LDS Freedom Forum

I think they have a First Amendment right, I believe there’s protections, and I don’t think I want to put a clergy in a spot where they have to be excommunicated or go to jail. And those are the options and I don’t think that’s right.

TheDuke wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 9:26 pm So, I think the entire concept of someone confessing to clergy is complex. I'm not sure confidentiality should ever be violated, would be a short victory as people wouldn't come clean with anyone for any help. Now sure some will confess and repent, others will backslide but it isn't the clergy's job to do detective work at a detailed level, like police, etc...

Now a complaint or evidence from someone that is being hurt is another matter. If I were to confess to something but no one else claimed to be hurt, that would be different than if I did hurt someone and that someone went to clergy. Let's not conflate these issues. If a wife says her husband is abusing her or their children, that is not a confession, that's an accusation and must/should be investigated by people with an ability to do it. I mean I could confess to shooting JFK if I wanted to, but anyone would see I was only 6 and couldn't have done it.

However, I do see that clergy should make the LDS system aware. On another thread there was a claim that D McConkie confessed to some sin then was SP or something. This seems wrong. I.e. it seems clergy should be able to share within clergy confidence such things to ensure knowledge follows? Like psychologists sharing private information among themselves to help a patient, but keeping it within the group.

Just trying to get through the too often myriad of topics with one simple answer desired by many.

BTW, as I have said before I know only 3 people accused of molesting minors, and ALL three were lies. Lies that almost tore these three men apart and cost nearly $100,000 to overcome. I mean when that was good money! One was kept from his own children for years due to lies. Another, the police already knew the foreign (Chinese national) mother wanted custody to take her grand child out of the country. The other is just as sad.

I'm sure many are hurt by sick people. But, I'll bet that among the good people of America, many more are hurt by scheming liars, after something and using sick lies. At least those are the ones I personally know of. Just FYI.

Atrasado wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 9:08 pm Utah Senate President and latter-day saint Stuart Adams said,

I think they have a First Amendment right, I believe there’s protections, and I don’t think I want to put a clergy in a spot where they have to be excommunicated or go to jail. And those are the options and I don’t think that’s right.

In other words, Adams is stating that according to the “broad coalition of churches” he spoke to that if a clergy member, such as a Latter-day Saint bishop, reported child abuse that was revealed during a confession, he would be excommunicated. And, if the bishop didn’t report child abuse, and there was a law mandating that abuse be reported, the bishop would jailed.

So, the Church, apparently, has told it's lobbyists to imply to Utah legislators that if a bishop were to report a child abuser who had confessed to them that the bishop, not the abuser, would be excommunicated. What kind of a messed up world is this?!? I'm stunned.

I'm wracking my brain trying to understand the doctrinal basis for this and I'm drawing a blank. I know of no scripture which establishes the sanctity of confessional and I can't think of one thing from Joseph Smith that would establish this. He had several instances in which circumstances required that he reveal things which were confidential. The whole practice and idea didn't even start until 1215, so it seems like it must be an apostate Catholic idea. What the h*$# is our problem?

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 11:26 pm This is completely crazy!

I know it wasn’t the case in the 1980s, because there was a guy in my ward who was molesting his daughters and confessed to the bishop and the bishop reported it to the police. I’m pretty sure he did anyway. He either reported it himself or he told the perpetrator to turn himself into the police. The guy was convicted and did time, and the bishop was not ex’d. This was not in Utah tho, but in AZ.

TheDuke wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 9:26 pm So, I think the entire concept of someone confessing to clergy is complex. I'm not sure confidentiality should ever be violated, would be a short victory as people wouldn't come clean with anyone for any help. Now sure some will confess and repent, others will backslide but it isn't the clergy's job to do detective work at a detailed level, like police, etc...

Now a complaint or evidence from someone that is being hurt is another matter. If I were to confess to something but no one else claimed to be hurt, that would be different than if I did hurt someone and that someone went to clergy. Let's not conflate these issues. If a wife says her husband is abusing her or their children, that is not a confession, that's an accusation and must/should be investigated by people with an ability to do it. I mean I could confess to shooting JFK if I wanted to, but anyone would see I was only 6 and couldn't have done it.

