AZ abuse case update

This is for encouragement, ideas, and support for people going through a faith transition no matter where you hope to end up. This is also the place to laugh, cry, and love together.
Post Reply
Cnsl1
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:27 pm

AZ abuse case update

Post by Cnsl1 » Mon Dec 26, 2022 2:29 am

This is an update on the southern AZ abuse case where a church member sexually abused his young children.

In case you need a reminder:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.12news ... 8c4976d175

Very recently an appeals court overturned a lower court decision that the ward clerk was not under the same clergy rules and needed to answer questions about what was said in the perpetrator's excommunication trial.

The appeals court sided with the church and said ward clerk was a bpric second counselor at the time and was still covered under the clergy exception and did not have to report either what was said in the excommunication trial or the abuse.

User avatar
deacon blues
Posts: 1756
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 am

Re: AZ abuse case update

Post by deacon blues » Mon Dec 26, 2022 11:27 am

If I was the victim I'd be pissed too. In fact I'm pissed just reading about it. :cry: :x
God is Love. God is Truth. The greatest problem with organized religion is that the organization becomes god, rather than a means of serving God.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 4607
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: AZ abuse case update

Post by moksha » Thu Dec 29, 2022 4:25 am

This is a big win for Kirton McConkie and the Church in keeping abuse hidden and perpetuated. While not winning one for the Gipper, you could consider this taking it up the butt for the prophet.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:12 pm

Re: AZ abuse case update

Post by nibbler » Thu Dec 29, 2022 5:50 am

Cnsl1 wrote:
Mon Dec 26, 2022 2:29 am
The appeals court sided with the church and said ward clerk was a bpric second counselor at the time and was still covered under the clergy exception and did not have to report either what was said in the excommunication trial or the abuse.
Is it "didn't have to" or "barred from" giving testimony? Could the ward clerk give testimony if they wanted to?

If I remember correctly, church lawyers argue that the abuse doesn't have to be reported but they couch it in language that could lead someone to believe that they couldn't legally report.

From the article:
Herrod later told a second bishop, who also kept the matter secret after consulting with church officials who maintain that the bishops were excused from reporting the abuse to police under the state’s so-called clergy-penitent privilege.
Excused from reporting. Meaning they aren't legally required to report. "No church lawyers, you don't understand. I know I'm not required to report but I want to report."

And now they're pulling the same trick with the ward clerk? At some point these Milgram Mormons need to grow a spine and report/testify.
We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.
– Anais Nin

Cnsl1
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:27 pm

Re: AZ abuse case update

Post by Cnsl1 » Sat Dec 31, 2022 6:04 am

To answer your question, based on what I've read locally and what I've heard from others closer to the story, the former ward clerk was kept from testifying or told he could not , based on the same clergy rules. That former clerk was not voluntarily coming forward at this point.

I think the ward clerk also served as bpric 2nd counselor and has been a target of the children's attorney for a while. The net was cast pretty wide, searching for anyone connected with the family who could have known about the abuse and did not report. Most of us feel it is unconscionable to know of child abuse and not report it, but I do feel for these men who were expressly told by the church hotline that they could not. I think they were made to feel like they could get in legal trouble if they reported something that was supposed to be confidential between a ward member and bishop-- and by extension-- bishopric. They are definitely caught in the middle of this mess but the church seems to be supporting and defending them as they defend the cooperation.

Contrast what would have happened if the first bishop would have gone against the recommendation and immediately reported. The perpetrator would have been arrested before the younger child could have been abused. He and his wife might have tried to sue the bishop and the church, but the church would have again defended itself, and by extension, the bishop, AND would have all the public support.

Kinda reminds me of a song I used to know.. do what is right let the consequence follow. What was morally right? What would Jesus do? Try to do that.

F#@% what the church hotline says.

That being said... I understand the extreme difficulty this might pose for a true to the faith TBM bishop.

User avatar
alas
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: AZ abuse case update

Post by alas » Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:30 pm

Cnsl1 wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2022 6:04 am
To answer your question, based on what I've read locally and what I've heard from others closer to the story, the former ward clerk was kept from testifying or told he could not , based on the same clergy rules. That former clerk was not voluntarily coming forward at this point.

I think the ward clerk also served as bpric 2nd counselor and has been a target of the children's attorney for a while. The net was cast pretty wide, searching for anyone connected with the family who could have known about the abuse and did not report. Most of us feel it is unconscionable to know of child abuse and not report it, but I do feel for these men who were expressly told by the church hotline that they could not. I think they were made to feel like they could get in legal trouble if they reported something that was supposed to be confidential between a ward member and bishop-- and by extension-- bishopric. They are definitely caught in the middle of this mess but the church seems to be supporting and defending them as they defend the cooperation.

