Leaderboard

My understanding (I have not read the applicable statutes) is that the bishopric counselor who made the report is a pharmacist by trade, and subject to specific reporting requirements by the regulations/associations that govern his profession. There are folks—including, IIRC, a few members of this forum—who have decried the Church’s policy of instructing bishops who hear disclosures like this seek legal advice before going to the authorities; but this case illustrates why the Church’s hotline to Kirton-McConkie exists. Depending on state law and the day-job of the church leader, the leader might be civilly liable for doing in one state, the exact same thing that he’d be criminally liable for not doing in another.

It isn't clear to me that not reporting in this instance would have made the bishop liable. Some jurisdictions require reporting a potential or suspected abuser when evidence indicates abuse, but do not necessarily require reporting when the abuser confesses. From the sound of it, Oregon is one such state. This is the crux of the lawsuit, that the man came forward to confess to the bishop and therefore the bishop(ric) shouldn't have reported him without first advising him that they would not honor the priest-penitent privilege. It's a thornier ethical question than it seems on the surface. The exemption from reporting requirements is intended to encourage people to seek help that might help them reform. If the man had known he would be reported, would he still have come forward of his own volition? Would he still have pursued repentance? (A similar debate is had about pregnant women admitting drug use to health care providers. The industry wants to be exempt from reporting to encourage users to admit their use and receive treatment. Others want admitted users to be reported.) Had the abuse been reported by any person other than himself, this wouldn't be an issue, because at that point, priest-penitent privilege wouldn't apply. I haven't seen the original arrest report, but the reporting I've read isn't clear that it was his daughter. It was a minor "known to him," so perhaps a babysitter, or something of the sort. I don't know that the woman is evil. Quite possibly she is desperate. Her family has likely been stigmatized, it's definitely been torn apart. And I imagine she feels their trust has been violated by those she felt were supposed to help them heal their wounds. If she has struggled the past two years to cope with all of the changes and to keep her family afloat financially, I can understand why she would choose to file this lawsuit. (That isn't to say I agree, but I can sympathize with her)

I'm not disputing any of this. I only contested the characterization of her as "evil." To do so is only a different shade of calling a thief "evil" because he chooses to steal a loaf of bread rather than submit to starvation. Desperation drives people to extreme actions. If anything, what I'm trying to convey is that justice and compassion are not mutually exclusive.

The others I'm all-in on. However, this statement concerns me. To offer an example of why consider that Muslims believe that Jesus is a prophet of God (Peace Be Upon Him). They do not believe Him to be the Son of God, or God. In LDS teaching on the Plan of Salvation, a sincere Muslim would likely end up in the Terrestial Kingdom--a heavenly realm. His reward would be due to Christ's saving work. Jesus is his savior, whether he knows it or not. (All of this assumes he does not fully embrace the teachings he receives in the life to come). So...would you acknowledge with a Muslim 'our mutual Savior Jesus Christ?'

If the bishop/Church did not report this type of crime the bishop would have been held accountable if it did come to light later on. Anyone who doesn't report this type of abuse is held accountable if it is ever revealed that they knew and did not report. In this case priest-penitent becomes void, because the priest will be held accountable if he did not report it. In some states it is a felony, and others a misdemeanor. Oregon Law: A person who violates the reporting laws commits a class A violation. Prosecution under this law shall be commenced at any time within 18 months after the commission of the offense

John Chapter 10 It is important to note the sequence. #1 Jesus says that he and the Father are one (there is a lot that can be said of this but lets move one because the extra stuff was not your question) #2. The Jews intended to kill Jesus by stoning - again there is more here but note that they intended to kill Jesus already - the answer to your question is coming. #3. Jesus answers and asked if they intend to kill him because of the good things he is doing #4 The Jews say it has nothing to do with his works but because he is teaching that a man (specifically him) can be made into a G-d. Now the table is set. #5 - this is very important -- The answer to your question is in verses 34 and 35 - Jesus answers them by saying that the scriptures clearly teach that men become g-ds - and Jesus adds that the scriptures cannot lie or teach something false. Jesus says a few other things in following verses about himself being the Son of G-d (which also is not directly pointed to your question). What I find so very interesting about the Gospel of John is that John covers the "arguments" between the Jews (Pharisees) in the same format that many of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are given as prophetic types and shadows with those that alter, change and do not believe as Jesus taught - as in this example; that men can becomes G-ds. Of course there are other scriptures (teaching man is intended to be "one" with G-d) but for now it is important to note that at the time of Jesus - to say or present the idea of being "one" with G-d meant to become a g-d. There is always an evolution in thinking or interpreting doctrine taught in scripture - but what do you think the scripture means to be "one" with G-d. Do you use the meaning that was understood when Jesus taught or has your understanding evolved to something very different? The Traveler

Considering what I wrote above, I think I have to answer, "no" to this one. I do not share the same fellowship with a muslim that I would share with a Catholic that I would share with a Protestant that I would share with a fellow Latter-day Saint. Even within this last category, there can be differences, so it feels more like a sliding scale rather than a "in fellowship/out of fellowship" binary. But I also don't see any clear lines where I can say that I won't share a pew with ________, either.

