DiscussMormonism.com

And rightly so. From what I've read (a few articles come up on a Google search), the Church was completely blameless in this civil suit involving allegations of sexual abuse (no criminal charges were filed because not enough evidence to prosecute).

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2009 ... 072209.txt

Here's the article mentioning Crockett:

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2009 ... 032209.txt

.

.

mms wrote:And rightly so. From what I've read (a few articles come up on a Google search), the Church was completely blameless in this civil suit involving allegations of sexual abuse (no criminal charges were filed because not enough evidence to prosecute).

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2009 ... 072209.txt

Here's the article mentioning Crockett:

http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2009 ... 032209.txt

I know nothing about the case other than what is stated in the articles. But the part about the SP's questioning the accused about the allegations, and then relying on the Spirit, bothererd me (even if he did call the hotline). Whenever serious charges such as these are raised, shouldn't the civil authorities be notified (regardless of what "the Spirit" says)?

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I know nothing about the case other than what is stated in the articles. But the part about the SP's questioning the accused about the allegations, and then relying on the Spirit, bothererd me (even if he did call the hotline). Whenever serious charges such as these are raised, shouldn't the civil authorities be notified (regardless of what "the Spirit" says)?

Well, according to Moroni 10:5, one may know the truth "of all things" through the Holy Ghost. If Mormons took this statement seriously (and I do not see any qualification whatsoever either explicit or implied within the text of Moroni), then, no, civil authorities need not be notified, as the spirit alone should be sufficient to know the truth about this and all other issues.

Here we have an explicit promise made by one of God's elect--that one might know the truth of all things through the power of the Holy Ghost; however, the promise is applied only in limited contexts by the faithful. I wonder why that is?

Morrissey wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I know nothing about the case other than what is stated in the articles. But the part about the SP's questioning the accused about the allegations, and then relying on the Spirit, bothererd me (even if he did call the hotline). Whenever serious charges such as these are raised, shouldn't the civil authorities be notified (regardless of what "the Spirit" says)?

Well, according to Moroni 10:5, one may know the truth "of all things" through the Holy Ghost. If Mormons took this statement seriously (and I do not see any qualification whatsoever either explicit or implied within the text of Moroni), then, no, civil authorities need not be notified, as the spirit alone should be sufficient to know the truth about this and all other issues.

Here we have an explicit promise made by one of God's elect--that one might know the truth of all things through the power of the Holy Ghost; however, the promise is applied only in limited contexts by the faithful. I wonder why that is?

Seems to me that if the allegations involve the commission of a crime, then the civil authorities ought to be notified regardless of what one feels about the Holy Spirit.

Clayton told Finaldi that the church’s instructions for leaders is to call a hotline number, not authorities, when sexual molestation complaints come up. This was the first time he ever had to call it, Clayton said.

“The point of the abuse line is to help us go through and do the right things with the authorities. We have lawyers there and I know now it’s with [his lawyer’s] firm. When the contact goes through, it goes to Kirton & McConkie,” he said. “They help us know how to navigate those waters.”

So let me understand this... Church instruction to its local leaders is to call a hotline to Church Attorneys and not the police???

I already knew Bob represented the Church, and this thread reminded me of when I brought it up: Church settles sex-abuse lawsuit

Besides being full of vintage Bob behavior - insults, nastiness, etc. - the former bishop is exceptionally coy about whether or not he has ever been paid with tithing money:

Bob wrote:Time to get a life -- get out of that apartment.

Eric wrote:Actually, I live in a condo.

It's got nothing on your SCV fortress - paid for, in part, by tithing money - but I like it.

Bob wrote:What basis do you have for claiming that my house is paid for with tithing money?

Eric wrote:Umm... who pays you when you represent the church in court?

Bob wrote:Other than identifying your father as somebody to whom I have given advice, I have never identified a single client of mine on these boards. (Not that I could really admit or deny the identity of any client unless it makes the papers or reported decisions.) What makes you think I represent the Church? And, is the Church not entitled to representation?

Eric wrote:Spoken like a true attorney.

Answer the question.

Who pays you when you represent the church in court?


Would that be tithing money?

**crickets**

Bob wrote:Umm, I cannot admit or deny that I have a client without my client's consent. Sorry; thems the rules I follow.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Seems to me that if the allegations involve the commission of a crime, then the civil authorities ought to be notified regardless of what one feels about the Holy Spirit.

I agree. I was merely commenting on the faithful's apparent lack of confidence in Moroni's promise as stated.

Eric wrote:I already knew Bob represented the Church, and this thread reminded me of when I brought it up: Church settles sex-abuse lawsuit

Besides being full of vintage Bob behavior - insults, nastiness, etc. - the former bishop is exceptionally coy about whether or not he has ever been paid with tithing money:

Bob wrote:Time to get a life -- get out of that apartment.

Eric wrote:Actually, I live in a condo.

It's got nothing on your SCV fortress - paid for, in part, by tithing money - but I like it.

Bob wrote:What basis do you have for claiming that my house is paid for with tithing money?

Eric wrote:Umm... who pays you when you represent the church in court?

Bob wrote:Other than identifying your father as somebody to whom I have given advice, I have never identified a single client of mine on these boards. (Not that I could really admit or deny the identity of any client unless it makes the papers or reported decisions.) What makes you think I represent the Church? And, is the Church not entitled to representation?

Eric wrote:Spoken like a true attorney.

Answer the question.

Who pays you when you represent the church in court?


Would that be tithing money?

**crickets**

Bob wrote:Umm, I cannot admit or deny that I have a client without my client's consent. Sorry; thems the rules I follow.

I don't think it's unreasonable for Bob to refuse to divulge how his clients pay him. Were I his client, I would expect no less. I suspect further that were he to do so, he'd be in breach of ethics.

As for whether LDS Inc. pays for attorneys fees out of tithing funds, I guess we'll never know until it opens its books.

TAK wrote:So let me understand this... Church instruction to its local leaders is to call a hotline to Church Attorneys and not the police???

From what I've seen of the Church Handbook of Instructions, it doesn't say to NOT call the police, it simply says to call the hotline.

Dr. Shades wrote:

TAK wrote:So let me understand this... Church instruction to its local leaders is to call a hotline to Church Attorneys and not the police???

From what I've seen of the Church Handbook of Instructions, it doesn't say to NOT call the police, it simply says to call the hotline.

Here's the actual language from the current CHI (emphasis mine):

If confidential information indicates that a member's abusive activities have violated applicable law, the bishop or stake president should urge the member to report these activities to the appropriate government authorities. Leaders can obtain information about local reporting requirements through the help line. When reporting is required by law, the leader should encourage the member to secure qualified legal advice.

To avoid implicating the Church in legal matters to which it is not a party, leaders should avoid testifying in civil or criminal cases or other proceedings involving abuse.

So it sounds as if the Church wants a leader to report abuse only IF it is absolutely required by law. Otherwise, the Church simply "urges" the member to turn himself in, while at the same time telling him/her to get a good lawyer. So much for 'standing for something.'