LDS Freedom Forum

Robin Hood wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 9:41 am

gradles21 wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 6:51 am The vast majority of the Bishops that I've known are good guys, I'm sure some of them are devastated when Kirton McConkie and the Stake President tells them not to go to the police. I know for me if a grown man confessed to me that he is raping his children it would take all of my power to not pull out my 9mm and work on my double tap, and if i were able to restrain myself i would be dialing 9-1-1 before he even left my office, screw KM and the SP.

Having served as a bishop and having to deal with this issue, I found the opposite was true. I was unequivocally instructed to go to the police if I hadn't already done so (I had). The church legal people were very helpful and acted swiftly and decisively.
I can't fault them.

Isn't it usually the local bishop who messes up by not following church instruction to go to the police?

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 12:32 pm

Fred wrote: ↑November 8th, 2023, 6:58 pm

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 8th, 2023, 6:42 pm https://apnews.com/article/mormon-sex-a ... f222c35e7e

“On Friday, Nov. 3, 2023, an Arizona Superior Court judge dismissed a high-profile child sexual abuse lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ruling that church officials who knew that Paul Adams, a parishioner, was sexually abusing his daughter had no duty to report the abuse to police or social service agencies because the information was received during a spiritual confession.”

“In a prepared statement, the church said, “We are pleased with the Arizona Superior Court’s decision granting summary judgment for the Church and its clergy and dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims.”

Why is there no concern for the child?

Nowhere. I don't know about anyone else, but I believe Jesus would not release a press statement, saying that, "We are pleased with the court's decision.” The 2nd daughter was 6-weeks old.

My experience is that the church does two things: it shows great compassion and assistance to those who were harmed in anyway but also attempts to avoid lawsuits aimed at the deepest pockets associated with the issue. The church didn't do harm to the children. The local bishop, it appears, messed up by not reporting to the police. They're not suing the local bishop because he doesn't have the deep pockets. They're not suing the father who perpetrated these acts. The church, by association, which had no idea what was going on, is somehow responsible? I don't think so.

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:01 pm

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 12:32 pm

Fred wrote: ↑November 8th, 2023, 6:58 pm

Why is there no concern for the child?

Nowhere. I don't know about anyone else, but I believe Jesus would not release a press statement, saying that, "We are pleased with the court's decision.” The 2nd daughter was 6-weeks old.

My experience is that the church does two things: it shows great compassion and assistance to those who were harmed in anyway but also attempts to avoid lawsuits aimed at the deepest pockets associated with the issue. The church didn't do harm to the children. The local bishop, it appears, messed up by not reporting to the police. They're not suing the local bishop because he doesn't have the deep pockets. They're not suing the father who perpetrated these acts. The church, by association, which had no idea what was going on, is somehow responsible? I don't think so.

Yes they are, in addition to those involved. They need to prioritize victims over abusers. Period.

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:33 pm

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:01 pm

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 12:32 pm

Nowhere. I don't know about anyone else, but I believe Jesus would not release a press statement, saying that, "We are pleased with the court's decision.” The 2nd daughter was 6-weeks old.

My experience is that the church does two things: it shows great compassion and assistance to those who were harmed in anyway but also attempts to avoid lawsuits aimed at the deepest pockets associated with the issue. The church didn't do harm to the children. The local bishop, it appears, messed up by not reporting to the police. They're not suing the local bishop because he doesn't have the deep pockets. They're not suing the father who perpetrated these acts. The church, by association, which had no idea what was going on, is somehow responsible? I don't think so.

Yes they are, in addition to those involved. They need to prioritize victims over abusers. Period.

I must disagree. A large organization with millions of participants can only do institutional training, education, and policy making. They have the policies in place. They require anyone who works with children to take a long educational testing every six months. It's pretty involved. They also require watching videos on these subjects. The church sponsors a hotline for bishops if they have any questions regarding these issues. Institutionally the church has done more than required to protect kids. When a bishop like this falls through the one million plus potential cracks, the institutional church is not responsible.

If by prioritizing the kids first, you mean reaching out to the harmed families, then that's also the case. They try to help in any way possible including counseling costs, financial assistance in the case where the behavior results in broken families. The church isn't guilty, as best I can tell, of not helping, not caring or not prioritizing. Is it possible that anger over other issues is clouding perception on this issue?

