybe Not! We really don't know all that happened. Should he have reported it? Hindsight is 20/20! We all make mistakes! I am sure he had beat himself up over not reporting it! I know I would feel horrible for not getting it right! Hopefully, some changes were made so that this won't occur again.
@@kelleynrothaermel2311 the church has enough money to weather pretty much any legal battle/or storm. I want to see someone accountable, regardless of who they are or the role they played in the church.
That’s right, we should blame schools if a teacher molests a student. Then spray paint the schools with messages like “predators”. It isn’t the INDIVIDUAL TEACHER’s fault after all… nope! It is the school’s. The school is the reason the teacher molested the kid 🙄
The Church’s response was just fine. It helps affirm the truth that these slandering church-haters are basically lying to find some reason to bring the Church down.
@@zionmama150 not a good analogy. It’s as if a teacher had been told by the parent of a child that they were molesting their child, and then the teacher sat on their hands and did nothing. Maybe called a hotline and was told by the school district or county that it was a privileged conversation and therefore couldn’t be relayed to the proper authorities. And then that student continued to be molested throughout the years while the school district was aware.
Bishops shouldn't be thrown under the bus when the handbook instructs them to call the helpline if they are made aware of abuse and the helpline tells them not to report. In the Arizona case the bishop did as the handbook instructed called the hotline and was told by them that he could be sued if he reported, that it was AZ law (which was false). Most bishops are not going to risk breaking the law and being sued.
That is not an accurate summation of the facts. It was not about about lawsuits but about legal privilege.
@@brettmajeske3525 "The records - two pages from a log of calls fielded by a law firm representing the church and the deposition of a church official - show that Utah Republican State Rep. Merrill F. Nelson took the initial call from a bishop reporting that church member Paul Adams had sexually abused his daughters. Nelson also had multiple conversations over a two-year span with two bishops who knew of the abuse, the records show.
A transcript of the deposition and excerpts of the call log were attached to a legal filing in the Arizona Court of Appeals made by lawyers for the plaintiffs. Three of Adams’s children are battling the church, widely known as the Mormon church, for access to records the church insists are confidential. The church took the case to the Court of Appeals after a Cochise County judge ruled in favor of the victims.
According to the plaintiff’s legal filing, Nelson advised Bishop John Herrod not to report the abuse and told him “that he could be sued if he reported, and the instruction by counsel not to report Paul to the authorities was the law in Arizona and had nothing to do with Church doctrine.” But Arizona’s child sex abuse reporting law grants blanket legal immunity to anyone reporting child sex abuse or neglect." (By: Associated Press Posted at 8:35 PM, Sep 10, 2022 and last updated 7:35 PM, Sep 10, 2022)
@@annsertrue8782 Conversations between lawyers and clients, which this would be considered, are considered privileged. It would seem very likely that the court of appeals would overturn opening confidential documents. That is the whole point of being privilege, which both lawyer/client and clergy/penitent communications are consider in Arizona. Clergy in fact are specifical forbidden from testifying in Arizona about confessions, even if they were to report.
I don't think anyone is disputing that that the call was made, which is all the call logs could indicate.
I personally also find it curious that claims are made, but not actually quotes from the deposition. Because if anyone had talked about the details of the phone call that would be a violation of the privilege statute as well,
The Church Newsroom has repeatedly disputed the AP article as misrepresenting the nature of the communication.
I would be curious where exactly the plaintiff's acquired access to privileged information. If true, a mistake was certainly made. Not that it makes any difference in the lawsuit, which is doomed from the start. Given the specific exclusion to reporting in Arizona law, neither the Church or the Bishop can have any legal liability even if there was a misunderstanding about the consequences of reporting, a claim that is so far unverified.
@@annsertrue8782 As I have mentioned in our threads, I am not a lawyer, but I have had conversations with a retired paralegal who spent 30 years specializing in victim advocacy and is not herself a lawyer.
I just asked her about this issue, and apparently in other states there is president of people being sued for violation of privilege even when there is protection for reporting. The Church and/or LDS Bishops have been sued for reporting at least nine times in the last 30 years. The Church only lost three of those cases, but just defending can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Any lawyer who claimed in a deposition to have given the kind of mistaken advice claimed in the lawsuit would not only be quickly disbarred but be vulnerable to a claim of ineffective council themselves. It maybe they are jumping to conclusions, confusing "you are not allowed" with "or else you will be sued".
Jennifer was 100 percent correct. Don't let the actions of a deranged man affect your faith. His fault alone. That should be all that is said about it.
Jennifer spoke at a fair conference a while ago. Her presentation was title "why LDS youth benefit from time alone with their bishop.". It was awesome and I'm glad they got her for this.
@Kevin m I'm sorry to hear that you felt uncomfortable with a bishop you had and I hope you don't let a few be representative of the rest of the group. I can only speak from my experience and none of my Bishops ever made me feel uncomfortable or probed with uncomfortable questions. I know I'm very blessed with that and I'm sorry you didn't have the same.
@@Sunshine-eo2sp too bad it's not that way all across the board. If they are all inspired and acting in the name of Christ, all responses and interviews should be the same
@@JulieSnowstudiojuliesnow3698 I wouldn't say "the same" per se. Turning every Bishop, Elders Quorum President, RS president, etc., in to robots to fulfill their calling removes the God given humanity from it all. Plus, Jesus didn't respond to everyone the same, but he did love everyone the same.