Contrast what would have happened if the first bishop would have gone against the recommendation and immediately reported. The perpetrator would have been arrested before the younger child could have been abused. He and his wife might have tried to sue the bishop and the church, but the church would have again defended itself, and by extension, the bishop, AND would have all the public support.

Kinda reminds me of a song I used to know.. do what is right let the consequence follow. What was morally right? What would Jesus do? Try to do that.

F#@% what the church hotline says.

That being said... I understand the extreme difficulty this might pose for a true to the faith TBM bishop.
What you are really saying here is that the church is evil for lying to the bishops about whether or not they could safely protect the children. It is not the local leaders who are evil, but the top leaders who hire a legal team that lies to bishops and tells them they could get sued for reporting. The church thinks that confessing changes the abuser and it does not. Only reporting changes the abusers. This is not like a little sin where repenting is easy and the bishop can listen to a confession and know the child is now safe cause the guy will stop. And even if he stops, there is STILL an abused child who need lots of counseling and they are abandoning this injured child. Walking past on the other side of the road and pretending the injured person sent there, like NOT Good Samaritan.

Cnsl1
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:27 pm

Re: AZ abuse case update

Post by Cnsl1 » Sun Jan 01, 2023 2:06 pm

Yes

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: AZ abuse case update

Post by Red Ryder » Tue Jan 03, 2023 3:33 pm

Thanks for the update and clarification on the ward clerk.

It’s infuriating to see how the church has reacted in this particular case. Actually, to see how they operate and actively try to discredit certain people while protecting themselves and their policies.

End the worthiness interviews and make it a policy that all confessions of abuse will be reported regardless of state specific laws.
“It always devolves to Pantaloons. Always.” ~ Fluffy

“I switched baristas” ~ Lady Gaga

“Those who do not move do not notice their chains.” ~Rosa Luxemburg

User avatar
Angel
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 8:26 am

Re: AZ abuse case update

Post by Angel » Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:14 pm

alas wrote:
Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:30 pm

What you are really saying here is that the church is evil for lying to the bishops about whether or not they could safely protect the children. It is not the local leaders who are evil, but the top leaders who hire a legal team that lies to bishops and tells them they could get sued for reporting. The church thinks that confessing changes the abuser and it does not. Only reporting changes the abusers. This is not like a little sin where repenting is easy and the bishop can listen to a confession and know the child is now safe cause the guy will stop. And even if he stops, there is STILL an abused child who need lots of counseling and they are abandoning this injured child. Walking past on the other side of the road and pretending the injured person sent there, like NOT Good Samaritan.
Oh, don't worry, the child will get *counseling* .... aka further brainwashing by an LDS Inc. phycologist trained at distorting and twisting what happened to further victimize the kid.

For anyone reading this, do NOT accept any of the so=called *counseling* services provided by the cult. It is not a service.

and.... stay the f#$# away from anyone having anything to do with the *addiction* support groups.
“You have learned something...That always feels at first as if you have lost something.” George Bernard Shaw
When it is dark enough, you can see the stars. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Cnsl1
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:27 pm

Re: AZ abuse case update

Post by Cnsl1 » Thu Jan 05, 2023 1:47 am

Several years ago, because of my occupation in mental health, I was invited to attend some addiction recovery meetings at the church. I found them to be very similar to 12 step programs such as AA.

This was several years ago and it so happened that the meetings I attended only had drug/alcohol recoverers and no porn "addiction " folks. I thought they were pretty well done, and supported/ hosted/ facilitated by a recovered drug user, not someone necessarily "called" to run the meetings. Again, very very similar to an AA meeting, which doesn't really take the place of therapy, but is helpful.

That being said, when I served in the bishopric, I knew of ward members who the bishop referred to these meetings because of porn issues. I tried to counsel the bishop that this kind of meeting probably wasn't well suited for someone who's wife caught them looking at porn, but the bishop was insistent that meeting attendance should be part of their repentance. I doubt it helped. I've since seen these addiction recovery groups become now advertised as PORN addiction recovery groups hosted by called couples with zero mental health training. I no longer see any other addiction recovery groups advertised in the stake area, but that doesn't mean they're not still happening. The porn addiction groups are typically advertised in ward bulletins.

I've never been to one of those, but I kinda want to crash one and see what nonsense is being spouted, or if they're doing any good for anyone. It could be that it's keeping someone from abusing someone else, but I doubt it. More likely they're just inducing unnecessary guilt into normal folks while the real bad guys are still doing their things.

Conman52
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:32 pm
Location: West michigan

Re: AZ abuse case update

Post by Conman52 » Thu Jan 05, 2023 2:56 pm

If the ward clerk was a decent person he would have reported it to the police no matter what !!
By their fruits ye shall know them

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests