LDS Bishop charged


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

VORT, I doubt any here--particularly church members--were intending to condemn this individual bishop, individually, on a deep level. Instead, they were reacting very appropriately against the "old school" approach of brushing issues under the rug, and trying to handle "church matters" quietly and in-house.

I saw no calls for his removal, extensive jail time, etc. Instead, what I read was, as Pam suggested, relief that the church is now proactive about protecting abuse victims.

You were not wrong to call for more caution about condemning this individual bishop. However, perhaps you were a bit quick in reading too much of that in the posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

VORT, I doubt any here--particularly church members--were intending to condemn this individual bishop, individually, on a deep level. Instead, they were reacting very appropriately against the "old school" approach of brushing issues under the rug, and trying to handle "church matters" quietly and in-house.

Perhaps you're right, PC, but I don't think so. Consider the following in this thread:

LM: It pains me to say it, but good. What a horrible travesty that this bishop did not follow proper procedure...

estradling: I am actually a bit pleased to see this type of story...Yes the bishop made a bad mistake.

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

Those look to me very much like condemnation of this individual bishop.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you're right, PC, but I don't think so. Consider the following in this thread:

LM: It pains me to say it, but good. What a horrible travesty that this bishop did not follow proper procedure...

estradling: I am actually a bit pleased to see this type of story...Yes the bishop made a bad mistake.

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

Those look to me very much like condemnation of this individual bishop.

I don't see condemnation of this Bishop personally, only condemnation of his alleged action.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see condemnation of this Bishop personally, only condemnation of his alleged action.

Then let me help you:

LM: It pains me to say it, but good. What a horrible travesty that this bishop did not follow proper procedure...

estradling: I am actually a bit pleased to see this type of story...Yes the bishop made a bad mistake.

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

It was not merely the alleged actions being condemned. The bishop himself was being called out as having done wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then let me help you:

LM: It pains me to say it, but good. What a horrible travesty that this bishop did not follow proper procedure...

estradling: I am actually a bit pleased to see this type of story...Yes the bishop made a bad mistake.

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

It was not merely the alleged actions being condemned. The bishop himself was being called out as having done wrong.

You are grammatically correct, and you've made your point clearly and colorfully. Like Maureen, though, I still see the underlying messages as being directed towards the general old practice of keeping church matters in-house, and of being more worried about falsely accusing someone than about protecting children.

If we were exchanging posts in the town where this happened, I would be more inclined to your caution against condemning someone without all the facts. Most of us are 1000s of miles away, and the criticism I see is more generic, despite all those singular, specifying pronouns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are grammatically correct, and you've made your point clearly and colorfully. Like Maureen, though, I still see the underlying messages as being directed towards the general old practice of keeping church matters in-house, and of being more worried about falsely accusing someone than about protecting children.

Please don't think this is anal-retentive grammar policing. In the LDS Church, we refer to each other as "brother" and "sister". This is because we are to consider each other as brothers and sisters. If my brother were accused of such a violation, I would be very sensitive to people assuming he were guilty before the facts were even made known.

Guess what? My brother is being accused, and people -- fellow Saints -- are assuming he is guilty before the facts are known.

If it turns out that the young woman really was forcibly raped and the bishop really did violate the law (and Church policy) in his actions, then I will agree that legal and other consequences are appropriate. Until that point is reached, I won't condemn my brother, as others on this thread are only too eager to do.

Of course LM, estradling, and normaje are not trying personally to heap condemnation upon the head of this seemingly anonymous bishop (who is not anonymous at all, but is explicitly named). Rather, they want to show everyone how progressively correct they are in seeking to protect the poor, hurt rape victim from ancient prejudice. But in doing so, they risk committing a transgression at least as egregious: Condemning an innocent man based on hearsay. I abhor such MobThink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did bishop Moon call the toll-free number for guidance?

No idea.

Will the church be providing him legal representation?

According to the news he indicated that the church would be providing him with a lawyer because the alleged offenses are related to his church calling but the Church spokesman said he could not confirm whether the church had appointed an attorney to represent him or not.

He was charged with tampering with a witness, a third degree felony, and failure to report abuse of a child, a class B misdemeanor. Unless the police detectives involved in this case have something against him personally then I have no reason NOT to believe that he allegedly told them that he didn't believe the girl's report on being sexually assaulted needed to be reported to authorities. According to detectives, he allegedly thought that church action would take care of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then let me help you:

LM: It pains me to say it, but good. What a horrible travesty that this bishop did not follow proper procedure...

estradling: I am actually a bit pleased to see this type of story...Yes the bishop made a bad mistake.

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

It was not merely the alleged actions being condemned. The bishop himself was being called out as having done wrong.

I hate to break it to you, Vort, but it is very possible based on the charge that the bishop--yes, this particular bishop--a) did not follow proper procedure, b) made a bad mistake, and c) was wrong and should have reported.

I can't confirm this definitely, but seeing as the charges are being filed several weeks after the girl confided in him, I'm going to guess that an investigation was done by the detective. And again, whether or not he believed the girl's report was true may very well be irrelevant. He may simply be required to report these things to the authorities when he hears of them.

The penalty for his actions will most likely depend on whether his actions were malicious or just negligent.