Everyone is held to the same expectations, if we love him we will keep his commandments. Saying "if they're inspiried by God they all should be the same" doesn't hold well to me just looking at people in the scriptures themselves. Peter and John the Baptist were both very inspired by God, but went about their inspiration in very different ways.
I'm not saying Kevins bishop was inspired to make him uncomfortable, what I am saying is that number 1) neither of us can verify whatever the questions were with Kevins bishop, so we have no way of knowing the validity of his story. I don't trust everything I read at first glance. And number 2) if they were all "the same" in the way that I am understanding you, the spirit wouldn't be there.
Ms. Roach makes several problematic and disingenuous statements in this discussion:
*“He 100% believed he was not allowed to report. Why he believed that, I don't know.”*
In the August 6, 2022 episode of the Leading Saints podcast (1), Ms. Roach *herself* says, “There's three versions of [mandated reporting]. [Y]ou must report, no exceptions. … [Y]ou must report, but there are some exceptions. … In the third version… *you may not report*. [In 2016, a bishop in Oregon] reported to the police, *which at that time was against the law in his state*” (emphasis added). In the same podcast, she uses the phrase “in a state where it's illegal to report”.
In other words, Ms. Roach, despite being a professional therapist, herself believed only six weeks ago what she’s now so incredulous that this untrained bishop believed.
*“Was it the right thing for him to believe? I don’t know.”*
Given that Ms. Roach is now, at least, aware what the bishop believed is false, this was categorically *not* “the right thing for him to believe”.
*“They were TRYING to get this family to report, trying all the things that they thought they COULD do”*
Again, the problem is that the hotline provided false information to the bishop. The (again, untrained) bishop believed that his options were limited because that’s what the helpline told him. Even though the family didn't report, the bishop could and should have.
*“I wish I had great numbers for you; I don’t” … “Where exactly did this process break down? That is not yet clear.”*
These numbers do not exist, and the breakdown is unclear, because the helpline destroys all of its records at the end of each day. However, despite this obstacle, *the church can avoid this “process breakdown” in the future simply by requiring all bishops to report.*
1: leadingsaints.org/reporting-abuse-church-helpline-the-bishop-an-interview-with-jennifer-roach
Leading Saints podcast transcript: files.leadingsaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/06180442/Reporting-Abuse-Church-Helpline-and-the-Bishop-An-Interview-with-Jennifer-Roach-transcript.pdf
I Know that organization leaders in the church are being taught about what Grooming and Abuse is. Every member should understand what they are.
No they are not doing enough to protect the children.
You guys are nuts. This affects the child and not only the members of the church. It’s horrific because THE CHURCH DIDNNT CALL THE POLICE. It’s disgusting . I am a member after so many years being gone and this gutted me. Unbelievable that there has been many abuse cases. You’re making so many excuses. No the case got on the news because the father was abusing, sharing imagery and bragging about his abuse to his kids . Gross and evil. The people of the church are supposed to protect the most innocent. And they did nothing. NOTHINGGGGGGG. The helpline didn’t help. It covered up. Just like the Catholic Church. Horrible. Nahhh he didn’t take away my faith. However, the church is not where I want to be anymore. The Church is at fault. The bishop didn’t even report to the police? All because he didn’t think he was allowed? This is a church not the white house . Insane .
It isn't a churches role to protect children, it is the parents and caregivers. Obviously, if something goes down it needs to be reported to the proper authorities but the blame needs to be shared.
I think we can take some context from the ancient Israelites. They successfully attacked Jericho and were trying to attack a small city but when they tried they failed terribly. Why? Because one man didn't obey the Lord. One person's actions killed many. The same happened in our day. One person on the line said something wrong causing much suffering. The Israelites were led by a prophet of the true God but the people failed. The same is true today.
Every now and then, I'd think about my mental trials 10 years ago, and I recollect the problems I could not control that led to losing who I still consider a good friend. Do I have any infatuation for her? no. I knew then my boundaries, but I didn't know then the extremes in my expressions, even to realize now that I didn't even get my intention across, being the desire for an assisted euthanisation for myself. I needed help then, and I'm grateful for the help I have now so I can let go, even though my brain has gone through a lot of decay over the years. Multiple Sclerosis, amiright?
Bishops may be counseled not to report due to confidentiality laws of whatever state they live in. Some bishop may actually break the law and be subject to prosecution if they report abuse in a state that has this kind of disclosure law. The church is really careful to follow the law and not get embroiled in lawsuits that may actually end in the abuser getting off free.
That's not true. Bishops are NEVER legally required to NOT report abuse. Sometimes the law allows them to choose whether or not to report, but there is no law saying they cannot report. The church CHOSE not to report the abuse in this case.
@@spagoli7430 is a hand the whole body? Is this an individual problem or a systemic problem?
@@spagoli7430 It depends on the state, different laws some of which due explicitly states clergy cannot report. Arizona specifically says clergy cannot testify.
@@brettmajeske3525 We're not talking about testifying. We're talking about reporting. The AZ law says the Bishop was legally mandated to report abuse, but he had a clergy exemption to not report if it was "reasonable and necessary" within the concepts of the religion. Can you tell me why it was reasonable and necessary for the Bishop NOT to report known child sexual abuse?
