RFM on the LDS Church protecting child abusers

[MG 2.0]

What part do the bolded words play in all of this?

Regards,
MG

Bafflegab.

Hmm…OK.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Bafflegab.

Hmm…OK.

Regards,
MG

I’m glad we can agree on something from time to time.

[Marcus]

One more thing. This was the church’s reaction to the court’s dismissal of the suit on behalf of the two abused kids in Arizona:

This is what set RFM off on this case, and rightfully so. Because the sanctimonious craps who drafted this statement fully well know that reporting the abuse would also have been “consistent with Arizona law.”

This statement has shows as much empathy, compassion, and honesty as the typical FARMS hit job book review.

Hmm. Maybe I’m wrong about lawyers being the authors.

Back to an earlier post I made:

Even when a report is not required or is even prohibited by law (because the confession is ‘owned’ by the confessor), the help line encourages leaders to pursue ways to ensure these three goals are met.

What part do the bolded words play in all of this?

Regards,
MG

What do you think the words you bolded mean, mg, especially in light of the "three goals" ?

[MG 2.0]

Hmm…OK.

Regards,
MG

I’m glad we can agree on something from time to time.

Although I think there is something being left out of the conversation. Not being the lawyerly type, however, I can’t put my finger on it. The phrase out of the article I quoted seems like it might have more meaning than what you’re attaching to it.

Could even be important.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

MG 2.0's link to the church's response to the AP article illustrates exactly why the church deserves the condemnation it has received over this issue. The church tells the public that it has a "no tolerance" policy toward child abuse and that follows the law. That's an evasive way of stating the actual policy, which is:

When a church member self reports child abuse to Bishops, Stake Presidents or anyone involved in the church disciplinary process, the church will not report child abuse to law enforcement or child protective services unless the law specifically forces them to do so.

The church ties itself in knots trying to avoid giving this straightforward description of policy.

Here are my comments on the church's press release:

For generations, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have spoken in the strongest of terms about the evils of abuse and the need to care for those who are victims or survivors of abuse.

Talk is cheap. Why haven't you acted in the strongest terms by reporting all abuse to law enforcement and/or child welfare agencies

From the thundering rebuke of former President Gordon B. Hinckley to the recent words of healing offered by Elder Patrick Kearon of the Presidency of the Seventy, our feelings are clear.

Why aren't you interested in the feelings of the victims whose abuse you failed to stop when you could?

We echo those sentiments and teachings today.

You mean faint repetitions of your prior words?

Our hearts are broken as we learn of any abuse.

And yet not broken enough to instruct your Bishops and Stake Presidents to report abuse to law enforcement or the agencies charged with protecting children from abuse.

It cannot be tolerated. It cannot be excused.

And yet you both tolerate and excuse it when you could have stopped it.

The Savior Jesus Christ wants us all to do better and be better.

The Jesus of the New Testament would have condemned you and commanded you to do better.

It is important to us that our members and friends understand how deeply we feel about this subject.

But not important that you stop the abuse when you can.

It is also important that they have accurate information about how we approach this matter.

That would be important, but that's not what you are about to do in the following paragraphs.

Church leaders and members are instructed in the Church’s “General Handbook” that their responsibilities related to abuse are as follows:

Assure that child sexual abuse is stopped.

Then why are there so many cases where Bishops and Stake Presidents don't make sure the abuse is stopped.

Help victims receive care, including from professional counselors.

But you didn't do that in the very case we are talking about, as well as in others in which your leaders failed to report.

Comply with whatever reporting is required by law.

And that's the statement that puts the lie to every statement that came before it. Report only when the law requires it. The applicable Arizona statute in this very case expressly stated that the Bishop was legally permitted to inform law enforcement and child protective services that the abuser had reported his abuse to the Bishop. The church's lawyers told him not to report, so he didn't.

Since the Church released its first statement about the Associated Press story, many have wondered about what was incorrect or mischaracterized in their reporting. The information and details below are provided to help media, members and others understand how the Church approaches the topic of child abuse, particularly as it relates to this specific case.

We're a long ways into this press release now, and we haven't heard one word about the victim -- the young girl who went on to be abused for seven years because your lawyers told a bishop not to report. One is tempted to conclude that this victim's suffering -- as well as that of her younger sibling -- is much less important to the church than its PR image.

What did the Associated Press story get wrong?

It's really hard to tell because you never tell us what the AP actually said and why it was wrong.

The AP story has significant flaws in its facts and timeline, which lead to erroneous conclusions.

Ditto.

