NOM

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.

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.

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.

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.