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 6:22 pm

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:33 pm

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:01 pm

My experience is that the church does two things: it shows great compassion and assistance to those who were harmed in anyway but also attempts to avoid lawsuits aimed at the deepest pockets associated with the issue. The church didn't do harm to the children. The local bishop, it appears, messed up by not reporting to the police. They're not suing the local bishop because he doesn't have the deep pockets. They're not suing the father who perpetrated these acts. The church, by association, which had no idea what was going on, is somehow responsible? I don't think so.

Yes they are, in addition to those involved. They need to prioritize victims over abusers. Period.

I must disagree. A large organization with millions of participants can only do institutional training, education, and policy making. They have the policies in place. They require anyone who works with children to take a long educational testing every six months. It's pretty involved. They also require watching videos on these subjects. The church sponsors a hotline for bishops if they have any questions regarding these issues. Institutionally the church has done more than required to protect kids. When a bishop like this falls through the one million plus potential cracks, the institutional church is not responsible.

If by prioritizing the kids first, you mean reaching out to the harmed families, then that's also the case. They try to help in any way possible including counseling costs, financial assistance in the case where the behavior results in broken families. The church isn't guilty, as best I can tell, of not helping, not caring or not prioritizing. Is it possible that anger over other issues is clouding perception on this issue?

They care so much about kids that bishops must call Kirton Mckonkie if someone is abused.

They care so mych about kids that background checks aren’t required.

They care so much about kids they let accused pedophiles in the church doors.

They care so much about kids that if someone is accused of sexual abuse the ward sends out an an email to not “gossip” and to be kind to the perpetrator.

They care so much about kids that bishops must begin asking kids if they keep the law of chastity at age 11.

The church openly loves their special clergy penitent privilege.
These are signs they do not care about children. Please wake up.

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 6:22 pm

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:33 pm

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:01 pm

My experience is that the church does two things: it shows great compassion and assistance to those who were harmed in anyway but also attempts to avoid lawsuits aimed at the deepest pockets associated with the issue. The church didn't do harm to the children. The local bishop, it appears, messed up by not reporting to the police. They're not suing the local bishop because he doesn't have the deep pockets. They're not suing the father who perpetrated these acts. The church, by association, which had no idea what was going on, is somehow responsible? I don't think so.

Yes they are, in addition to those involved. They need to prioritize victims over abusers. Period.

I must disagree. A large organization with millions of participants can only do institutional training, education, and policy making. They have the policies in place. They require anyone who works with children to take a long educational testing every six months. It's pretty involved. They also require watching videos on these subjects. The church sponsors a hotline for bishops if they have any questions regarding these issues. Institutionally the church has done more than required to protect kids. When a bishop like this falls through the one million plus potential cracks, the institutional church is not responsible.

If by prioritizing the kids first, you mean reaching out to the harmed families, then that's also the case. They try to help in any way possible including counseling costs, financial assistance in the case where the behavior results in broken families. The church isn't guilty, as best I can tell, of not helping, not caring or not prioritizing. Is it possible that anger over other issues is clouding perception on this issue?

You don't have a clear understanding of what happened in this case. I posted a link to a video that explains the case in great detail, in my last post. Please review it to get a feel for just how despicable the church acted here.

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 7:38 pm

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 6:22 pm

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:33 pm

Yes they are, in addition to those involved. They need to prioritize victims over abusers. Period.

I must disagree. A large organization with millions of participants can only do institutional training, education, and policy making. They have the policies in place. They require anyone who works with children to take a long educational testing every six months. It's pretty involved. They also require watching videos on these subjects. The church sponsors a hotline for bishops if they have any questions regarding these issues. Institutionally the church has done more than required to protect kids. When a bishop like this falls through the one million plus potential cracks, the institutional church is not responsible.

If by prioritizing the kids first, you mean reaching out to the harmed families, then that's also the case. They try to help in any way possible including counseling costs, financial assistance in the case where the behavior results in broken families. The church isn't guilty, as best I can tell, of not helping, not caring or not prioritizing. Is it possible that anger over other issues is clouding perception on this issue?