Also, failure to report is the lesser charge. The more serious charge is tampering with a witness. Quite simply, it is never appropriate to advise a person--especially a minor--not to report a crime to the police. I suspect they wouldn't have come down nearly as hard as the are if it weren't for this offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to break it to you, Vort, but it is very possible based on the charge that the bishop--yes, this particular bishop--a) did not follow proper procedure, b) made a bad mistake, and c) was wrong and should have reported.

d) followed proper procedure and got bad advise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to break it to you, Vort, but it is very possible based on the charge that the bishop--yes, this particular bishop--a) did not follow proper procedure, b) made a bad mistake, and c) was wrong and should have reported.

Sure it's possible. I never even suggested otherwise. But saying "It's possible this bishop messed up badly" is a far cry from saying "This bishop sure did that girl dirt, and shame on him for it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic
Hidden

Now, what do you think are the possiblities for Church discipline to be imposed on this man if he is proven to have broken the law? Seems harsh on the guy, particularly if he acted out of bad training, ignorance or such, but I throw that out there for discussion.

Link to comment

We will hear more on September 1.

Open questions:

* Did bishop Moon call the toll-free number for guidance?

* Will the church be providing him legal representation?

The September 1 hearing is only an initial appearance; he'll probably just enter a plea and get a new court date.

It's very possible that we won't hear much about this at all--details will be hammered out in private negotiations between the county attorney and his own lawyer. My prediction is that the felony will be dismissed and he'll get a slap on the wrist--maybe even a plea in abeyance--on the Class B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort, even the most strident on this string, who are presuming he offered the poor counsel, do not condemn the bishop as malicious, or out to protect a predator. What I see repeated is that he made a poor choice, may not have had proper training, ought to have called for advice on a complicated matter, should have given different counsel, etc. None of that sounds like throwing the guy under the bus, or condemning judgment of a brother. You may be right though, that if we knew the context, we might not be questioning the bishop at all. All things are possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

More news on this difficult deal:

Deseret News: Judge weighing whether Mormon bishop should stand trial for failure to report abuse

The part that will make folks upset the most:

During an interview with Tucker, the girl said Moon told her she didn't need to contact police, should consider what her abuser was going through and also consider the potential harm her allegations could cause. She also said the bishop told her she should re-evaluate the way she dresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would respectfully disagree, at least in part. Bishop is being charged with failure to report (class B misdemeanor) and witness tampering (third degree felony).

That the bishop was informed and took no action, seems to be corroborated both by the accuser and police personnel as well as the bishop's own admissions. But the felony witness tampering charge seems to hinge solely on the accuser's own recollection of statements made in a confidential setting that, for all I know, the bishop may deny ever having made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FEBRUARY

Young man: Bishop, Sally and I hav......

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 righ......

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.

You are so wrong here.

Once (in this hypothetical situation) Sally said "Billy RAPED me" that's it....it goes to law enforcement and Billy should face a disciplinary council after the charges against him are delt with in court.

As soon as Bishop said "Sally, I think we need to talk about this" he committed a misdemeanor. All bishops have been trained on this specifically plus they have a free line to call and clear up any doubt plus they have the stake president to call at any time, 24/7, to ask what should be done. This happens in church sometimes and as soon as 'rape' or sexaul abuse in any form is mentioned the answer is always the same: police first then church steps in after the police and DA are done.

Edited by Juan_P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody said something in a confidential one-on-one interview?

From an evidentiary point of view, this will be very interesting.

There's the phone call between the detective and the Bishop in question, where he confirms parts of that conversation with the girl as well as actually asks the cop if "this is a case he should report". That detective provide the proof beyond reasonable doubt.

But from what the judge said though, it seems he is looking for a way out for this Bishop since 6 others knew about this before the bishop did, so maybe he doesn't end up charged.

By the way , the real sucker for this Bishop is that if he is charged he will have to come up with all the cash to fund his defence, the church wont help him with legal costs even though he is a currently serving Bishop.

Link to comment

I would respectfully disagree, at least in part.

I did, too until I read what the judge said.

Judge Anderson — after listening to nearly four hours of testimony and argument — questioned whether Moon "willfully" failed to report the abuse or was simply ignorant about his responsibility to report it.

"You don't have any evidence that he knew he had a duty to report," Anderson told Charles.

"It's clear he has a duty to report and didn't report," the judge added later. "I'm unsure whether the state has to show he knew he had a duty to report."

Anderson said he will decide whether Moon should stand trial on the charges and issue a written decision early next year.

Ultimately, in reading through what has been said, I do not disagree with Vort's point, perhaps just the somewhat judgemental way he likes to tell others not to be judgemental. :P

However, his point, even now, is still valid.

There are varying degrees of abuse, even sexual abuse and assault. For all we know, it could have been reported to the Bishop as a slap on the buttocks (legally considered assault) or some guy at school mooning her (indecent exposure). (I was unable to read the first news report as KSL.com is blocked at my work and am unsure if any specifics were stated concerning what was actually reported to the Bishop.)

It is obvious that this particular case was such that the Bishop initially assumed it did not warrant being reported as did several others who knew about the instance before the Bishop did. (according to the report)

It also sounds like the Bishop encouraged her to dress modestly, learn to forgive those who harm us, and be charitable in considering the feelings of others. My own Bishop counsels the young women in our ward these very same counsels as does the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet and modern prophets.

However, I certainly would not minimize abuse of any type, but especially sexual abuse and its terrible consequences. I can only hope that the Bishop's counsel and (in)actions were done from the perspective of charity and the best of intentions. The fact that he is still serving as Bishop and still sits on the board tells me that both agencies tend to not see Bishop Moon as a threat as others who have been accused of abuse in the past have immediately been released, pending investigations.

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