@@thomasveech7456 If members would look at the number of victims who've publicly talked about being abused in the church, and the number of sexual abuse lawsuits against the church, they might realize its a bigger problem than they believe. Over 2,000 people have come forward about their abuse in LDS Boy Scouts.
Wow. I love that this was addressed right now. What a hard topic. Jennifer was spot on answering questions I had.
I am so grateful you addressed this. Yesterday, I had a conversation with a member who was extremely angry with the church for its lack of help towards the children in this situation and she felt the church expressed no empathy and was gaslighting us. Here are a few additional thoughts I had that were not mentioned. 1) When we talk about Bishops we need to realize that they are not trained therapists, counselors, or policemen. All training comes on the job. They di their job as a bishop as a part-time gig secondary to their full-time jobs. 2) In the state of Arizona he was not required to report the man. Does it mean he shouldn't have? Yes, and why he didn't who knows, but I think this goes back to point number 1? 3) I do not think that the church had anything to gain by trying to cover up or harbor the father's behavior. We need to remember the church is not the monster here, but the father. In regards to the church not coming out with a full-on apology, from a legal standpoint if the church did that they would then open themselves up to legal action. I am sure the church would love to issue a statement saying that somehow the bishop and counselors missed the mark on this situation and we fully apologize. Can the church do better? For sure! Another aspect of this situation is the confidence that is held in the privacy between a bishop, pastor, clergy, and its members. When you go into that office you believe what you say will be kept private. Again, in this situation who cares about the member because the child should be more important, but it is similar to that of a lawyer and his client? In regards to how the church has put things in place to protect the child: Every teacher who is involved with children must take a child safety course, Every teacher has a partner that they teach with. All the doors have windows on them. We are asked not to give rides how to minor children that aren't our own. I think that is it! If we are really angry, we need to call our legislators making it mandatory for clergy/bishops to report all cases or possibilities to the authorities. We can also send our General Authorities a letter and beg them to give more training to our bishops so that when situations like this occurs they are more prepared to know what to do in the future.
Your point #2, why the bishop did not report the abuse, who knows? Why he didn’t who knows? Did you read the AP article? We don’t have to speculate as to why the bishop did not report, he did not report because he was instructed not to. That was the direction he received when he called the hotline. The church claims they didn’t know the extent of the abuse, how extensive does abuse need to be before the church instructs a bishop to report it? You’re right, this man is a monster, and church leaders were aware of that fact and did nothing to stop the abuse and protect the children he was harming.
Legally, in Arizona and many other states, it is exactly the same legal standing as a lawyer and client.
@@brettmajeske3525 Citation needed.
@@BrendonKing Didn't you already cite the statute on testifying? Which is the same one that lawyer/client privilege is derived.
@@brettmajeske3525 moreso on your statement that this confidentiality has the same legal standing. I'm not seeing that myself, but then again, I'm not a legal expert, or a legal expert in the state of AZ.
What do the saints say about the pgad issue that some struggle with also in their lives ? How would one be able to live temple covenants if they ran into this issue?
Jennifer should have her license revoked for defending the indefensible. Shame on her.
So now you are blaming victims of abuse. Shame on you.
@@brettmajeske3525 Only you could read my comment in such a perverted way, Brett. As you've shown in these comments, you too are defending the indefensible.
A bit extreme, but i understand the sentiment you’re expressing. You have to also remember this guest is affiliated with FAIR so her whole objective is apologetic defense. Granted apologia doesn’t really apply to current sex allegations, but that’s why the guest takes the stance she does.
@@BrendonKing She couldn't take the stance because she is professional therapist who specializes in victim advocacy?
I think the missing element in this discussion is comparing how many abusers choose to voluntarily confess to their Bishop, verse the number of victims who are only willing to seek help from their Bishop because they have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. As anyone who actually a part of victim advocacy is aware the vast majority of victims do not want to be retraumatized by the police, who care more about convictions then help. The number of attempted suicides following police interviews is astounding.
How can a victim trust Clergy who violate privilege without all due consideration?
Less important is how violation of privilege discourages other abusers from coming forward. Even though the Bishop was unable to convince this one to turn himself in, this whole media circus is only going to make it less likely for the next sinner seeking repentance to actual ask their Bishop for help. I am aware of multiple cases of people who turned themselves in to the police on the recommendation of their pastor/bishop/priest. It is the most common reason for the few who do turn themselves in. And it depends on a pre existing expectation of privilege.
She became a licensed mental health counselor in 5/21.... and one year later, she's the church's expert on sexual abuse.
You can still have faith in Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father. I just wish that bishop reported it - I wonder why the bishop thought he couldn’t report it. I feel Heavenly Father would of pushed this bishop to report it to the right authorities. I feel that bishop should be investigated and church leaders need to learn how to handle these things. what else does he know or past bishops … I feel people are upset with the church steps and choices not really faith on Heavenly Father just faith in the church’s organization
From what I've read in other comments, it's the messy and complicated law, that's at fault. This would be quite correct from my understanding of how the law works. In other words if the Bishop reported it then he'd face a lawsuit prosecuting him and having the abuser walk free. Legalism is really messy and complicated and this is on purpose. Because the adversary is in the control of the state and the state agents are his agents.