They care so much about kids that bishops must call Kirton Mckonkie if someone is abused.

They care so mych about kids that background checks aren’t required.

They care so much about kids they let accused pedophiles in the church doors.

They care so much about kids that if someone is accused of sexual abuse the ward sends out an an email to not “gossip” and to be kind to the perpetrator.

They care so much about kids that bishops must begin asking kids if they keep the law of chastity at age 11.

The church openly loves their special clergy penitent privilege.
These are signs they do not care about children. Please wake up.

And they care so much about kids they still won’t commit to reforming their policies toward child sexual abuse or getting a new, more moral law firm to represent them!

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 6:22 pm

Mamabear wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:33 pm

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:01 pm

My experience is that the church does two things: it shows great compassion and assistance to those who were harmed in anyway but also attempts to avoid lawsuits aimed at the deepest pockets associated with the issue. The church didn't do harm to the children. The local bishop, it appears, messed up by not reporting to the police. They're not suing the local bishop because he doesn't have the deep pockets. They're not suing the father who perpetrated these acts. The church, by association, which had no idea what was going on, is somehow responsible? I don't think so.

Yes they are, in addition to those involved. They need to prioritize victims over abusers. Period.

I must disagree. A large organization with millions of participants can only do institutional training, education, and policy making. They have the policies in place. They require anyone who works with children to take a long educational testing every six months. It's pretty involved. They also require watching videos on these subjects. The church sponsors a hotline for bishops if they have any questions regarding these issues. Institutionally the church has done more than required to protect kids. When a bishop like this falls through the one million plus potential cracks, the institutional church is not responsible.

If by prioritizing the kids first, you mean reaching out to the harmed families, then that's also the case. They try to help in any way possible including counseling costs, financial assistance in the case where the behavior results in broken families. The church isn't guilty, as best I can tell, of not helping, not caring or not prioritizing. Is it possible that anger over other issues is clouding perception on this issue?

I don't mean to pile on but I disagree with you here:
"The church sponsors a hotline for bishops if they have any questions regarding these issues."

The church says bishops are to call about every situation of abuse not just if they have questions.

From the handbook:
"In some countries, the Church has established a confidential abuse help line to assist bishops and stake presidents. These leaders should promptly call the help line about every situation in which a person may have been abused—or is at risk of being abused (see 38.6.2.1). It is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."


From the church's handbook on repentance and church memberships councils.

Three Purposes of Church Membership Restrictions or Withdrawal
1. Help protect others
2. Help a person access the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance
3. Protect the integrity of the Church

32.2.1
Help Protect Others
The first purpose is to help protect others. Sometimes a person poses a physical or spiritual threat. Predatory behaviors, physical harm, sexual abuse, substance abuse, fraud, and apostasy are some of the ways this can occur. With inspiration, a bishop or stake president acts to protect others when someone poses a threat in these and other serious ways (see Alma 5:59–60).

Alma 5:59–60
Book of Mormon
59 For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

60 And now I say unto you that the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed.

That 6 month old girl and her sister were abused for 2 more years because the church's law firm said don't report it. Those girls are part of the ward the bishop is supposed to be looking out for. I can't believe the bishop didn't just ignore them and report anyway. The church lists the #1 purpose of membership restrictions or withdrawal as "Help protect others." How did the church's law firm telling the bishop not to report help protect others? #3 on the list is to protect the church. The church has hired K and M to represent them. Then the church is happy about the ruling and shows no sympathy for the victims here. That is cold and immoral. This is the same church that calls out Tim Ballard for being immoral for using RB's name to get things done.

Both are immoral but the church is blind to its own neglectful and immoral behavior. Who among us wouldn't report on the abuser? If lay members have the moral compass certainly a church kicking people out of its church for immorality understands what it means to act immorally. Why can't they walk the walk? Forget the lawsuit. There was no lawsuit when these 2 bishops kept quiet. These yes men and the church's law firm made it possible for the abuser to keep abusing a baby and a young girl. Once the church was made aware they had a moral but not lawful duty to report. If one can help another and they don't it is wrong and when it's a church like ours it's hypocrisy to say you follow Christ and then do nothing to stop satanic abuse. Not SRA, but it is satanic.

