LDS Bishop charged


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

We've had discussions on the forums before whether a bishop is required to report something that is revealed to him. At least in Utah, this answers part of those questions.

ksl.com - LDS bishop charged with failing to report teen sexual assault

DUCHESNE — An LDS bishop who also serves as vice president of the Duchesne County School Board is facing criminal charges for his alleged failure to report a teenage girl's disclosure that she'd been sexually assaulted.

Gordon Lamont Moon, 43, of Duchesne, was charged Monday in 8th District Court with tampering with a witness, a third-degree felony, and failure to report abuse of a child, a class B misdemeanor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It pains me to say it, but good. What a horrible travesty that this bishop did not follow proper procedure, and call the church's 1-800 number to be advised on what he needed to do.

We were supposed to be rid of this nonsense three decades ago - right around the time that humanity came to grips that sacrificing the victim of sexual abuse on the altar of supporting the perpetrator, was not a good idea. Obviously, there are still some pockets of ignorance remaining in the church.

I hope this girl can heal. I hope she finds justice. I hope the perpetrator gets the help he needs - possibly behind bars. I hope the church takes appropriate action to make sure she understands that we are not the "Church of protecting sexual predators of Latter-day Saints".

Nobody is ever happy in one of these situations. (Or, to put it differently, satan laughs his rear end off while we all cry.)

Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no "winners" in that story at all. Everyone loses. So sad.

While I agree on the individual level... I am actually a bit pleased to see this type of story.

Please before you flame me hear out the rest.

Imagine how this girls story could have played out 5, 10, or even 15 years ago. If you are imagining a much worst situation for the girl, her spirituality, and her ability to trust leaders then we are on the same page.

Yes the bishop made a bad mistake. But it is being acknowledged as a bad mistake that went counter to Church counsel and instruction. The girl is going to have some issues to deal with because of this but it is not compounded by the idea that the Church didn't care and tried to cover it up.

Bishops are human and will make mistakes, but I would expect that story like this will help this type of mistake less and less common. If this helps with that then some good will come of this. While this is cold comfort for the people involved, as an uninvolved third party I see this as forward progress toward where we really want to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know ppl will hate me over this but oh well.... we don't have enough details to know if this is a good thing or not.

If this was a case of a YW going to far herself, leading things up to an edge and then saying no then the YM pushes a bit further than that but also stopping after a moment. Was it wrong? yes. Doest he YM need to learn a ton about self control and what "no" means? absolutely. Does the girl also need to learn how she got in the situation to begin with? yes. Does the girl need to take accountability for her mistakes? yes. Such a situation needs to be handled and handled firmly. But I believe it can he handled among the parties and could see a bishop attmepting that path first. (If it comes out he has done this with other girls or even gone further then he is indeed a danger then that changes things.)

If it is the kind of case we all get rightly upset about where you have an adult who takes advantage or hurts the neighbors 4 yr old then call asap and report it. If a YM or adult male just came up and started grabbing her without desire on her part that is different.

In the first many ppl's lives can be ruined forever over something that is a common teenage learning curve. right? no, but common. Other things need prompt attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had discussions on the forums before whether a bishop is required to report something that is revealed to him. At least in Utah, this answers part of those questions.

ksl.com - LDS bishop charged with failing to report teen sexual assault

DUCHESNE — An LDS bishop who also serves as vice president of the Duchesne County School Board is facing criminal charges for his alleged failure to report a teenage girl's disclosure that she'd been sexually assaulted.

Gordon Lamont Moon, 43, of Duchesne, was charged Monday in 8th District Court with tampering with a witness, a third-degree felony, and failure to report abuse of a child, a class B misdemeanor

FEBRUARY

Young man: Bishop, Sally and I have been dating, and we, um, kissed and fooled around a little. But we didn't have sex! We didn't take our clothes off!

Bishop: Billy, we need to talk about this.

[...]

MAY

Young man: Bishop, I've been trying to do what we talked about. But Sally is really passionate, and last night she reached down my pants. I don't know what to do, bishop, because I really love her, but I know it's wrong for us to have sex.

Bishop: Billy, I think we need to talk more about this.

[...]

JULY

Young man: Bishop, Sally is really affectionate, and I really love her. She wants to, um, play and stuff. She says there's nothing really wrong with it because we aren't married to anyone else. Is that right? Can we, you know, get naked together as long as we don't, you know, put the, um, thing in the thing?

Bishop: Billy, let's talk.

[...]

AUGUST

Sally: Bishop! Please help! Billy RAPED me! The horrible cad! He defiled me! I'm going to get him arrested and ruin his life by charging him with RAPE!