@@antyrak7905 there is no penitent privilege for reporting. There is however for testifying in a court of law. The bishop also failed to meet his requirements as a mandated reporter as the family physician. Either way the bishop needs to be held accountable.
@@antyrak7905 it should be about peoples morals not about “legal” things shouldn’t be about laws.
@@antyrak7905 I never heard a case where someone reported a pedo and the person reporting- get in trouble for REPORTING nooo wayyy😂
@@BeileighCp Easier said and done when you are talking about possible legal action against you. I have a child right now who needs mental health help but he won't get it. No one, not his doctor, not the police, not the school, no one will reach out and help him because they are bound by the law. They can only take action if he tries to kill himself. Pretty sad state of affairs. I have been living a life of pins and needles for the last two years because my child refuses to get help. He claims nothing is wrong with him. So not so easy when you have a mother who lies, a father who is a monster, and children who may or may not lie in response in order to protect their father. We also need to remember that our bishops are not trained therapists or counselors and are not always trained on the law. I find it very unlikely he went home and felt good at night about the situation. Why do you think so many people fail to help those in need on the street when they clearly need help? Not because they are not caring, but sometimes it can turn against them. That fear is real!
Background checks are not useless. What are you saying??!?
Background checks only reveal if someone is on the terrorist watch list, sex offenders list, or has a felony conviction in the past seven year. Any convictions older that seven years are not mentioned. Arrests that do not result in a conviction are not mentioned. Since over 90% of abuse cases involve people with no prior convictions, the benefit in minimal. Since they are also expensive, many people think it would be cheaper and easier to just check the Sex Offenders list (which can be done for free) instead of paying $100 for a background check.
Jennifer did not say that background checks are useless, just that they do not do what many people think they do. They cannot tell if someone is safe, only that they have not been convicted.
Case in point, in the Arizona example, the offender had passed his mandatory background check every year that he was abusing his daughters.
Why does the church think if you are 'nice' to media, they will treat you honesty, balanced and fair? Are they living under a rock? Re testimonies. All are called to look out for our ward members and neighbors. Zero tolerance for abuse. That said, I do not fault the church when it was ALL surrounding that family that let them down. My testimony is not shaken when a strong breeze blows. We place our faith in the Savior and not in people or no one would leave their abodes and become hermits.
The church does, at least at a local level, carry some blame. That’s the big question being asked now though: how much did the church’s actions or inactions play into this atrocity?
Discovery is going to be fascinating and jarring at the same time.
@@BrendonKing No. If the law was such that clergy confidentiality was involved then no. But what about the teachers, child protective services, neighbors, grandparents? They too were involved in their lives. So, sue them too.
@@suem6004 The way the case is developing, it does not appear AZ recognizes any clergy confidentiality in this instance. Per the judge, confidentiality was waived the moment the perpetrator posted the videos on the Internet. That said, teachers may not have known, and therefore didn't report. Family members aren't mandated reporters, unfortunately, so you couldn't sue them for failing a duty they don't have from a legal stance. Obivously morality would dictate otherwise.
Regardless, looking at this issue the way you are might be missing the point. The scope of the case is 'plaintiff v. church', and as such that's what matters.
@@suem6004 They do not have the money that the Church does. People want someone to pay, and not everyone has the same resources.
@@brettmajeske3525 Exactly! Follow the money!
At the end of the day, there's only so much you can do, sadly. It's nice to think that we can just stop all abuse. But we can't. We can do better, but it's hard. It's really hard. We will never get it 100% right.
As Voltaire said, perfect is the enemy of good. It's nuts to think that just because you'll never be perfect, you can't be better.
The article (which is not as inaccurate as they make it sound), shows horrific abuse and extreme incompetence from Church leaders. At this point, yall are not in a place to shoot for 100%. You are shooting for 40%. Don't shrug and say, "well, we're never going to be perfect" when y'all need to be doing the bare minimum.
You are not the only religious group to go through this--all major religions (and non-religious groups!) have experienced it. Work on changing the culture without kind of giving up before you've even started
@@pplucker9486 But most of the evidence the article uses is from a case in South Carolina more than ten years older than the one in Arizona. From all the actual evidence, the Church did far more than the bare minimum. It still was not enough. The Bishop testified that he learned about the ongoing abuse the same time everyone else did, from the news. He knew there were problems in the family, but not the extent of those problems.
Isn’t it possible that the bishop in this case prayed and received an answer from god telling him not to report it?
I'm going to share a story from a general conference talk.
I don't remember the name of the talk, speaker, or which session it was in, but here it goes.
A missionary was having a hard time on his mission. He went to his mission president and told the president that he didn't think he could finish his mission.
The mission president said that he wasn't trying hard enough and needed to study the Book of Mormon and put more effort into serving his mission.
The missionary tried but came back saying he didn't think he could finish his mission.
The mission president again said to the missionary that he needed to study the Book of Mormon and lose himself in the work.
This was repeated a third time.
On fourth time, the mission president asked why he believed that he couldn't finish his mission.
The missionary replied "I can't read."
The Spirit is difficult to hear even for leaders.
As such, when a leader trusts in his own wisdom and doesn't rely on the Lord's guidance, then additional adversity can occur.
