LDS Bishop charged

[RipplecutBuddha]

True, but that wasn't Vort's point. His point was that people were being far too judgemental with so little information available. In that respect, he was spot-on from the start of this case.

[MarginOfError]

True, but that wasn't Vort's point. His point was that people were being far too judgemental with so little information available. In that respect, he was spot-on from the start of this case.

If he had met his reporting requirement, there wouldn't have been a case.

[NeuroTypical]

I'd like to take a step back from the facts of this particular case, and ask a general question about a nonspecific event that doesn't involve anyone in particular, living or dead.

Let's say a random young woman ward member met with her bishop, and alleges that she had been sexually assaulted by random young man ward member. How many of you feel it would be appropriate for the bishop do either of the following during that interview:

1. Instruct the girl on her duty to forgive the young man.

2. Urge the girl not to go to the authorities or press charges, because it would make life hard for the young man, and possibly jeopardize him going on a mission.

Just wondering how y'all would answer this hypothetical situation involving nobody in particular.

[mirkwood]

1. Instruct the girl on her duty to forgive the young man.

Someday as part of her healing process this would probably be appropriate.

2. Urge the girl not to go to the authorities or press charges, because it would make life hard for the young man, and possibly jeopardize him going on a mission.

There is NO excuse for this.

Edited May 15, 2012 by mirkwood

[Just_A_Guy]

I think 2) would be inappropriate in any circumstance (if, indeed, it did happen; which I note Bishop Moon flatly denied in his case).

My answer regarding 1) would probably depend on such issues as how long it's been, what is the girl's emotional state, and who it was who brought up the issue of forgiveness.

[Vort]

It appears from the latest developments that the bishop did not follow either Church policy or legal requirements.

The bishop is still the bishop. And the case against him has been dropped. So from latest developments, it appears quite the opposite of what you say. But as RB noted, that was never my point.

[MarginOfError]

The bishop is still the bishop. And the case against him has been dropped. So from latest developments, it appears quite the opposite of what you say. But as RB noted, that was never my point.

From the article:

The prosecutor's request came after Moon testified under oath that he should have handled his interview with the girl differently and should have contacted a legal hotline operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Vort]

From the article:

The prosecutor's request came after Moon testified under oath that he should have handled his interview with the girl differently and should have contacted a legal hotline operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Saying he wished he had handled things differently is not tantamount to saying he "did not follow either Church policy or legal requirements." On the contrary, if he had testified under oath that he failed to follow legal requirements, the prosecution would surely have charged him, assured of the outcome.

[RipplecutBuddha]

If he had met his reporting requirement, there wouldn't have been a case.

odd, since he clearly stated that he didn't meet the reporting requirement...yet the charges were dropped anyway, meaning there's no case.

Of all the people involved in the incident, the bishop was the last one to be informed of any impropriety. Prior to his introduction to the matter, both parents were aware of the situation, and both parents had notified law enforcement officials. According to the father of the young woman, who was unsure if she was being truthful, the only reason the bishop was notified at all was to see if he (the bishop) could tell if the young woman was being honest or not.

Now, to my ears, this seems like a young woman either overreacting to a sophmoric act by a young man, or a young woman snapping after several sophmoric acts by a young man. In either case, I doubt something as serious as, say statutory rape occured, but that's just me.

Given, then, that the bishop was the last one to be involved, it makes all kinds of sense that he didn't call the hotline, nor law enforcement. As I said earlier in my post, given the facts of the case that we now know, his actions seem far more reasonable. Also keep in mind WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE YOUNG MAN DID. So, even at this point, I hesitate to pass judgement of any kind.

you're the bishop, and here's the situation

Boy does thing/act to girl

girl tells mom, mom calls police

girl tells dad, dad calls police

five other people are told about the event

dad can't tell if girl is being honest

dad calls bishop

bishop meets with girl

bishop hears what girl says boy did to her

bishop knows both parents are aware of event

bishop knows law enforcement has already been notified

*strong possibility that offensive act was not a serious sex crime, but more like an inappropirate prank/joke that went way too far.*

Bishop gives advice to not call police and to try to forgive boy and move on.