We are puzzled as to why or how a media source as respected as the Associated Press would make such egregious errors in reporting and editing.

We are puzzled why your lawyers told the bishop not to report when he was legally permitted to do so, thus failing to take the one most effective step to stop the abuse. We are also puzzled that you would permit abuse to continue for seven years without anyone stopping or reporting it.

Each of the facts below is contained in public filings in the pending case and is taken from the sworn testimony of Leizza Adams, the mother of the victims.

So, the person who also covered up the abuse for years. Is that all the information that is contained in the court file? Or are you cherry picking. And, of course, this is pretty rich coming from the organization that insists it has the legal right to hide relevant information to protect itself.

The Associated Press was directed to those filings prior to the publication of their first story, but they chose not to include any of them.

Wait, all this is about one story, when there was more than one?

Those filings, accessible to and familiar to the Associated Press, are the source for the following facts:
In late 2011, Paul Adams made a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child.

Oh, it was only once. And it was in the past. So, that makes it okay to tell the Bishop not to report? Do you understand how child abuse works?

The bishop then called the help line, where he was advised about how to fully comply with Arizona’s reporting laws.

You just can't bring yourselves to provide an honest description: even though the Bishop was legally permitted to report the abuse, he was instructed by your lawyers not to report.

In compliance with that counsel, from that time forward, the bishop repeatedly tried to intervene and encourage reporting, including by:

counseling Paul Adams to repent and seek professional help
asking Paul Adams to report (he refused and also refused to give permission to the bishop to make the report)
encouraging Paul Adams's wife, Leizza, to report (she refused and later served time in prison for her role)
encouraging Paul Adams to move out of the home (which he did temporarily)
urging Leizza to seek professional counseling for Paul and their children, which would trigger a mandatory report (they refused)

Wait -- all this based on one past report of a single incident? If what the Bishop was told was only a single, past incident, why all this effort? If it justified all this effort, which clearly was ineffective, why wasn't the Bishop instructed to do the one thing that would have been effective: call the police and child protective services.

In 2013, Adams was excommunicated for his behavior and lost his membership in the Church.

So, his child abuse was enough for the church to excommunicate him, but not to call the police or child protective services. You simply washed your hands of him and allowed the abuse to continue.

Prior to and after his limited confession, Paul rarely attended Church or talked to leaders.

So? you had enough information to excommunicate him, but still refused to stop the abuse.

It wasn’t until 2017, nearly four years later, that Church leaders learned from media reports the extent of the abuse, that the abuse had continued and that it involved a second victim born after Paul’s excommunication.

Be honest. We don't know how much you know because you deliberately conceal the evidence. I'm not inclined to take anyone's word who hides the evidence of what happened. One of your bishops knew enough to call the hotline. A Bishop, Stake President, and a dozen High Councilmen knew enough to excommunicate the abuser. It was your failure to report what you knew to law enforcement and child protective services that permitted the "extent of the abuse" and its continuation to occur. Your failure to acknowledge your role in allowing the abuse to continue when you could have stopped it is unconscionable for an organization that claims to have anything to do with Jesus Christ.

The AP story ignores this timeline and sequence of events and implies that all these facts were known by a bishop as early as 2011, a clearly erroneous conclusion.

Okay, it's not that the AP got the facts wrong? Now we're talking about something the article implies? How about quoting from the AP article and actually refuting what it actually says.

The suggestion that the help line is used to “cover up” abuse is completely false.

The Church's abuse help line has everything to do with protecting children and has nothing to do with cover-up. It has been in existence for more than a quarter of a century. Its purpose is to:

Comply with the various laws of child abuse reporting in all 50 states and the provinces of Canada, ministering to the needs of victims and their families where we can, while reporting abuse consistent with the law.

Encourage victims, family members and perpetrators to seek professional counseling and to report abuse to the authorities themselves.
Directly report the abuse to authorities, regardless of legal exemptions from reporting requirements, when it is known that a child is in imminent danger. The help line routinely reports cases of child abuse to authorities. Outside experts who are aware of the Helpline have regularly praised it.

Even when a report is not required or is even prohibited by law (because the confession is “owned” by the confessor), the help line encourages leaders to pursue ways to ensure these three goals are met.

Finally, way down in the press release, we get something close to an honest representation of the policy. But your excuse for your lawyers is that the child "was not in imminent danger." Given all the information we have about the nature of and patterns in child abuse, how can you say that with a straight face? Especially when you conceal the evidence that would support or refute that contention.

Those who serve on the help line are parents and grandparents themselves and include former government child abuse investigators and child abuse prosecutors. Some are even themselves survivors of abuse. The notion that there would be any incentive on their part to cover up child abuse is absurd.