Child abuse blatantly goes against God's teachings.
Thus God wouldn't give revelation to not report abuse.
I honestly suspect either the bishop or the hotline person wasn't diligent in inquiring of the Lord.
That being said, we do need to support our leaders.
All support given needs to be with love and compassion.
Our leaders aren't perfect, but by supporting them we can help them to learn and grow.
For example, questions are fine but arguing brings contention.
@@radybay9088 I do. Are you saying the outcome of a situation is the best way to determine whether god was instrumental in the decision-making process?
I have no doubt the church cares about protecting the children in their trust. but I wish you guys would better understand that the church cares more about protecting their image. Both of the church's responses shows that and this needs to change. LDS church, please do the right thing and let the consequences follow, just like you taught/expected me to do.
Why would you think this is about protecting images instead of victims? Respecting privilege protects far more victims than abusers.
@@brettmajeske3525 are you sure?? What church department does the help line go straight to? I'll answer that for you. Risk management department. That's right the help line is run out of the risk management division. Not family services, not the welfare department, not a division to help victims but a division to help the church asses and mitigate risk to the good name of the church.
@@jessea2871 Am I sure privilege helps more victims than abusers? Yes I am very sure.
What do you think is more common, victims going to a Bishop for help, or abusers going to a Bishop to confess?
@@brettmajeske3525 I have no idea. But what I know for damn sure is the church is very concerned about protecting it's good name and in my opinion more so than properly reporting and seeing to the victims safety. Opinions differ and there is no way of really knowing because we as members and church leadership are really good at only showing the good and like to portray that all is good in Zion when in fact not all is good but we must pretend that it is because of the implications of what it means when not all is good. To be honest and upfront, whatever evidence I have of this subject is anecdotal and my experiences in the church don't mean that much to anyone because we all have our own and that's where we harvest truth from. Brett, I really don't have much of an interest in getting into a back and forth with you, I apologize if you don't agree with me and if I may have offended you. I'm humble enough to admit that I could be wrong. How's bout you? Rhetorical question.
@@jessea2871 This is a subject that is very triggering for me. Without going into messy details, sexual abuse of children and adults have impacted many of my close friends and family.
I know too much of how police focus more on conviction than victim advocacy. I know how important it is for survivors to feel like there is a safe haven, someone they can speak with who is not required to retraumatize them by going to the police. I have not served as a Bishop, but I think I have an idea from an Executive Secretary point of view of the kind of people who tend to seek help. I know too many victims who did not get the help they needed and are now dead or in jail themselves.
I understand that people who only hear the biased report from the AP feel outrage and that something needs to be done. Too little of the actual facts of the case are known, in my opinion, to determine if the Bishop acted correctly with the information he had at the time. I do get upset when people say they cannot imagine why the Bishop did not come forward. Apparently they all hate survivors and want them to suffer is the only possible conclusion I can think of.
Arizona law requires reporting from both medical professionals and clergy, but each with specific exceptions. Medical professionals are not to report if doing would inhibit the treatment of the patient. Clergy do not need to report if doing would violate reasonable concepts/doctrines of confidentiality. Usually this called the "Seal of the Confessional" by the media.
As the Bishop in this case was also physician, he would understand that privilege applies. He consulted with lawyers knowledgeable about Arizona law. We don't know exactly what was confessed, but seem to think any knowledge should have been reported even if doing so would have made things worse.
Arizona law forbids clergy from testifying, even if they were the ones who reported. Without testimony to a judge or grand jury, police/CPS can't even remove the children from the home. The father was a member of law enforcement himself, another obstacle.
Privilege protects survivors from being revictimized. Every time it is broken without need, those in need have a harder time trusting it will apply to them. The default position of most organized religions, and mental health professionals, is that privilege should be the rule not the exception. Both Clergy and therapists need trust.
I am not convinced the Bishop did the right thing 10 years ago, but I am not convinced he was wrong either. The public will likely never learn enough to make an informed decision. I am bothered by so many responses who act like there is no nuance or complication. I pray they never find themselves in situations where their confidence is ignored.
What if they pretend they never been a member when they've actually been a member?
I do not understand the question.
You can't do that because of the membership record number system she mentioned. If you just show up on Sunday and tell a bishop, "hey I just moved to your ward, I'm a member," they'll ask for your record number so your records can be moved from your old ward to that ward. If you don't have a number to give (like you don't have it memorized (most ppl don't) and you don't have it written down anywhere there are other ways they can try to find you, but if your record doesn't exist there's nothing to find. Records have been lost before, but I don't think on such a scale that it has ceased to exist. You wouldn't be put in any callings without that and wouldn't be able to put in those positions with kids.
@@izzieluv The membership record is found on Temple Recommends, but membership can be easily looked up with a name and a previous ward.
Jennifer is awesome and provides unique perspectives. The LDS leaders followed the AZ law. The hotline did its job, telling the bishop what the law said and what to do.
A limited 2011 confession by the father, and no consent from father/mother to report limited the options for the bishop/Church. The father and mother failed their family.
The LDS Church isn't doing in this case what occurs far more regularly in other churches: church leaders themselves abuse their congregants.
@Mykel Alexandria Take a look at the somewhat recent shakeup in the Southern Baptist Church and the huge lawsuit against them and you'll see exactly what Neal's statement is based on.
