Should LDS Bishops Be Charged in Susan Brock Sex Scandal?

[_3sheets2thewind]

the arizona law on mandatory reporting is just absurd.

What Christian religion teaches that child molestation is every reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.?

Secondly, as much as I do not like the law, I think Susan Brock has a tort claim against her Bishop. A confession to a Bishop is to be confidential, her Bishop told someone else thus breaching confidentiality.

IF her Bishop was concerned about anything when violating confidentiality he would have called the police.

Lastly, WTF, are the parents doing going to their gawldamned Bishop and Stake President for? If you are concerned about your child being molest go the fragging police you dip****s

[_The Nehor]

Secondly, as much as I do not like the law, I think Susan Brock has a tort claim against her Bishop. A confession to a Bishop is to be confidential, her Bishop told someone else thus breaching confidentiality.

Did she ever confess?

[_The Nehor]

Then again, the Bishops don't appear to be too bright here either.

So... did their 'gift of discernment' peter-out all of a sudden when it was really needed? Or was it that Jesus simply made a mistake in calling these guys as Bishops?

You know when LDS say we believe our leaders are fallible?

We do actually mean that.

[_harmony]

I hate when this sort of thing comes up.

20 years ago, my daughter was nearly raped by the nephew of the bishop in a neighboring ward, who was leaving the next week on his mission. 20 years ago, I was not the person that I am now. 20 years ago, I followed my priesthood holder's counsel. 20 years ago, I sat in my bishop's office with my husband and told my bishop what had happened... and that guy blessed the sacrament that next day and left on his mission the next week.

I didn't know what to do, and I trusted people I shouldn't have trusted. I was at fault, because I didn't know and I should have.

Do I regret what I didn't do? Every damn day. Can I change it? Nope. Thankfully she recovered from it.

[_Inconceivable]

I'm curious if there is any counseling of Church officials about this sort of thing.

When a bishop, BP, SP or even Seminary teacher is made aware of any form of child abuse, they are required by the church to report it immediately to the legal counsel of the church (as well as to the SP) - not to local law enforcement. The legal counsel tells the bishops what they should and should not do.

There is very little doubt in my mind that the legal department was fully aware of the situation and recommended to the bishops the exact behavior they have exhibited.

Regardless, the bishops and the stake president should be charged. We all know the Mormon church will defend them, but perhaps this will finally set a precedent.

And yes, the names of the suits in the legal department of the church and even the prophet should be brought up on charges as well. The bishops are most likely the fall guys here.

Now if Jesus or God actually run the church as is testified to by the Mormon prophet, the deitys should get their asses indicted as well. But we all know they really don't have anything to do with this church and the behavior exhibited by the prophet on down.

[_moksha]

While freed from criminal suit, the Church would settle if a civil suit was pursued by the boy or even the parents of his girlfriend, whom Susan Brock encouraged and enabled the two to have underaged sex in the back seat of her vehicle. The Bishops knew about this too.

Since all involved are LDS, such a suit is moot.

[_moksha]

Still, I place most of the blame on the parents who found out and then decided to hold a meeting with their Bishop and then left "under the impression" that the authorities would be called. Morons.

How could the Bishops have failed to ascertain who had been contacted and what they planned to do over the course of an interview. If these questions seem obvious to me, I feel that smarter people than I such as these two Bishops would have asked them.

Wonder if Brock's husband being the County Supervisor had something to do with the hesitancy to begin a Church court. Seems the Church has a strong reaction at times to sexual matters.

[_Baker]

I hate when this sort of thing comes up.

20 years ago, my daughter was nearly raped by the nephew of the bishop in a neighboring ward, who was leaving the next week on his mission. 20 years ago, I was not the person that I am now. 20 years ago, I followed my priesthood holder's counsel. 20 years ago, I sat in my bishop's office with my husband and told my bishop what had happened... and that guy blessed the sacrament that next day and left on his mission the next week.

I didn't know what to do, and I trusted people I shouldn't have trusted. I was at fault, because I didn't know and I should have.

Do I regret what I didn't do? Every damn day. Can I change it? Nope. Thankfully she recovered from it.

Live in Provo/Orem then? Know a very similar story, but the person I know would have been the offender, father was a church big whig.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Secondly, as much as I do not like the law, I think Susan Brock has a tort claim against her Bishop. A confession to a Bishop is to be confidential, her Bishop told someone else thus breaching confidentiality.

Did she ever confess?

the reports are that she confessed to her Bishop. Her bishop then called the victims bishop, the victims bishop called the victim in, where in the victim bishop learned from the victim that brock had understated what she had done. So I say brock has claim against her bishop for violating confidences.

And as I understand it the CHI is "call the legal department".

[_harmony]

Live in Provo/Orem then? Know a very similar story, but the person I know would have been the offender, father was a church big whig.

I've never lived in Utah (thank you, God!)