The *...* part indicates what we don't know. The rest I gathered from the reports in this thread. It doesn't seem too out of place *If my guess at the actual act is accurate*. Since we'll likely never know what the actual event was that caused all this, we can't really conclude anything.

What we know, however, is that the prosecutors dropped all charges despite the bishop admitting he should have handled it better.

and after all this....what has changed? A lot of people jumped the gun big time on this by criticizing the bishop from the start without even a fraction of the facts needed to make sense of what really happened.

-The bishop wasn't charged with anything

-The young man doesn't seem to have been charged with anything

-The bishop is still a bishop

What I gather from all this is that too many people here got all wound up before they knew anything of the facts, which is what Vort's point was from the first post of this event.

Yes the bishop could have called the hotline, but he didn't....big deal...charges were dropped...move on.

[Maureen]

Saying he wished he had handled things differently is not tantamount to saying he "did not follow either Church policy or legal requirements." On the contrary, if he had testified under oath that he failed to follow legal requirements, the prosecution would surely have charged him, assured of the outcome.

But he "did not follow either Church policy or legal requirements" since he did admit that he should have contacted the church's legal hotline.

M.

[NeuroTypical]

Now, to my ears, this seems like a young woman either overreacting to a sophmoric act by a young man, or a young woman snapping after several sophmoric acts by a young man.

It's interesting that different ears hear different things.

What stuck out to me was that young man is an older step-brother of the young woman. I've learned a thing or two about such things over the years. From the things these news reports are giving us, I see no indication this is a case of a young woman overreacting.

* Most powerfully - the boy admitted to unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old in Kane county juvenile court after being charged. (This is hard to find - but it's in the news.)

* A father not knowing who is telling the truth, is hardly an uncommon situation when sexual abuse happens between people who know each other.

* A mother wanting to get a protective order against someone who once lived with her as family, is hardly an indication the victim is overreacting.

* Family disagreements over such events are hardly uncommon, and don't point to guilt or innocence.

* And I'm sad to say, but a small-town bishop advising a genuine abuse victim to not call the cops, and think about how hard she'd make it on the abuser, is also not as unheard of and unthinkable as we'd all like to hope. Although such things are becoming more rare with every year that goes by. Better training in the church, the 1-800 number bishops are counseled to call, and more openness and education about such things in our culture, all work to reduce such instances. But yeah, this would hardly be the first time such a thing happened. God reveals lots of things to us, but other things He seems to want us to figure out ourselves. What to do with young victims of sexual abuse or incest seems to be one of them.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Vort]

But he "did not follow either Church policy or legal requirements" since he did admit that he should have contacted the church's legal hotline.

Non sequitur. Saying "I should have done X" is not the same as saying "I did not follow Policy Y". Two different things.

[MarginOfError]

Non sequitur. Saying "I should have done X" is not the same as saying "I did not follow Policy Y". Two different things.

First, on X (calling the hotline), he clearly didn't call the hotline. He admitted he didn't call the hotline when he said that he "should have contacted a legal hotline operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Contacting the hotline, by the way, is exactly what the handbooks instruct bishops to do when allegations of abuse are made.

Regarding Y, he didn't report the assault. "Moon was interviewed by detectives about the family's allegation and told them he didn't believe the girl's disclosure needed to be reported." He was wrong about that (and would have known it if he had called the hotline).

Hence, he did not follow Church policy (and call the hotline) or his legal reporting requirement (by reporting the assault).

[mhsmd]

I'm not sure why we're trying to judge this bishop.

[Vort]

First, on X (calling the hotline), he clearly didn't call the hotline. He admitted he didn't call the hotline when he said that he "should have contacted a legal hotline operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Contacting the hotline, by the way, is exactly what the handbooks instruct bishops to do when allegations of abuse are made.

Agreed. His failure to follow this specific incident of Church policy was obviously not deemed serious enough that he needed to be released immediately, seeing as how he is still the bishop. But I agree, it appears from his words that he did not follow Church policy.