IDK if the hotline accurately counseled the bishop. I know the AZ AG has also made mention that Kirton McConkie doesn’t have any legal authority to provide legal council on matters within the state of AZ, so that’s another storm brewing on the horizon. If the bishop acted on ‘illegitimate ’ legal counsel, the church might have a whole other problem to slog through.
@@BrendonKing "I don't know if the hotline accurately counseled the bishop..." How would you know? Would you look to AZ law to see if they counseled the bishop, according to the law? Ever been involved in a lawsuit? Are you an attorney yourself? What expertise do you have?
Like most who post here, the answer is likely zero or close to zero. Instead, most who post here know little and primarily cheer against the church with little knowledge of facts or law.
The Church isn't involved in this over 10-year-old case. The hotline has worked effectively for decades. There's no doubt counsel from SLC is legal and effective. Other churches would do well to have a similar hotline. Would have been much better if the Roman Catholic Church had followed our protocols and procedures in the last many decades. You show your naivete and biases with your comments that are not tethered to the real world.
Hope you one day can appreciate the good the church does in people's lives. And not blindly cheer against them.
@Mykel Alexandria Indeed, why didn't the child's own family do the right thing? Father and mother do what was in the kid's best interest? They failed.
In 2011 the abusing father provided a limited confession about abuse from the past. Not recent abuse. He and mother refused to allow the bishop to report. There was insufficient evidence. And the parents themselves refused to cooperate and self-report.
Would you turn your neighbor in for something without sufficient evidence? I wouldn't advise that. You'd open yourself up to a lawsuit. You might want witnesses and a strong timeline. Not a single incident with insufficient evidence. I'd advise you follow the law. Maybe call a hotline and get good legal advice. Like Brendon above, sounds like you're not a world-class attorney yourself.
The bishop doesn't go to the home of all less-actives in the ward and investigate for sexual abuse. Your expectations are unrealistic.
@Mykel Alexandria "THE LAW... the hook that the church wants to hang it’s hat on." That is the hat everyone must hang his/her hat on. We live in a society where the rule of law is supreme, without respect for personal position, etc.
"confessed to raping my son…you think the law is gonna protect me?" You would be asked follow-up questions. Was it yesterday? How often? Are you on drugs? If you were truly confessing in a sheriff's office they would follow the law. And you'd be processed accordingly.
If, however, you change the scenario and instead confessed to a clergy member in many states, different laws apply. We live in the USA. Not Russia, China, Mexico, or elsewhere.
Another fact you may not appreciate: In American states with mandatory reporting you get less (around 10% less) reporting or confessions of abuse. Turns out, you in your hypothetical and other real abusers won't confess as frequently when abusers know they're gonna be reported automatically. Does that -- required reporting -- protect the victim? In some cases, sure. But not in all. In fact, nobody hears about victims in 10% fewer cases, cuz the law discourages confessions to clergy.
"The church creates its own rules bc IT is not attached to reality. It seems to believe it’s above it." What evidence do you have of that?
Satan will tempt our church strongly because we are The church of Jesus Christ. So when our members are lackadaisical about the gospel and their membership they think that they are ok and it is ok for them to do these horrid things
I am surprised anyone gives any main stream media any time and validation. Since the 60’s with operation mockingbird I am shocked that people waste their time with it.
Unfortunately, although the background checks are an easy thing to do, they don't do them. I hope they will start using them. Stopping the abuse should be a top priority.
Do you even know what a background check is? How expensive they are? Or how little they actually reveal?
And the Church does use background checks. Not for every callings, but they are used. I am curious why you think the Church doesn't use background checks?
In this case the perpetrator kept passing his background check every year that he was abusing. Background check were being made, and the abuse was passing them. Acting like they are some sort of silver bullet is ignoring reality.
@@brettmajeske3525 The church doesn't use them, and in fact only uses them in places where they're legally required. Now personally I've had to submit to checks several times as part of a job application process and as a foster parent and it didn't cost much at all. Personally as an abuse victim myself, a foster parent, advocate against abuse and a former elementary school employee, I feel background checks can go along way to prevent abuse at least in cases where the abuser has already been convicted. Thus they could greatly reduce chances of abuse. That said I think any expense would be worth it. To put it simply better to be safe than sorry.
@@jonjahr3403 I would be interested in knowing your source that the "church doesn't use them". Especially since there is not a requirement to inform someone before running a background check on their behalf. Potential Bishops and other leaders are vetted before they are interviewed for the potential calling.
I am not objecting to the idea of background checks, but I do not believe them to be the silver bullet most critics seem to suggest they. In the Arizonia case the preparator did go through annual back ground checks that didn't catch anything. Many people over estimate what back ground checks can and can not reveal.
@@brettmajeske3525 Whoops sorry I misspoke I meant to say the church doesn't always use them. And only does so in places where it is usually legally required.
@@jonjahr3403 Again, what is your source for that statement? Just because we only know about situations where the Church is legally required doesn't mean that they are not being used in other situations.
People seem to assume that if they do not know about if background checks are being used that means that they are not. I do not think that is a wise assumption. I know of multiple situations were a Bishop or Stake President submitted names for a calling only to be denied by Salt Lake. Some sort of background check must be taking place even if most members do not know about it.