Bishop: Sally, I think we need to talk about this.

News report: LDS bishop charged with failing to report teen sexual assault

The fact is that none of us knows what happened here. We don't know what position the bishop was in or what the circumstances were. It's easy to read a headline and a short, uninformative writeup and draw a conclusion. Easy, but stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that none of us knows what happened here. We don't know what position the bishop was in or what the circumstances were.

Well, that's not exactly true.

We know a teenage girl's parents are claiming:

* Their daughter reported an alleged sexual assault to her bishop.

* The Bishop did not report the alleged assault, and counseled the daughter not to report it either.

We know the parents called the sheriff's office and reported the alleged assault.

We know Duchesne County sheriff's detective Dan Bruso claims:

* Detectives interviewed the bishop, who "told them he didn't believe the girl's disclosure needed to be reported". The bishop also claimed “that he felt that church action would take care of the problem”.

We know the bishop was charged with a 3rd degree felony and a class B misdemeanor.

We know LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has zero tolerance for abuse of any kind and is extremely proactive in its efforts to protect children and heal victims from this societal plague,” and “Bishops are instructed on how to report abuse and to follow applicable law.”

It is true that we don't know whether there was an actual assault or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of shocked at some of the replies to be honest. In the article presented it doesn't state all the assumptions that some of you are doing in this thread. The only thing we know is that this girl reported to her bishop that she was sexually assaulted by another teen. And YES, teens can also rape, not only big grown up adults! We don't know all the details and I think speculating in this sort of news is damaging for all those involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of non-LDS examples of grappling with child abuse in church settings.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness7.htm

The policies of the Jehovah's Witnesses are very controversial. There is an organization specifically for abuse survivors from that religion. I also found one site that seemed to offer a defense of their standards.

http://www.churchsafety.com/discussion/askourexperts/richardrhammar/q14.html

This second example is wise counsel from my fellowship's legal counsel. He shows that restoration is possible, but accountability is crucial. As the politicos like to say, "Trust but verify."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that none of us knows what happened here. We don't know what position the bishop was in or what the circumstances were.

Well, that's not exactly true.

We know a teenage girl's parents are claiming: [...]

We know the parents called the sheriff's office and reported the alleged assault.

We know Duchesne County sheriff's detective Dan Bruso claims:

As I wrote: None of us knows what happened here. And that is exactly true.

We know the bishop was charged with a 3rd degree felony and a class B misdemeanor.

True. And Christ was charged with sedition. Charges do not make a man guilty, either in law or in reality.

We know LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has zero tolerance for abuse of any kind and is extremely proactive in its efforts to protect children and heal victims from this societal plague,” and “Bishops are instructed on how to report abuse and to follow applicable law.”

Again, true, but not relevant. The tongue-clucking and head-shaking rush to judgment against this bishop is outrageous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am kinda appalled at some of the replies. The bishop was wrong and should have reported. Perhaps the church needs to step up training for this. Abuse of any kind should be reported, then the law can decide if a crime was truly committed. Clergy men are not law and should not pretend to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilt or innocence of specific charges are up to the courts.

But unless the detectives are lying, the bishop told them "he didn't believe the girl's disclosure needed to be reported", and he also claimed “that he felt that church action would take care of the problem”. Both statements are in direct conflict with church policy, and indicate he ignored or was unaware of training the church provides bishops on exactly this matter.

The tongue clucking and head-shaking, for me at least, springs from a deep understanding of the burdens added to victim's souls when they are not protected and helped by those who should protect and help them. We used to be so big on "you need to forgive and let go" as the sum total of help offered. Victims who sought justice were commonly labeled as boat-rockers, or poor followers of Christ, or people who needed a better appreciation for priesthood holders, or sinners who needed to remove the beam from their eye before attacking the perpetrator's mote, or the ever-present "you asked for it". Civilized humanity began to study and learn in the 70's, and began to reach conclusions in the '80's about how we were doing it wrong. From what I can tell, the church changed and implemented policies in step with the growing body of knowledge we were gaining.

Duty to disclose allegations of sexual assault to ecclesiastical leaders, are governed in acts of legislation on state and federal levels over the last few decades. Church policy is, at a bare minimum, to follow all applicable laws. Bishops may or may not have full awareness of applicable laws - they are provided with a hotline to church legal resources - and they are trained in that phone number's existence and their duty to use it.

Except none of that seemed to reach this particular bishop. And that's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bishop has to report every youth that pressures their boy/girlfriend to go a little further than they are comfortable for assault then no one would ever confess and repent.