I can love and appreciate people very different from myself. One of our staff is literally Pagan--he's awesome--and very respectful of Christian spirituality. There are ways in which he impresses me more than some of my fellow believers. However, can I have the same kind of fellowship with him as I do with those of like precious faith? I do not find it arrogant or off-putting for those of the same faith to find special bonds and connections. When Jesus said his followers would be known for their love, I suspect he meant primarily the way we love each other.

When the final horn sounds and all have acknowledged that Jesus is the Christ, I don't expect to have a problem with Muslims or Krishnas or Christians or Atheists or myself who finally came to a correct Christology by different theological pathways. In the here and now, though.... Sharing a pew with a Muslim whose Christology is that Christ was nothing more than a prophet (and maybe even a lesser prophet than Muhammed)? I don't know. I think I can do that, if we can mutually agree to respectfully disagree on our Christology (I realize there is much more than just the Christology at stake, too). Sharing a pew with a Jehovah's Witness who, if I understand their Christology, believes that Christ is less than God, but greater than man and has the unique position of being our redeemer? I don't know. I think I can do that, again if we can respectfully agree to disagree on the Christology. Sharing a pew with a Nicene Trinitarian? I can probably do that with the same caveat. Sharing a pew with a Modalist? I can probably do that with the same caveat. But, then I want to ask myself, "Are there no boundaries at all around my belief system? No specific beliefs that are required for me to be comfortable worshiping with someone else?" Maybe I'm just all wishy-washy like Charlie Brown. Is there no level of doctrinal purity that I will require to be considered "in fellowship" with someone? I think I had better stop there, before I start questioning whether I even can know my own name and my mother's maiden name.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that only the Roman Catholic Church has the rite of Confession, which does involve a sacred veil of secrecy and privacy. Protestant clergy would generally report such matters to authorities. On the other hand, if we could tell a conversation was going in this direction we might remind the counselee that incidents of criminal behavior--especially involving minors--must be reported.

I like to tell my children, "I have traveled through time to this moment from the year 1963 to bring you this message: Clean your room." Usually I'm the only one laughing, but what can I say? It cracks me up.

Unless I'm misreading this, it was not the bishop who reported the man to the police, but the bishop's counselor who was present at "the church court": Johnson confessed to local leaders and members of the church court that he had sexually abused a minor. I assume this refers to a ward-level disciplinary council, which would be the bishop and his counselors. The point of contention seems to be that the plaintiffs think the bishopric should have, in effect, read them their Miranda rights before counseling with them. I can't see how their case can possibly advance, but then, this is Oregon we're talking about. EDIT: I should have read all the comments first. It looks like people who know more than I do have already commented on the various legalities I was wondering about.

Interestingly, the article mentioned a bill going before the Utah legislature that would essentially remove the clergy-confession privilege in the state of Utah -- making all clergy mandatory reporters even if they learn of the abuse as part of "confession" (there is a link within my link that goes to the Tribune's coverage of this bill, if you feel so inclined). It looks like the Utah state legislature will get an opportunity to debate the issues you mention. This seemed like a part of how having a lay ministry might play into this. As I understand the story, man confesses to bishop. Bishop convenes a disciplinary council which brings in several other members of the Church's lay clergy (including the counselor in question). Are these additional council members acting in the capacity of their regular day jobs and not clergy, or are they acting as clergy in this case? Is the disciplinary council still part of the confessional, or is it something different? Considering the lay nature of our clergy, how do the rules that govern our day jobs impact our church service? Extending to religious liberty, how much do we want the government and courts deciding these things for us? As I said, I have no legal expertise to understand all of the legal ins and outs. But it seems that there may be some interesting aspects to this case.

This was me two years ago with my three youth daughters.... This is what I did and am doing, it works.

I would be really surprised if the courts decided that privilege did not exist for lay clergy. And I struggle to see a framework where thever courts could even justify it. It probably varies by jurisdiction, but I suspect most jurisdictions will extend privilege to the bishop's counselors. I does in my location.

I have not expertise in the legalities here, so I will have to take your word for it. You are the first to assert that priest-penitent privilege would be void in this case -- the newspaper columnist and others I have seen comment on it have not made this same assertion. From what I can gather, most states have exceptions to mandatory reporting laws for clergy confessions. In many ways, I think it will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the clergy privilege in this case -- Does it apply to churches with a lay clergy or only professional clergy? Does it apply to the clerics assistants (counselors in a bishopric in this case)?

Sadly social media reinforces this behavior.

I got my car at 18K miles back in 2010. I was able to catch it on video when the meter rolled to 200K last Saturday on our way to the temple. We celebrated its 200K day with an expensive steak dinner.

I have heard nothing about this. My guess is that most Americans don't know about this at all, and those who do probably tend to think she should be held accountable for her actions. So the "venting fury" thing is nonsense, as you note.