I don't know how much you know about this case so please know I'm not calling you out. The church has done many good things. Therefore I have certain expectations of the church. They've set themselves up as the authority on morality and living the higher laws of Christ.

fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 4:29 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 2:58 pm

Seed Starter wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 2:12 pm

I'm curious, why wouldn't the church just let the bishop report the abuse? The church wouldn't be held liable for a father abusing his children. Just reporting it right away would make the church look good but now they look bad. The con of not reporting is that kids keep being abused and the church has horrible PR but what is the pro for the church? Is reporting in a state that doesn't require reporting setting a precedent that may lead to required reporting? Then again, why is the church lobbying against mandatory reporting? Because then they have more legal liability if bishops screw up? I'm not sure what type of law you practice but I'd appreciate hearing your opinion on this.

I honestly have no idea why the Church didn't let the bishop report the abuse. I would have advised him to report it and I would have reported it personally. Reporting it would've been the right thing to do for the reasons you point out.
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say the fault lies with the law firm who made the decision, and obviously by extension with the Church. I imagine the Church gave the law firm too much authority and the firm acted purely on legal grounds and not moral, which is why giving the firm the authority was a mistake. One of my biggest disappointments when I started practicing law was the realization that what is legal and what is moral are often not the same. I've practiced law on my own and in a law firm, I enjoyed both, but most law firms remind me of bloated governments that are slow to change and adjust, but are more than happy to take your money.

So now that this happened and was clearly morally wrong, do you think the church will get a new law firm to handle the sexual abuse hotline or tell the current one to change their policies?

I don't think they will get a new law firm. But I would certainly hope the policies are changed. Legal questions often have moral ramifications. Lawyers give legal advice, few attorneys give moral advice. At a minimum, I'd think the attorney should give the legal advice, then their role is over and it gets kicked back to somebody who will look at the moral aspects of the situation and talk it out w/ the bishop/caller.

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 9:39 am

fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 4:29 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 2:58 pm
I honestly have no idea why the Church didn't let the bishop report the abuse. I would have advised him to report it and I would have reported it personally. Reporting it would've been the right thing to do for the reasons you point out.
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say the fault lies with the law firm who made the decision, and obviously by extension with the Church. I imagine the Church gave the law firm too much authority and the firm acted purely on legal grounds and not moral, which is why giving the firm the authority was a mistake. One of my biggest disappointments when I started practicing law was the realization that what is legal and what is moral are often not the same. I've practiced law on my own and in a law firm, I enjoyed both, but most law firms remind me of bloated governments that are slow to change and adjust, but are more than happy to take your money.

So now that this happened and was clearly morally wrong, do you think the church will get a new law firm to handle the sexual abuse hotline or tell the current one to change their policies?

I don't think they will get a new law firm. But I would certainly hope the policies are changed. Legal questions often have moral ramifications. Lawyers give legal advice, few attorneys give moral advice. At a minimum, I'd think the attorney should give the legal advice, then their role is over and it gets kicked back to somebody who will look at the moral aspects of the situation and talk it out w/ the bishop/caller.

But attorneys do have a conscious and they will be judged for if they listen to it or not.

It’s too bad the church didn’t already have something in place to weigh out the moral ramifications of their law firms legal advice. Then this entire thing could have been avoided. Talk about dropping the ball.

fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 10:18 am

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 9:39 am

fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 4:29 pm

So now that this happened and was clearly morally wrong, do you think the church will get a new law firm to handle the sexual abuse hotline or tell the current one to change their policies?

I don't think they will get a new law firm. But I would certainly hope the policies are changed. Legal questions often have moral ramifications. Lawyers give legal advice, few attorneys give moral advice. At a minimum, I'd think the attorney should give the legal advice, then their role is over and it gets kicked back to somebody who will look at the moral aspects of the situation and talk it out w/ the bishop/caller.

But attorneys do have a conscious and they will be judged for if they listen to it or not.

It’s too bad the church didn’t already have something in place to weigh out the moral ramifications of their law firms legal advice. Then this entire thing could have been avoided. Talk about dropping the ball.