There is a difference than when a girl goes out with a ym she has never kissed and he goes into the woods at night and tells her to put out or get out and two teens who make out rutinely, go to far one night and one wants to go further than the other. Yes if one pushes to sex then it's rape and yes less probably qualifies as "assault".

The question becomes, does all assault need to be reported and prosecuted or can some be delt with "in house"?

Sometimes my kids get mad and hit each other, I deal with it not call the cops and file assault charges.

This may have been an honest needs follow up assault. In which case this is a good thing. If it's not and the parents are just mad then it's going to ruin a lot of lives. And yes teens lie to avoid trouble. I can see a girl claiming less was consensual than really was so mom and dad would hate the boy and not her. We just don't know what this case involves it's to early to hang anyone.

I do think if the bishop thought there was assault involved he should have called the church hotline.

Edited by Gwen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am kinda appalled at some of the replies. The bishop was wrong and should have reported.

And how do you know this? Are you the bishop? Or the young woman involved? Or clairvoyant? Or are you basing your assertion on the pitifully incomplete picture painted by a three-paragraph news blurb?

Abuse of any kind should be reported, then the law can decide if a crime was truly committed.

Why should the law bother to make such a decision? It sounds like you have already tried and condemned the bishop for his misdeeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bishop has to report every youth that pressures their boy/girlfriend to go a little further than they are comfortable for assult then no one would ever confess and repent.

There is a difference than when a girl goes out with a ym she has never kissed and he goes into the woods at night and tells her to put out or get out and two teens who make out rutinely, go to far one night and one wants to go further than the other. Yes if one pushes to sex then it's rape and yes less probably qualifies as "assult".

The question becomes, does all assult need to be reported and prosecuted or can some be delt with "in house"?

Sometimes my kids get mad and hit each other, I deal with it not call the cops and file assult charges.

This may have been an honest needs follow up assult. In which case this is a good thing. If it's not and the parents are just mad then it's going to ruin a lot of lives. And yes teens lie to avoid trouble. I can see a girl claiming less was consensual than really was so mom and dad would hate the boy and not her. We just don't know what this case involves it's to early to hang anyone.

Unfortunately the laws don't give bishops or other youth workers that kind of leeway...

Its to be reported period. And then police and legal system are to deal with it. With all the fallout and problems connected with legal inquiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilt or innocence of specific charges are up to the courts.

But unless the detectives are lying, the bishop told them "he didn't believe the girl's disclosure needed to be reported", and he also claimed “that he felt that church action would take care of the problem”. Both statements are in direct conflict with church policy, and indicate he ignored or was unaware of training the church provides bishops on exactly this matter.

Unless those quotes were taken out of context. But we really don't know, do we?

The tongue clucking and head-shaking, for me at least, springs from a deep understanding of the burdens added to victim's souls when they are not protected and helped by those who should protect and help them.

And who is the victim here, LM? The poor young woman who, in her innocence, was forcibly raped? Or the young man who is being falsely accused of rape by a vindictive or embarrassed ex-girlfriend? Surely you are not naive enough to assert that the latter never happens, or is even particularly rare.

Civilized humanity began to study and learn in the 70's, and began to reach conclusions in the '80's about how we were doing it wrong.

You mean the 70s and 80s AD? Not sure how you can be so precise about something that happened 2000 years ago. Because you surely cannot be suggesting that civilized humanity never considered these problems and acted on solving them before the 1970s or 1980s.

Except none of that seemed to reach this particular bishop. And that's a problem.

It's amazing how your gift of clairvoyance allows you this insight, LM. Please forgive the rest of us who lack that particular gift. Perhaps you can understand why we non-ESP-ers refuse to jump to conclusions and urge others to follow that example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

assault: an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact

according to this is there really anyone who has never been assaulted or has never assaulted someone? We can't prosecute everything, the details make the difference on which cases those should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things to consider, Vort:

The bishop may be required by state law to report suspicion of abuse, whether he believes it occurred/is occurring or not. A report from a minor of abuse probably justifies reporting in a state where bishops are required to report.

Most states allow a time frame in which the abuse or suspected abuse must be reported, such as within 24 hours. When the report was made, the bishop's first course of action after the interview should have been to call the abuse hotline and get advice on his legal responsibilities*. He should have assured the girl that she would be taken care of and as part of that, he would be seeking counsel from professionals with more experience in these matters than he had. What we don't know is if he did call the hotline. If he did and followed their counsel, he will probably be absolved of his liability. If he didn't, he could be in a fair amount of trouble.