Yes, some lawyers are grandparents. Some have been involved in child abuse investigations. Some have prosecuted child abuse. Some are survivors of abuse. Also, some abuse children. None of this is relevant, because the concealment of abuse has nothing to do with the people you are talking about. That's a straw man. And you know that it is because you, the authors of this piece of ass-covering crap, are lawyers writing the kind of weaselly crap we have to write from time to time to protect our clients. And your client is a church in the legal form of a corporation.

The cover up -- the concealment -- is in the directions given to the folks on the hotline from your client -- the COJCOLDS. The church doesn't have to shield self-reports of child abuse to Bishops or Stake Presidents. It chooses to do so. And that choice means that Bishops and Stake Presidents will fail to prevent cases of child abuse because the Church directs them not to use the most effective tool they have to protect children unless the law requires them to use it. That's a choice by your client.

So, yes, the COJCOLDS covers up instances of child abuse when the abuse is self-reported by the perpetrator to their Bishop, Stake President, or anyone else in connection with church discipline. And the hotline is a tool that is used to conceal in those cases. That's the honest truth. And that is the truth that makes all the pretty words at the start of this press release "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

The overriding concern over the COJCOLDS's public image and the absence of a shred of empathy for those damaged by it's policy choices is exactly what leads to things like RFM's anger and to many folks who justifiably conclude that the organization has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

May I please have permission to make a video of this? This really MUST be heard by as many voices and as far, broad and wide as is possible. Thank you in advance....

[MG 2.0]

What do you think the words you bolded mean, mg, especially in light of the "three goals" ?

I’m actually not quite sure. That’s why I was hoping to get some insight from a lawyer in this instance.

Even when a report is not required or is even prohibited by law (because the confession is ‘owned’ by the confessor).

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

What do you think the words you bolded mean, mg, especially in light of the "three goals" ?

I’m actually not quite sure. That’s why I was hoping to get some insight from a lawyer in this instance.

Even when a report is not required or is even prohibited by law (because the confession is ‘owned’ by the confessor).

Regards,
MG

You're completely obvious with your "bafflegab."

[Res Ipsa]

I’m glad we can agree on something from time to time.

Although I think there is something being left out of the conversation. Not being the lawyerly type, however, I can’t put my finger on it. The phrase out of the article I quoted seems like it might have more meaning than what you’re attaching to it.

Could even be important.

Regards,
MG

Start with the fact that a confession isn’t property that is capable of being owned. Add the fact that, in the very case being discussed, the law clearly states that the Bishop has the legal right to report. Finish by trying to find any law in the US that prohibits bishops from reporting child abuse.

Bafflegab. Lawyers do it. And we can spot other lawyers doing it.

[MG 2.0]

… a confession isn’t property that is capable of being owned.

That is my question. Is this a doctrinal position within the field of law? It seems that in a ministerial/parishioner/confession relationship the law might dictate that the confession is a possession and/or owned by the parishioner. It belongs to them and they are sharing it with a clergy member knowing that they ‘own’ that privy information and it can’t go anywhere else beyond that relationship.

I’m not saying that I’m on board with that in all situations, but it seems as though the confessor apparently has some rights that can’t be trampled on under the law.

But who am I to say…

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

… a confession isn’t property that is capable of being owned.

That is my question. Is this a doctrinal position within the field of law? It seems that in a ministerial/parishioner/confession relationship the law might dictate that the confession is a possession and/or owned by the parishioner. It belongs to them and they are sharing it with a clergy member knowing that they ‘own’ that privy information and it can’t go anywhere else beyond that relationship.

I’m not saying that I’m on board with that in all situations, but it seems as though the confessor apparently has some rights that can’t be trampled on under the law.

But who am I to say…

Regards,
MG

As usual, you quoted only a part of the quote, without indicating you were truncating it. Your intellectual dishonesty is especially sickening, in this case.

Here's your question, and the full response, which fully dismisses your concern:

Although I think there is something being left out of the conversation. Not being the lawyerly type, however, I can’t put my finger on it. The phrase out of the article I quoted seems like it might have more meaning than what you’re attaching to it.

Could even be important.

Regards,
MG

Start with the fact that a confession isn’t property that is capable of being owned. Add the fact that, in the very case being discussed, the law clearly states that the Bishop has the legal right to report. Finish by trying to find any law in the US that prohibits bishops from reporting child abuse.

Bafflegab. Lawyers do it. And we can spot other lawyers doing it.