Regarding Y, he didn't report the assault. "Moon was interviewed by detectives about the family's allegation and told them he didn't believe the girl's disclosure needed to be reported." He was wrong about that (and would have known it if he had called the hotline).

Then why wasn't he charged? You're suggesting that a prosecutor with a slam-dunk case of ecclesiastical abuse simply chose to...ignore it?

However regretful they may have sounded, his words give no self-incriminatory evidence. Your statement that he failed to follow legal requirements is unjustified, merely your opinion -- and apparently not a very well-informed opinion, since the prosecutor obviously did not agree with your judgment.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm not sure why we're trying to judge this bishop.

Oh, if anyone is trying to judge the bishop, it's probably because they have an inexact grasp of the scriptures regarding judging and not judging. It's possible that some folks are also seeing judgements of the bishop where none is given, and that's probably also due to the same inexact grasp and understanding.

I'm not judging the bishop, but I am making judgements about the rightness or wrongness of various actions in general. I'm doing that for a myriad of reasons, probably the top reason is that I'm commanded to judge righteous judgement about such things.

Here's some great reading from an Ensign about when we're commanded to judge and when we're commanded to not judge.

“Judge Not” and Judging By Elder Dallin H. Oaks

[Maureen]

...Then why wasn't he charged? You're suggesting that a prosecutor with a slam-dunk case of ecclesiastical abuse simply chose to...ignore it?

However regretful they may have sounded, his words give no self-incriminatory evidence. Your statement that he failed to follow legal requirements is unjustified, merely your opinion -- and apparently not a very well-informed opinion, since the prosecutor obviously did not agree with your judgment.

These statements are confusing since this whole thread has been about how this Bishop had been charged with witness tampering and failure to report abuse. The last article says that the Judge dismissed the charges because the accused (Bishop Moon) admitted in a public forum that "he'd mishandled the girl's disclosure of abuse." The article also says: "We didn't dismiss the charges because he didn't do anything wrong. We dismissed the charges because he accepted responsibility for what he did wrong," Foote said. "That's why the charges went away."

Vort, the information from the last article disagrees with what you've just said.

M.

[Vort]

These statements are confusing since this whole thread has been about how this Bishop had been charged with witness tampering and failure to report abuse.

How does that make the statement confusing?

The last article says that the Judge dismissed the charges because the accused (Bishop Moon) admitted in a public forum that "he'd mishandled the girl's disclosure of abuse."

Did you actually read the article? It says nothing of the sort. Rather, quoting from the article:

Judge Lyle Anderson dismissed those charges in the middle of a hearing at the request of Duchesne County Attorney Stephen Foote.

That is: The judge dismissed the charges because the prosecution requested that he do so. Even the defense attorney was shocked:

"In 20 years of practicing law, I've never seen it operate like this," defense attorney David Leavitt said after court.

"Bishop Moon has maintained all along that he broke no law and that he's innocent," Leavitt added. "Today we're grateful the state finally agreed with us."

So your claim that the judge dismissed the charges because Moon admitted to something or other is simply and completely false. As the article points out:

Moon has never denied that he should have "been more tactful" during the interview or that he should have contacted the church's legal hotline, his attorney said. "That never seemed to satisfy the state before, but today, for whatever reason, they decided to dismiss the charges."

The article also says: "We didn't dismiss the charges because he didn't do anything wrong. We dismissed the charges because he accepted responsibility for what he did wrong," Foote said. "That's why the charges went away."

And you believe that? You think the prosecuting attorney, with a clear, slam-dunk case of ecclesiastical abuse and neglect, just decided to wave the charges off because the guy admitted he should have done things differently? SOMETHING HE HAD DONE SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING?

If you actually believe this, please get in touch with me. I have a great opportunity for you on an extra bridge I happen to own.

Vort, the information from the last article disagrees with what you've just said.

As far as I can determine, either you didn't read the article or you didn't understand it.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Vort

[Maureen]

How does that make the statement confusing?

Because you keep claiming that Bishop Moon was not charged, even though this whole thread has been about how this Bishop was charged. I'll even give you a hint; the title of this thread is LDS Bishop charged...The articles even say what he was charged with. The charges were eventually dropped, but that does not negate that he was ever charged.