The other thing that pops up in this story is that he was charged with tampering with a witness. This probably stems from his having told the girl not to report the incident to the police. Telling a person not to report an alleged crime is a big no-no. And if he did this without having sought counsel from the hotline, I'm afraid he's reaping what he has sowed. If he did this under the advice of the hotline, again, he'll probably be absolved of his liability.

While I agree that we don't know the full story here, it is clear that the authorities feel he failed to meet his requirements and that he improperly told the girl not to report her claim to the police.

I will say this, however--all those who wish to trash talk the bishop based on what we know from this article are out of line. We can't really make a judgment without knowing if the bishop called the hotline. If he made this decision on his own, I won't stand up for him, but if he sought more experienced counsel and was unfortunate enough to follow bad advice, then I will stand next to him to my dying breath (and pin the blame on someone else).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless those quotes were taken out of context. But we really don't know, do we?

It is true that I place a level of trust in the reliability and professionalism of law enforcement that others do not, and may or may not be warranted. For that reason, I prefaced my statement with "unless the detectives are lying".

No, we don't really know. Taking the notion to it's logical extreme, we will never know on this side of the veil. We don't know even after a verdict is reached. Guilty and not guilty are artifacts of processes put into place by fallible, sinful, error-prone, agenda-driven humans. Nobody, with the possible exception of the victim and alleged perpetrator, will ever reach the lofty bar of 'knowledge' which allows for totally righteous and fair judgement.

And who is the victim here, LM? The poor young woman who, in her innocence, was forcibly raped? Or the young man who is being falsely accused of rape by a vindictive or embarrassed ex-girlfriend?

There are a host of valid points to be made about the burdens which fall on people who are falsely accused of such things. But this point would seem to take issue with the laws and church policies themselves, and not with the bishop's admitted failure to follow them.

It's amazing how your gift of clairvoyance allows you this insight, LM. Please forgive the rest of us who lack that particular gift. Perhaps you can understand why we non-ESP-ers refuse to jump to conclusions and urge others to follow that example.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some folks are rubbed the wrong way by such witty ripostes. But having obtained black belts in several disciplines of the Yo Mamma arts, I've got to say that I've seen better from worse. Yeah. Direct quotes from detectives, reported in a news article, equates to clairvoyance and ESP. I need a much thinner skin to feel that one. Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort is right on in this. We have nearly no information, yet most are willing to say that the Bishop was wrong here. If he was trying to cover something up and didn't follow the guidelines, then there will be consequences. But how often have we heard of someone cry 'foul' and then, after a short investigation, find out that there was no foul but that the person either made it up or was an active participant? The whole thing stinks to me because the girl didn't go to her folks first, but did only AFTER being told something she didn't want to hear. It almost sounds like a set up.

And pls don't think that because it was a young lady that somehow she is immune from lying or making up 'truth'. She goes in, says one thing to her Bishop, who may want to investigate a tad before the young man's name is dragged thru the mud and before he takes any actions, and then she goes home to tell her folks that she was assaulted. Why is she hesitant in the first instance but gets some counsel from her Bishop and THEN tells her folks?

I don't know, and that is the point. I don't know what happened. But to assume that the Bishop is the culprit here is wrong. But sadly, par for the course for many on this board....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't so much the story that interested me..it was the point that the Church does have in place guidelines and resources for Bishops in situations like this.

So many people think if you confess to a bishop it can't go any further. I'm glad to see that in some situations it can and that's what I focused on in reading the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a host of valid points to be made about the burdens which fall on people who are falsely accused of such things. But this point would seem to take issue with the laws and church policies themselves,

Not so. I have no issues with either the laws of the land or the policies of the Church, only with those who rush to condemn a man based on incomplete reports. Especially when that man is an unpaid bishop striving to help people, we should be slow to condemn. Many here seem all too quick to condemn the bishop. THAT is the point.

and not with the bishop's admitted failure to follow them.

I don't see anywhere that the bishop has admitted to failing to follow the law or Church policies.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some folks are rubbed the wrong way by such witty ripostes. But having obtained black belts in several disciplines of the Yo Mamma arts, I've got to say that I've seen better from worse. Yeah. Direct quotes from detectives, reported in a news article, equates to clairvoyance and ESP. I need a much thinner skin to feel that one.

My point is not to rail on you, LM. My point is that those who wish to condemn this bishop based on a news report are out of line and ought to knock it off. If you are one of those who have rushed to condemn, consider yourself included. Otherwise, don't.

Edited by Vort
"too" has to have two 'o's
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share