I like this lady.
I see you cite the church membership number with accompanying clergy comments as a safety feature. I see it as a scarlet letter system whereby clergy can pigeonhole members. For example:
Jane Doe is a great leader and should be the relief society President, young womens president, and primary president over and over and over again.
Or Jane Doe has a bad attitude and skips Sunday school (referring to a 16 yr old) or
Joe Schmo had a few struggles with tithe paying this year or
Joe Schmo made a comment in Sunday school that indicated his lack of faith
Etc! Totally biased, untrue comments that harm members, not help, are being input into the system by bishops and then follow members around forever. I believe that law enforcement has the means to identify abusers to the community and it’s the sex offender registry. Why the duplicate system that does so much harm to the members?
As a bishop I can tell you those kinds of comments are not in the membership record. There are only certain flags like: "cannot work with children", or "cannot manage church finances". There's not a way to store any notes like you are thinking..
@@wheelercreek Yeah that's what I was going to say, and this is usually only done after a council.
So 2 things.
1. Nearly every actively participating member is part of the clergy in some fashion.
2. How Membership record annotations are handled is explained in the church handbook section 32.14.5. (You may also want to look in section 33) Your characterization of it is incorrect. A Bishop or stake president has to file a report and it only lists a certain set of behaviors, all of which have to do with protecting people and the Church. An annotation can also mark if the member is transgender since that is important to know for ordinances and other priesthood stuff.
I really appreciate knowing this information. It has plagued me for a long time.
This channel has no shame in the lengths they’ll go to defend church wrongdoing
The AP article had an obvious agenda ignoring some of the nuance of the law. It put the burden of responsibility on ecclesiastical leaders even though there is a specific penitence exemption. Many states recognize that clergy have the same responsibility as lawyers and doctors when it comes to confidentiality.
The idea is that people who need help will not seek it out if they know that asking for it can be used against them. Clergy are not allowed to testify in court if the person confessed with the expectation of confidentiality. The Arizona law does not say that the clergy has the choice to report or not. It states that if the clergy believes the principles of their religion forbids reporting then they do not report. The LDS Church does have a principle of confidentiality.
The penitence exemption is exclusively in regard to testifying, not for reporting. Bishop dropped the ball.
@@BrendonKing That isn't what the Arizona law says explicitly. Admittedly the law itself is not clear, which may be part of the problem. The condition established for exception is not personal choice, but the concepts of the religion. The helpline is not the only group of lawyers who have interpreted in the same way. The AP article ignores the legal precedent in Arizona where DA's choice not to investigate privileged reporting due to the legal complications. Different judges make different decisions, but it is not clear now, and certainly was not ten years ago, if an LDS Bishop is allowed to report under the current law. Arguments can be made for both interpretations. This is something the legislature needs to fix.
@@brettmajeske3525 this is not accurate.
A person shall not be examined as a witness in the following cases:
1. A husband for or against his wife without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, as to events occurring during the marriage, nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, without consent of the other, be examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage. These exceptions do not apply in a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by the husband against the wife, or by the wife against the husband, nor in a criminal action or proceeding against the husband for abandonment, failure to support or provide for or failure or neglect to furnish the necessities of life to the wife or the minor children. Either spouse may be examined as a witness for or against the other in a prosecution for an offense listed in section 13-706, subsection F, paragraph 1, for bigamy or adultery, committed by either spouse, or for sexual assault committed by the husband if either of the following occurs:
(a) Before testifying, the testifying spouse makes a voluntary statement to a law enforcement officer during an investigation of the offense or offenses about the events that gave rise to the prosecution or about any statements made to the spouse by the other spouse about those events.
(b) Either spouse requests to testify.
2. An attorney, without consent of the attorney's client, as to any communication made by the client to the attorney, or the attorney's advice given in the course of professional employment.
3. A clergyman or priest, without consent of the person making the confession, as to any confession made to the clergyman or priest in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the clergyman or priest belongs.
4. A physician or surgeon, without consent of the physician's or surgeon's patient, as to any information acquired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable the physician or surgeon to prescribe or act for the patient.
Very clearly the law indicates that the bishop could not be called as a witness to testify under Arizona Law. I do have relatives who both practice and enforce the law in Arizona.
Point 3 is the point that people are splitting hairs over. Source is ARS section 13-4062
@@BrendonKing You have accurately shared the section on testifying, but not the section on reporting. It seems you are trying to do the same thing as the AP article. This establishes that there is the same expectation of confidentiality between a penitent and clergy as between a client and lawyers.
The law on reporting explicitly states: "A member of the clergy... who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy... in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy... belongs may (has permission or is authorized to) withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy... determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts (not whether abuse is reasonable, but the expectation of confidentiality/privacy) of the religion."
"May" here is used to indicate conditionality, not personal choice. The determining factor is the "concepts of the religion", such as the "seal of the confessional" in Catholicism or the confidentiality clause in the Handbook of Instructions.
When making a legal distinction it is important to quote the relevant law.
@@brettmajeske3525 I don't think this improves your argument. If anything, This may actually damn the procedure followed more than what I provided. This subsection, or the bit that you have happened to share (I doubt you left any context out but merely trimmed the fat of the article) does not indicate any external force or outside entity prohibiting the report or twisting the arm of the church as it were, but leaves it up to the clergy to determine based upon reasonable expectation of privacy whether or not a report would be in the best interest of all parties involved. This would lay the blame directly at the feet of the bishop in question, and the church for advising him not to go forward with the report.