Did you actually read the article? It says nothing of the sort.

Yes, it did say everything of the sort because I quoted from the article; the article I read.

Rather, quoting from the article:

Judge Lyle Anderson dismissed those charges in the middle of a hearing at the request of Duchesne County Attorney Stephen Foote.

That is: The judge dismissed the charges because the prosecution requested that he do so. Even the defense attorney was shocked:

"In 20 years of practicing law, I've never seen it operate like this," defense attorney David Leavitt said after court.

"Bishop Moon has maintained all along that he broke no law and that he's innocent," Leavitt added. "Today we're grateful the state finally agreed with us."

So your claim that the judge dismissed the charges because Moon admitted to something or other is simply and completely false. As the article points out:

Moon has never denied that he should have "been more tactful" during the interview or that he should have contacted the church's legal hotline, his attorney said. "That never seemed to satisfy the state before, but today, for whatever reason, they decided to dismiss the charges."

I see, you've decided that whatever the defence attorney has been quoted as saying is credible while anything the prosecuting attorney is quoted as saying is not, okay. We all determine how we view a situation by how we interpret the information given. I still see this case as a Bishop being "charged" with witness tampering and failure to report abuse. Those charges were eventually dropped by the prosecution for whatever reasons they gave, whether you believe them or not. I doubt the Bishop put up a stink about it, claiming that he did not believe the prosecution's reasons. I have a feeling that if this Bishop is faced with another similar problem, he will "handle" it differently.

M.

[MorningStar]

It's not even clear from the article if the girl dated the boy at all. It's best not to assume anything.

[NeuroTypical]

The boy and girl are step-siblings.

[MorningStar]

The boy and girl are step-siblings.

Ah, the initial article didn't show they were related at all. I can't imagine how hard it must be being bishop. I would want to protect people, but at the same time would be afraid of being a part of wrongly accusing someone. I think some bishops want to shield people from legal consequences in hopes that church discipline or counsel will put a stop to the behavior.

[Vort]

Because you keep claiming that Bishop Moon was not charged, even though this whole thread has been about how this Bishop was charged.

Maureen, that's silly. You know perfectly well that I have made no such claim, much less multiple times. The only post I have made in this thread that might even approach your claim is a naive reading of the first post on page 9, where I said something like, if the prosecution had a case they would have charged her. I think my meaning is wholly obvious in context, especially given what I wrote before, but perhaps it would clarify my meaning to you if I had written, "...the prosecution would have following through with their charges and not dropped them."

Yes, it did say everything of the sort because I quoted from the article; the article I read.

Then you must not have understood it. Because it certainly did not say what you claimed.

I see, you've decided that whatever the defence attorney has been quoted as saying is credible while anything the prosecuting attorney is quoted as saying is not, okay.

Not at all. Maureen, seriously, you need to read my posts much more closely than you do. You miss the plain meaning of words, which makes communication frustrating.

Moon has maintained from early on that he should have done things differently. Nowhere did he admit to guilt on the charges brought against him. Now he is suddenly released with all charges dropped, and the prosecution claims it's because he "took responsibility".

But this is a transparent lie. Moon "took responsibility" from the beginning in claiming he wishes he had handled things differently. He certainly did not "take responsibility" in the sense that he admitted guilt to the charges. Had he done that, the prosecution would not have just let him go; they would have charged him. [EDIT: Oops, did it again. Of course, I meant "followed through with the charges."]

The prosecution dropped the case because they weren't going to win, and put the best face on it they could. Moon's lawyer correctly pointed out the facts of the matter: His client never admitted to legal wrongdoing and had consistently maintained that he wishes he had done things differently. What changed? Not Moon or his testimony.

Maureen, I have been as explicit and clear as I know how to be. If you're still confused about my meaning, perhaps some other kind soul can explain it better.

Those charges were eventually dropped by the prosecution for whatever reasons they gave, whether you believe them or not.

So the reasons the prosecution gave are true, regardless of my opinion?

Now which of us is ignoring clear evidence here, Maureen?