What to do in this case isn't rocket science Your average 10 year old boy or girl knows what to do if a bad man is hurting kids. Call the police. And yet, the lawyer answering the hotline didn't know the right thing to do? The answer is, "bishop x by law you aren't obligated to report abuse to authorities. If abuse has been disclosed to you the church's position is to do what is right let the consequence follow. The church's main priority is to protect victims. Now hang up with me and save those children." In the handbook it clearly says the hotline is there to helps bishops and SP's, not victims. But in the handbook section just prior to the hotline stuff it explains, "With inspiration, a bishop or stake president acts to protect others when someone poses a threat in these and other serious ways (see Alma 5:59–60)."

The church, the 2 bishops involved, the lawyers dealing with the hotline, and the men who hired the law firm are all complicit here. The church likes to blame lawyers for bad decisions on very simple matters (SEC). The public ignorantly accepts it. Some people think the SEC thing is some tax issue LOL If a dummy like me can understand the SEC reporting law so can high-priced lawyers. The church's own accounting audit caught it years before it came out. I think the church made a calculated decision to ignore the reporting law to hide the money knowing $5mil is chump change for them compare to what might be lost over disclosure. They broke the law on purpose knowing they could settle.

In the abuse case, they followed the law but ignored God's law. For this, I would like to take a moment and declare them the winners of the 2023 Millstone Award. Oh no no sir, you wear it around your neck like so... Filthy cowards!

Seed Starter wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 11:36 am

fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 10:18 am

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 9:39 am
I don't think they will get a new law firm. But I would certainly hope the policies are changed. Legal questions often have moral ramifications. Lawyers give legal advice, few attorneys give moral advice. At a minimum, I'd think the attorney should give the legal advice, then their role is over and it gets kicked back to somebody who will look at the moral aspects of the situation and talk it out w/ the bishop/caller.

But attorneys do have a conscious and they will be judged for if they listen to it or not.

It’s too bad the church didn’t already have something in place to weigh out the moral ramifications of their law firms legal advice. Then this entire thing could have been avoided. Talk about dropping the ball.

What to do in this case isn't rocket science Your average 10 year old boy or girl knows what to do if a bad man is hurting kids. Call the police. And yet, the lawyer answering the hotline didn't know the right thing to do? The answer is, "bishop x by law you aren't obligated to report abuse to authorities. If abuse has been disclosed to you the church's position is to do what is right let the consequence follow. The church's main priority is to protect victims. Now hang up with me and save those children." In the handbook it clearly says the hotline is there to helps bishops and SP's, not victims. But in the handbook section just prior to the hotline stuff it explains, "With inspiration, a bishop or stake president acts to protect others when someone poses a threat in these and other serious ways (see Alma 5:59–60)."

The church, the 2 bishops involved, the lawyers dealing with the hotline, and the men who hired the law firm are all complicit here. The church likes to blame lawyers for bad decisions on very simple matters (SEC). The public ignorantly accepts it. Some people think the SEC thing is some tax issue LOL If a dummy like me can understand the SEC reporting law so can high-priced lawyers. The church's own accounting audit caught it years before it came out. I think the church made a calculated decision to ignore the reporting law to hide the money knowing $5mil is chump change for them compare to what might be lost over disclosure. They broke the law on purpose knowing they could settle.

In the abuse case, they followed the law but ignored God's law. For this, I would like to take a moment and declare them the winners of the 2023 Millstone Award. Oh no no sir, you wear it around your neck like so... Filthy cowards!

Ya I have to agree. Unfortunately I think we all pretty much know at this point that the church handbook is a pretense. It acts as if it's there to help people but really it's a way for the corporate arm of the church to make sure local leaders aren't exposing the corporation to unwanted legal liability, bad PR, or allowing the local members to act outside the control of the corporate arm's agenda and wishes. It is too bad this is the case but all signs do seem to point to this conclusion.

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 12:49 pm Just sad and despicable.
I don’t understand it. I guess the church only cares about legal this and legal that. Not actually caring about the welfare of souls.
Was it in the best interest of Paul Adams for the bishop to not report it? No! Absolutely not! It allowed him to not repent, and to continue to heap sins upon himself! Where on earth does it say bishops should do that?!
Nowhere! And it certainly was not in the best interest of the children he was abusing, obviously.