However, I do see that clergy should make the LDS system aware. On another thread there was a claim that D McConkie confessed to some sin then was SP or something. This seems wrong. I.e. it seems clergy should be able to share within clergy confidence such things to ensure knowledge follows? Like psychologists sharing private information among themselves to help a patient, but keeping it within the group.

Just trying to get through the too often myriad of topics with one simple answer desired by many.

BTW, as I have said before I know only 3 people accused of molesting minors, and ALL three were lies. Lies that almost tore these three men apart and cost nearly $100,000 to overcome. I mean when that was good money! One was kept from his own children for years due to lies. Another, the police already knew the foreign (Chinese national) mother wanted custody to take her grand child out of the country. The other is just as sad.

I'm sure many are hurt by sick people. But, I'll bet that among the good people of America, many more are hurt by scheming liars, after something and using sick lies. At least those are the ones I personally know of. Just FYI.

tmac wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 9:46 pm There is no clergy exemption to mandatory reporting in Utah. And, the whole excommunication idea is complete nonsense. At most, a bishop might be released from his calling.

The reason all of this has gotten so complicated in the Mormon Church, just as it did in the Catholic Church, is because so much abuse has happened in and through the Church, which exposes the Church to liability. So, enter Kirton McConkie and their hotline. It’s there for both victims and bishops — but mostly to protect the Church.

ransomme wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:25 pm

TheDuke wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 9:26 pm So, I think the entire concept of someone confessing to clergy is complex. I'm not sure confidentiality should ever be violated, would be a short victory as people wouldn't come clean with anyone for any help. Now sure some will confess and repent, others will backslide but it isn't the clergy's job to do detective work at a detailed level, like police, etc...

Now a complaint or evidence from someone that is being hurt is another matter. If I were to confess to something but no one else claimed to be hurt, that would be different than if I did hurt someone and that someone went to clergy. Let's not conflate these issues. If a wife says her husband is abusing her or their children, that is not a confession, that's an accusation and must/should be investigated by people with an ability to do it. I mean I could confess to shooting JFK if I wanted to, but anyone would see I was only 6 and couldn't have done it.

However, I do see that clergy should make the LDS system aware. On another thread there was a claim that D McConkie confessed to some sin then was SP or something. This seems wrong. I.e. it seems clergy should be able to share within clergy confidence such things to ensure knowledge follows? Like psychologists sharing private information among themselves to help a patient, but keeping it within the group.

Just trying to get through the too often myriad of topics with one simple answer desired by many.

BTW, as I have said before I know only 3 people accused of molesting minors, and ALL three were lies. Lies that almost tore these three men apart and cost nearly $100,000 to overcome. I mean when that was good money! One was kept from his own children for years due to lies. Another, the police already knew the foreign (Chinese national) mother wanted custody to take her grand child out of the country. The other is just as sad.

I'm sure many are hurt by sick people. But, I'll bet that among the good people of America, many more are hurt by scheming liars, after something and using sick lies. At least those are the ones I personally know of. Just FYI.

This is an example of why lawyers are morally bankrupt, because it's rules and laws over what's right and good.

If a bishop allows abuse to continue then he becomes morally culpable.

I would proudly be excommunicated with a clean conscience before God.

And you say the victory would be short lived. What's the alternative, not victory at all?

Niemand wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:35 am It's a Catch 22. If there isn't confidentiality then fewer people will confess to it in the first place. But if fewer people confess to it then less can be done about it.

BringerOfJoy wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 11:14 am There was a case about 6 or 7 years ago in either Oregon or Washington where a Bishop DID report, and the family of the accused came back and sued the bishop and the church because there was not--at that time--mandatory reporting in which ever state it occurred. I am operating from memory here, and that's the best I can do. I remember discussing it a man in our ward because he was called in to testify as a professional in the circumstance. I don't remember what the outcome of the suit was.

Does anyone else remember this?

TheDuke wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 10:12 am

ransomme wrote: ↑September 29th, 2023, 7:25 pm

TheDuke wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 9:26 pm So, I think the entire concept of someone confessing to clergy is complex. I'm not sure confidentiality should ever be violated, would be a short victory as people wouldn't come clean with anyone for any help. Now sure some will confess and repent, others will backslide but it isn't the clergy's job to do detective work at a detailed level, like police, etc...