I have a feeling that if this Bishop is faced with another similar problem, he will "handle" it differently.

Obviously. The bishop himself has said as much, numerous times, practically from the beginning. It's the prosecution that blinked, realizing they had an unwinnable case.

My point from the very beginning of this thread is as follows:

Shame on those who rush to condemn this bishop based on a short newspaper article and without any possession even of the most basic relevant facts.

Given the turn of events, I have been vindicated, and those who rushed to condemnation must be feeling quite embarrassed about their foolishness. (Assuming they are honest people, that is. Dishonest people never feel foolish or embarrassed about anything.)

Edited May 21, 2012 by Vort

[Maureen]

Maureen, that's silly. You know perfectly well that I have made no such claim, much less multiple times. The only post I have made in this thread that might even approach your claim is a naive reading of the first post on page 9, where I said something like, if the prosecution had a case they would have charged her. I think my meaning is wholly obvious in context, especially given what I wrote before, but perhaps it would clarify my meaning to you if I had written, "...the prosecution would have following through with their charges and not dropped them."

I only know what I have read Vort, in Post #81 you said:

...On the contrary, if he had testified under oath that he failed to follow legal requirements, the prosecution would surely have charged him, assured of the outcome.

And then on Post #88 you wrote:

..Then why wasn't he charged?....

If you didn't mean to say that, then say you didn't mean to say that. When you write something that is obviously false, then clarify what you mean, without making excuses that it's someone else's fault for misunderstanding what you meant. Take responsibility for your own words.

Moon has maintained from early on that he should have done things differently. Nowhere did he admit to guilt on the charges brought against him. Now he is suddenly released with all charges dropped, and the prosecution claims it's because he "took responsibility".

But this is a transparent lie. Moon "took responsibility" from the beginning in claiming he wishes he had handled things differently. He certainly did not "take responsibility" in the sense that he admitted guilt to the charges....

We, the public, only know what happened by reading what the newspapers write. We don't know what the defence or prosecuting sides know because we weren't there. If by "taking responsibility" meant to the prosecution that he admitted to his mistakes and in a sense admitted guilt, then that outcome may have satisfied the prosecution. We can't know for sure, only by reading trial transcripts could someone know what happened.

...Had he done that, the prosecution would not have just let him go; they would have charged him. [EDIT: Oops, did it again. Of course, I meant "followed through with the charges."]

Finally, thank you for acknowledging that he was charged. That wasn't so hard was it?

The prosecution dropped the case because they weren't going to win, and put the best face on it they could. Moon's lawyer correctly pointed out the facts of the matter: His client never admitted to legal wrongdoing and had consistently maintained that he wishes he had done things differently. What changed? Not Moon or his testimony.

We don't know that for sure, we only know what we've read in a newspaper article.

...I have been as explicit and clear as I know how to be. If you're still confused about my meaning, perhaps some other kind soul can explain it better.

Now that you've actually admitted that you understand the Bishop was charged, then I can agree that your meaning is more clear.

So the reasons the prosecution gave are true, regardless of my opinion?

Now which of us is ignoring clear evidence here, Maureen?

You don't know the evidence given, you were not at the trial. You only know what you've read.

Obviously. The bishop himself has said as much, numerous times, practically from the beginning. It's the prosecution that blinked, realizing they had an unwinnable case.

My point from the very beginning of this thread is as follows:

Shame on those who rush to condemn this bishop based on a short newspaper article and without any possession even of the most basic relevant facts.

Right, and you're the only one on this forum that had these basic relevant facts? I doubt that very much. You knew as much as the rest of us.

Given the turn of events, I have been vindicated, and those who rushed to condemnation must be feeling quite embarrassed about their foolishness. (Assuming they are honest people, that is. Dishonest people never feel foolish or embarrassed about anything.)

I personally don't think anyone on this forum condemned this Bishop. They analyzed his situation given the information provided by these short newspaper articles, just like you did Vort. They speculated that if the charges were true, then he had made some bad decisions. I'm sure these events were terrifying for the Bishop and the outcome worked out well for him. Let's hope he's learned from this awful situation.

M.