I was actually leaning on the side of "clergy-penitent privilege" until you brought this point up. The purpose of said privilege is to allow someone who has sinned to feel safe to approach his religious leader and reveal what he's done... For penance. To change and be healed and not do it anymore. If it came up as some initially unrelated fact that is still occurring by the perpetrator's sober will, no such protection should exist or be exercised for that person or action. That's not the same as the sinner himself coming up and saying "Bishop, I've done this thing. It was wrong, I don't want to do it again. Help me!"

fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 12:12 pm

Seed Starter wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 11:36 am

fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 10:18 am

But attorneys do have a conscious and they will be judged for if they listen to it or not.

It’s too bad the church didn’t already have something in place to weigh out the moral ramifications of their law firms legal advice. Then this entire thing could have been avoided. Talk about dropping the ball.

What to do in this case isn't rocket science Your average 10 year old boy or girl knows what to do if a bad man is hurting kids. Call the police. And yet, the lawyer answering the hotline didn't know the right thing to do? The answer is, "bishop x by law you aren't obligated to report abuse to authorities. If abuse has been disclosed to you the church's position is to do what is right let the consequence follow. The church's main priority is to protect victims. Now hang up with me and save those children." In the handbook it clearly says the hotline is there to helps bishops and SP's, not victims. But in the handbook section just prior to the hotline stuff it explains, "With inspiration, a bishop or stake president acts to protect others when someone poses a threat in these and other serious ways (see Alma 5:59–60)."

The church, the 2 bishops involved, the lawyers dealing with the hotline, and the men who hired the law firm are all complicit here. The church likes to blame lawyers for bad decisions on very simple matters (SEC). The public ignorantly accepts it. Some people think the SEC thing is some tax issue LOL If a dummy like me can understand the SEC reporting law so can high-priced lawyers. The church's own accounting audit caught it years before it came out. I think the church made a calculated decision to ignore the reporting law to hide the money knowing $5mil is chump change for them compare to what might be lost over disclosure. They broke the law on purpose knowing they could settle.

In the abuse case, they followed the law but ignored God's law. For this, I would like to take a moment and declare them the winners of the 2023 Millstone Award. Oh no no sir, you wear it around your neck like so... Filthy cowards!

Ya I have to agree. Unfortunately I think we all pretty much know at this point that the church handbook is a pretense. It acts as if it's there to help people but really it's a way for the corporate arm of the church to make sure local leaders aren't exposing the corporation to unwanted legal liability, bad PR, or allowing the local members to act outside the control of the corporate arm's agenda and wishes. It is too bad this is the case but all signs do seem to point to this conclusion.

This situation illustrates why I have trouble believing church leadership when they constantly gush about one another's position as PSR's and proclaim each other to be special witnesses of Christ. They can't say it about themselves of course. That's why they have PSR groupies like sister Dew. Temple recommend interviews require us to sustain these men and church culture teaches members to constantly look to these middlemen for a proper interpretation of how to live the gospel of Christ. A good member is expected to hero-worship these men or at the very least listen and nod when others do. Anyone who has been around a while has seen this. Members constantly testify of these men as they attempt to score member points from the pulpit.

And make sure that prayer is long enough and includes the proper tone and cadence. Make sure to name drop and sound overly humble as you try to avoid letting your voice crack because you're so close to a gratitude climax. Pray as if the prophet is there. Pray as if your church career depends on it. Because it does. The men who act as if they are your intercessor to the Lord deserve your respect and you deserve to be spoken of at every Sunday lunch in the ward. I apologize. I think I might be slightly uncharitable here. I feel bad because these men aren't who I believed and who I was told they were. Cases like the one in AZ is just more evidence of these men acting for the wrong side. These are not mistakes, this is willful disobedience to the Lord and ends justify the means corporate immorality.