Now a complaint or evidence from someone that is being hurt is another matter. If I were to confess to something but no one else claimed to be hurt, that would be different than if I did hurt someone and that someone went to clergy. Let's not conflate these issues. If a wife says her husband is abusing her or their children, that is not a confession, that's an accusation and must/should be investigated by people with an ability to do it. I mean I could confess to shooting JFK if I wanted to, but anyone would see I was only 6 and couldn't have done it.

However, I do see that clergy should make the LDS system aware. On another thread there was a claim that D McConkie confessed to some sin then was SP or something. This seems wrong. I.e. it seems clergy should be able to share within clergy confidence such things to ensure knowledge follows? Like psychologists sharing private information among themselves to help a patient, but keeping it within the group.

Just trying to get through the too often myriad of topics with one simple answer desired by many.

BTW, as I have said before I know only 3 people accused of molesting minors, and ALL three were lies. Lies that almost tore these three men apart and cost nearly $100,000 to overcome. I mean when that was good money! One was kept from his own children for years due to lies. Another, the police already knew the foreign (Chinese national) mother wanted custody to take her grand child out of the country. The other is just as sad.

I'm sure many are hurt by sick people. But, I'll bet that among the good people of America, many more are hurt by scheming liars, after something and using sick lies. At least those are the ones I personally know of. Just FYI.

This is an example of why lawyers are morally bankrupt, because it's rules and laws over what's right and good.

If a bishop allows abuse to continue then he becomes morally culpable.

I would proudly be excommunicated with a clean conscience before God.

And you say the victory would be short lived. What's the alternative, not victory at all?

Another BS blanket claim. Do you think about what you write? "lawyers re morally bankrupt" REALLY? and it is "because of rules and laws" REALLY. You see a world without rules and laws? You don't know god my friend. He has many rules and laws, and his leaders are called "judges", just like lawyers, always his ways on this earth have been with rules, laws, judges and lawyers. Terrible statements to make, condemning with blanket epotaphs.

Atrasado wrote: ↑September 30th, 2023, 11:45 am
It was three years ago in Oregon. A sculptor confessed to raping an underage girl and the first counselor in the bishopric turned him in. This is one of the few instances in which I'm proud of what the Church did in preventing further abuse.

The wife sued the Church for $10 million for loss of income and for loss of companionship. I'm pretty sure the case was dismissed, although I can't find a news article confirming that.

There is a confession exemption to mandated reporting in Oregon, but it doesn't matter, because churches are not legally required to use the exemption (just like in Arizona) and the first counselor was not the person who had received the confession, anyway. It isn't clear how he learned of the crimes.

Finally, the system worked, although I wish it had been the bishop who turned him in. The sheer gall of that woman! Your husband rapes someone and your upset at the people who took him off the street!!!!

Atrasado wrote: ↑September 28th, 2023, 9:08 pm Utah Senate President and latter-day saint Stuart Adams said,

I think they have a First Amendment right, I believe there’s protections, and I don’t think I want to put a clergy in a spot where they have to be excommunicated or go to jail. And those are the options and I don’t think that’s right.

In other words, Adams is stating that according to the “broad coalition of churches” he spoke to that if a clergy member, such as a Latter-day Saint bishop, reported child abuse that was revealed during a confession, he would be excommunicated. And, if the bishop didn’t report child abuse, and there was a law mandating that abuse be reported, the bishop would jailed.

So, the Church, apparently, has told it's lobbyists to imply to Utah legislators that if a bishop were to report a child abuser who had confessed to them that the bishop, not the abuser, would be excommunicated. What kind of a messed up world is this?!? I'm stunned.

I'm wracking my brain trying to understand the doctrinal basis for this and I'm drawing a blank. I know of no scripture which establishes the sanctity of confessional and I can't think of one thing from Joseph Smith that would establish this. He had several instances in which circumstances required that he reveal things which were confidential. The whole practice and idea didn't even start until 1215, so it seems like it must be an apostate Catholic idea. What the h*$# is our problem?