Jennifer Shines brightly,
#Bossmode
Being Mormon was already abusing the kid
oof
Amen Amen Amen
The LDS church is not a cult. I think that claim is so wrong that I don't even see why people think that, a lot of the time. HOWEVER, it is so clear in this video that you are only making the video to defend the church. It doesn't look good--it looks like the institution is the end all be all, not the actual people affected.
Y'all can talk about the errors in that article all you want, but you didn't anything substantial that they got wrong...it comes off like you want to discredit the article so people will not read it and see how gravely the Church erred.
Jennifer, you cannot be an effective therapist if you are primarily focused on apologetics. You are also a mandated reporter. I am concerned about how you would respond if a fellow member disclosed abuse to you.
Again, I'm not "anti-LDS" at all. But this video was a farce and made me sad. You can do better
@@pplucker9486 I am not sure you were listening to what Jennifer was saying. She gave several interviews that go into more detail but are over an hour long. She talks in those about her own experiences, both a victim and as a mandatory reporter. Less than 10% of reports result in arrests and only about 10% of arrests result in convictions. Part of the problem is "fruit of the poison tree" where evidence collected improperly is dismissed. Proper reporting matters. Jennifer is not saying reporting should happen, nor is she defending the situation in Arizona beyond saying, we do not know what the facts are. According to court testimony, the Bishop claimed he did not know about the ongoing abuse. He does not mention the helpline. He didn't report because he didn't know about the abuse, nothing to do with the helpline.
The AP report is conflating evidence from South Carolina with Arizona. Why is pointing out those problems a "farce".
You're a fascinating figure!! :) Victoria's secret?
Bishops let it happen for 7 years!🤷🏻♂️... They're just as guilty as the perpetrator, even if these bishops "believed" keeping it quiet was the best thing!
Let what happen? If you bother to read the court documents and listen to the interviews, the Bishop says he found out about the abuse the same time everyone else did, from the news. He was asked point blank in court why he didn't report, and his answer was that he didn't know what was happening.
The wife of the abuser testified that she told the Bishop there were "problems", without explaining what those problems were. Problems, without knowing what those problems are, is not the same as permitting abuse to take place. Never the Bishop nor the wife even mentioned the helpline. It was the AP reporter who assumed that "problems" meant a full confession, assumed the Bishop called the helpline, and that they were the ones to tell the Bishop not to report.
There is no evidence that the Bishop knew about the abuse let alone "let it happen". The wife testified that she told several people that there were "problems", including the abuser's boss and her daughter's principle. The reason the AP went after the Bishop is because he refuse to talk about what was said. The Bishop never made the claim that the helpline told him not to report. People are just making stuff up because he has refused to talk in detail.
I don't think the Bishops thought not reporting was the best thing to do. One of the few things in this I agree with these people on is that bishops were conflicted about the matter and they legitimately believed the church's attorney on the hotline when he incorrectly advised them that the law prohibited them from reporting.
@@jonjahr3403 Why do you think the hotline attorney told the Bishop not to report? The Bishop has never said that happened. According to court filings, when asked about the conversation on the stand, the Bishop was preventing from answering the question because of attorney/client privilege. Which means we do not know what was talked about or what the advice was. When ask why he didn't report, the former Bishop said it was because he didn't know what was happening.
According to the wife, the Bishop was told that the perp had a sexual relationship with his own mother, not his children, and that it had ended. That is the situation he would have asked about. As sick and twisted as even that would be, it would obviously put the children in danger. We do not know what was said or what advice was given.
Start a RUclips channel Jennifer
Yall need to read the handbook of the Church:
“Any abuse that occurs during a Church activity should be reported to civil authorities. The bishop should be contacted immediately. Instructions for members are in 38.6.2.7. Instructions for bishops are in 38.6.2.1.
For definitions of abuse, see 38.6.2.3 and 38.6.2.4.”
It also says:
“Abuse Help Line
In some countries, the Church has established a confidential abuse help line to assist stake presidents and bishops. These leaders should promptly call the help line about every situation in which a person may have been abused-or is at risk of being abused. They should also call it if they become aware of a member viewing, purchasing, or distributing child pornography.
The help line is available for bishops and stake presidents to call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. …
Bishops and stake presidents should call the help line when addressing situations involving any type of abuse. Legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions. These professionals will also give instructions about how to:
•ASSIST VICTIMS help protect them from further abuse.
•HELP PROTECT potential victims.
•COMPLY WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS for reporting abuse.
The Church is committed to complying with the law in reporting abuse (see 38.6.2.7). Laws differ by location, and most Church leaders are not legal experts. Calling the help line is essential for bishops and stake presidents to fulfill their responsibilities to report abuse.
A bishop should also notify his stake president of instances of abuse.
In countries that do not have a help line, a bishop who learns of abuse should contact his stake president. The stake president should seek guidance from the area legal counsel at the area office. He is also encouraged to counsel with the Family Services staff or the welfare and self-reliance manager at the area office.”
The helpline is there to make sure the Bishops don’t get in trouble with the law unintentionally.