Seed Starter wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 1:55 pm

fractal_light_harvest wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 12:12 pm

Seed Starter wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 11:36 am

What to do in this case isn't rocket science Your average 10 year old boy or girl knows what to do if a bad man is hurting kids. Call the police. And yet, the lawyer answering the hotline didn't know the right thing to do? The answer is, "bishop x by law you aren't obligated to report abuse to authorities. If abuse has been disclosed to you the church's position is to do what is right let the consequence follow. The church's main priority is to protect victims. Now hang up with me and save those children." In the handbook it clearly says the hotline is there to helps bishops and SP's, not victims. But in the handbook section just prior to the hotline stuff it explains, "With inspiration, a bishop or stake president acts to protect others when someone poses a threat in these and other serious ways (see Alma 5:59–60)."

The church, the 2 bishops involved, the lawyers dealing with the hotline, and the men who hired the law firm are all complicit here. The church likes to blame lawyers for bad decisions on very simple matters (SEC). The public ignorantly accepts it. Some people think the SEC thing is some tax issue LOL If a dummy like me can understand the SEC reporting law so can high-priced lawyers. The church's own accounting audit caught it years before it came out. I think the church made a calculated decision to ignore the reporting law to hide the money knowing $5mil is chump change for them compare to what might be lost over disclosure. They broke the law on purpose knowing they could settle.

In the abuse case, they followed the law but ignored God's law. For this, I would like to take a moment and declare them the winners of the 2023 Millstone Award. Oh no no sir, you wear it around your neck like so... Filthy cowards!

Ya I have to agree. Unfortunately I think we all pretty much know at this point that the church handbook is a pretense. It acts as if it's there to help people but really it's a way for the corporate arm of the church to make sure local leaders aren't exposing the corporation to unwanted legal liability, bad PR, or allowing the local members to act outside the control of the corporate arm's agenda and wishes. It is too bad this is the case but all signs do seem to point to this conclusion.

This situation illustrates why I have trouble believing church leadership when they constantly gush about one another's position as PSR's and proclaim each other to be special witnesses of Christ. They can't say it about themselves of course. That's why they have PSR groupies like sister Dew. Temple recommend interviews require us to sustain these men and church culture teaches members to constantly look to these middlemen for a proper interpretation of how to live the gospel of Christ. A good member is expected to hero-worship these men or at the very least listen and nod when others do. Anyone who has been around a while has seen this. Members constantly testify of these men as they attempt to score member points from the pulpit.

And make sure that prayer is long enough and includes the proper tone and cadence. Make sure to name drop and sound overly humble as you try to avoid letting your voice crack because you're so close to a gratitude climax. Pray as if the prophet is there. Pray as if your church career depends on it. Because it does. The men who act as if they are your intercessor to the Lord deserve your respect and you deserve to be spoken of at every Sunday lunch in the ward. I apologize. I think I might be slightly uncharitable here. I feel bad because these men aren't who I believed and who I was told they were. Cases like the one in AZ is just more evidence of these men acting for the wrong side. These are not mistakes, this is willful disobedience to the Lord and ends justify the means corporate immorality.

Yes I believe their agenda is to portray themselves as Jesus' personal "power brokers". If you want to get to Him, you must go through them and jump through all their hoops. That's the image they appear to actively being going for.

Jamescm wrote: ↑November 16th, 2023, 12:52 pm

Wolfwoman wrote: ↑November 9th, 2023, 12:49 pm Just sad and despicable.
I don’t understand it. I guess the church only cares about legal this and legal that. Not actually caring about the welfare of souls.
Was it in the best interest of Paul Adams for the bishop to not report it? No! Absolutely not! It allowed him to not repent, and to continue to heap sins upon himself! Where on earth does it say bishops should do that?!
Nowhere! And it certainly was not in the best interest of the children he was abusing, obviously.

I was actually leaning on the side of "clergy-penitent privilege" until you brought this point up. The purpose of said privilege is to allow someone who has sinned to feel safe to approach his religious leader and reveal what he's done... For penance. To change and be healed and not do it anymore. If it came up as some initially unrelated fact that is still occurring by the perpetrator's sober will, no such protection should exist or be exercised for that person or action. That's not the same as the sinner himself coming up and saying "Bishop, I've done this thing. It was wrong, I don't want to do it again. Help me!"

By not helping this man he ended up taking his own life and the innocence of an infant and young girl.