DiscussMormonism.com

this thread was created to no continue a derail.

liz3564 wrote:
The Church has, actually started doing more focusing on the fight against sexual and physical abuse. Bishops are now instructed to report any type of sexual or physical abuse reported to them to local authorities.

Jason Bourne wrote:
Mmmmm I do not think so. Unless things have changes since I was a bishop. The instruction is to call the Salt Lake City hotline and get advice which may or may include reporting to local authorities abuse that is disclosed in a confession. The legal issues and clergy varies from state to state.

café crema wrote:

3sheets2thewind wrote:
I do not think liz is correct either. COnsider the Brock case from Arizona, SP and possibly a Bishop had statutorily enough reason to report the abuse, but they did not report it. In fact, even after Brock confessed, her Bishop did not call the police, her Bishop violated confidences and contacted the victims Bishop, and when the victim confessed the Bishop did not call the police after waiting a week for the Bishop to act, the victims Dad final went to the police.

So, based the events of the past year, I do not agree that the Church has instructed Bishops to report sexual child abuse.

As I understood it Mrs. Brock confessed, since this is a religious requirement the bishop would be exempted from reporting. While the victim's father reported it to his bishop, since it's not a confessional situation his bishop could and should have reported it.

café crema, I take liz comment that Bishops are now instructed to report child abuse, dispite State law that MAY NOT require the reporting.

So I see liz comment as saying that even if a State (arizona) exempts clergy from mandatory reporting, the Church has instructed Bishops to report the abuse. If that is what liz meant, that I do not agree with her.

In the Brock case, yes, brock confessed to her bishop. In arizona, clergy are exempted from mandatory reporting, if withholding the information is within the tenants of the religion. So, in Arizona, clergy are not required to report child abuse, but "may" if they feel so inclined. The Churches PR statement about the Brock case is "the Bishops opperated with in the law" by not reporting.

Unless some instruction was issued by the Church after the most recent Hand Book of Instruction was issued, then Jason Bourne is correct, Bishops are instructed to call a hotline and get advice. So in the end, I do not think liz has the correct information on LDS Church policy concerning Priesthood leaders reporting sexual abuse of children. Perhaps her stake has a blanket policy of "reporting" but that I do not agree the LDS Church has a blanket policy of reporting.

I mentioned on the other thread that I must have been mistaken. I remember that my brother-in-law, who served as a bishop and is now in the Stake Presidency, and also an attorney, was talking about this possible change. It looks like it didn't happen.

Sorry about the confusion.

as Jason Bourne stated, every state is different, and not every state permits the clergy to be exempted from mandatory reporting. Though it would be a very good change.