Glad you recognize the Fakeness of the pushed perception. There's no "fury" in the US, of course. It's just same-o same-o...

Maybe men are more interested in trade schools over universities. They are less expensive. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/choosing-trade-school-over-college/584275/ M.

I don't view this as a "conditional testimony" as much as I do the habit members seem to have of speculating. I had to endure a one-sided conversation on why there are dinosaur bones recently. Why try to guess about what the Lord may reveal? Why worry about how you'll react to what's to come? You have instructions. You make covenants. You follow them. Through that, you grow faith. With that faith you'll face what's to come.

I disagree with this completely. I have an entire society of grandparents that prove this wrong. What I gathered from your post is that you put your hat of respect on the woman having no opportunities for a career. This is the biggest error of the Feminist Movement - the idea that full-time Motherhood is not respectable. The idea that "unless I can do what a man can do we're not equal". Societal traditions in the old days was structured around the lack of technology and opportunities that women have today. In the olden days, women stay home when they have their periods. They didn't have the privilege of tampons. My mother grew up in the 40's and monthly sanitation consisted of something akin to a ginormous cloth diaper. Women stay home when they were pregnant. They didn't have the privilege of ultrasounds and high-tech medical facilities. Women stayed home until the baby is weaned from breastmilk. Feeding babies off formula, gerber, and baby bottles was not a thing. And because women were having to stay home so much, then they do the home things - maintaining a well-organized, clean, and peaceful home while men bust their bums at the factories - and organizing societal things - like community service. These were things women took pride in - the organization of their homes and societies, the discipline of their children, etc. etc. They had a very vital role in life, equally (if not more so) than the factory. Human progress have led to men inventing things so women get all this opportunity to not stay in the house. They don't need to anymore. Even when they have periods, get pregnant, have kids to care for. So now women are clamoring for "equality". They want to be CEOs and Scientists and Presidents... do they clamor to clean ditches and collect trash and work heavy machinery? No. Because that's just not what women like to do. Women like the same things they liked when they were staying home more often - care services, organization services, management. But now, they don't want to do it for their own homes - they want to do it outside the home. Which means - their vital importance in society - that of Motherhood, managing children house and home - is left for other people to do. So now they complain that men aren't doing Motherhood even as men are still cleaning ditches and collecting trash that women don't like doing. But the craziness of all this is that Women also believe Men staying home to do the "Motherhood" job is also unrespectable. Women - even Career Women - want to marry Men who make a lot of money - even more than they make. So now, the responsibility of raising children is left like a hot potato with no takers. So no. Just because there are lesser opportunities for women to be Career Woman back in the day doesn't mean they were disrespected. They held a vital role in society that they are ditching today. Personally, I believe Women ditching the vital and very satisfying role of Mother and putting such as an unrespectable choice has caused great damage to today's society.

I agree, and wholeheartedly would conclude it as such In contrast, I could not disagree more. The so-called #MeToo movement is a lie, an attempt to use actual violence and evils done to women as a ram to effect political gain by making women (specifically feminists) literally unaccountable for any accusation they care to make.

I’ve seen Kwaku debate in the past and it isn’t anything to write home about.

That's not the only thing they can do. Basically, Ancestry now OWNS your DNA sample and can do whatever they want to do with it. For example - and I'm just pulling this off the fringes of my brain - it can use your DNA sample to give to a research outfit that is working on a biological weapon to wipe out your entire family tree. This is most especially a concern to Jews because they have had that specific experience of people trying to wipe them out of the face of the earth. But, in the case of convictions - relative DNA has big DNA marker commonality such that, a relative of yours - including distant ones - that have specifically avoided giving DNA samples can now be identified by your DNA sample. So, you may be free with your closet but that doesn't mean your relative wants his closet opened even if he doesn't have skeletons in it either. Having grown up in a political family, I know for a fact that the lack of skeletons in one's closet doesn't mean it will be skeleton free when someone opens it. There are a lot of reasons somebody would contrive to put a skeleton in there. Especially with what we now know about Fake News and the seedy activities of Intelligence Agencies.

One of these days, I will find a way to travel from the Philippines and arrive in the USA yesterday.

OK - please tell me all the horses that came first this afternoon. (Preferably ones with odds greater than 10:1!)

Fake news does not change the fact that I am currently one day in the future.

I did. I did. And I'm saving this joke. I have a collection now of that same temple trip - I'll share one: This trip we went to have my eldest's endowments as he's leaving for his mission in 2 weeks. So, my youngest was by himself doing baptisms and since his session ended earlier he had to wait at the reception room for over an hour until we came down. So, I asked him how his trip was and he said - it's like I'm back in Busch Gardens again playing at the sandpit waiting while y'all ride Montu.

Chocolate covered coffee beans are a real thing, and I imagine there are all kinds of matcha tea (green) flavored candies and pastries.

Wow, apparently I've been in Utah too long, cuz I didn't even know there were chewable versions of coffee and tea.

So you went from the temple to the nearby steak center?

You sure? I thought that baptizing tens of thousands on my mission meant they did have to listen to and believe me.