I was just sent a little video clip from April of 2013 about the LDS church going to the UT Supreme Court wanting to be exempted from these requirements. This is a standard in mental health and education. In the video it says a decision was expected within three months which would have been July but I can't find anything anywhere. Ideas? Anybody know anything about this?

Link to the video?

Apparently, the issue is that they are having problems with abusers talking to the bishops about their abuse because they can be turned in to the law. After all the temple questions specifically ask you if you have abused people. Abusers are always looking for the chance to repent....not in my lifetime.
I was upset about this yesterday,I'll be upset about it tomorrow.
It's about the lawsuits, not the victim. Its not the catholic chuch where you lose everything if you violate the law of confidentiality. It just makes it more Ok heap crap on the victim.

Fuck the LDS cult.

This conflict is an old one; I came across thus while looking for the link the OP mentioned:

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/IssuesInReligionAndPsychotherapy/article/viewFile/242/241

A confession from a church member to his or her bishop does not require that bishop to disclose the crime/be a mandatory reporter. The confessor is supposed to be persuaded by the bishop to go report to the authorities him or herself. The bishop is not supposed to go to authorities to report the crime to the authorities himself, without the permission of the confessor/criminal.

A wife or neighbor or a victim, even if they be church members, who discloses the crime to their bishop does or should require that the bishop report the crime. Only when the church member making the disclosure is also the penitent seeking confession from that bishop, does the law permit the bishop to hang back and not report the crime; note "permit". It is not against the law for the bishop to report the crime; it is against church policy.

The bishop could still report the crime, though he'd probably lose his church calling and face other church discipline as a result. It would be up to him to do so, and in the lds church where bishops generally serve only for five year terms before being replaced by another church member, why wouldn't he tell?

It is not a lifetime job or calling or true vocation; it is not something he trained for all his life/for years, it's not like he'd be permanently excommunicated from the church for doing it.

The law cannot compel the bishop to tell, but likewise it cannot restrict him from doing so.

The article you linked is dated 1986. In the article linked in this post, they are claiming Gordon Hinckley was leading the charge against child abuse since the 1980's. Uh huh. Sure.

My personal opinion is that TSCC does everything to protect their financial assets. As is their way, they talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Here is a paragraph from an article entitled "Child Abuse."
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/child-abuse

"For instance, if a teenager makes her bishop aware of abuse, his first call is to the Help Line for resources to assist the victim and prevent further abuse. If the incident is criminal in nature, the bishop also receives instructions on how to report it to legal authorities. We know of no other church that provides professional assistance for ministers to aid abuse victims 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."

From the section "The Obligation to Report":
"At the heart of many legal contests is when and whether notice of a potential abuse or abuser is reported. Church officials follow state law regarding when and how to report an act of child abuse to public authorities."

What the . . .?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/opinion/clerical-abusers-and-the-first-amendment.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-19/sex-abuse-suit-against-archdiocese-rejected-by-top-court.html

From what I can figure out the argument goes like this.

Imposing secular standards on a religious institution inhibits a church's religious freedom.

Churches have the right to decide the criteria by which they choose spiritual leaders / employees. The Church can even choose, what by secular standards is an incompetent/dangerous person, but those standards don't apply, only religious standards.

So the Church can't be held responsible for a bishop that doesn't report sexual abuse, only the man. If you hold the church responsible, then they aren't free to choose the Bishop based on their religious criteria and you're interfering with their church. Burdening the church with complying with secular laws hampers their "mission".

According the NYTimes editorial only Missouri, Wisconsin and Utah have ruled this way by 2012. SCOTUS upheld that the St. Louis archdiocese is not liable for the actions of their Missouri pedophile priest.

I'm not a lawyer and I can't find very many articles that explain the legal issue.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2013 08:31PM by crom.

I wish there were an expert on the subject on the board to explain it to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2013 10:14AM by crom.

I would make a very poor clergyman of any kind, because if I found out about child abuse it would take everything in me to call the police *before* beating the abuser to death with a baseball bat.

They aren't the only ones doing this. About ten years ago, I got into an email exchange with a director of a domestic violence shelter that was trying to get permission not to report all instances of child abuse. They were advertising a job for domestic violence advocates, but specifically excluded anyone with a degree in social work. Since I was a freshly minted social worker at the time, I was pretty flabbergasted that a domestic violence center would so blatantly exclude people with social work degrees.

It was explained to me that the center served "moms" in abusive situations who were also child abusers and the burden of having to report them made it problematic in getting them to come to the center for help. I wondered who in the world they had working for them, since social workers are definitely not the only ones who are mandated reporters, though they were the only ones specifically excluded from that job opportunity. The exchange later turned rude when I pointed out that adults are always in a better position to get help than children are… and I wondered if they were able to help men in abusive relationships. I didn't actually want to work for the domestic violence coalition; I just wanted to know why they singled out social workers by telling them not to apply for the job. They later removed that notation when I pointed out that it was discriminatory and they were getting federal funds. What sucks is that they removed the notation, but still planned to exclude social workers… so social workers would be applying for the position but automatically rejected for being social workers.

Truthfully, when it comes to certain issues like child abuse and homicidal and suicidal ideation, attorneys are the only ones who are legally allowed to maintain 100% confidentiality. There are certain situations that most professionals are ethically and legally required to report to authorities. Personally, I don't think churches should be exempted from that requirement, but that's just my opinion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2013 11:48AM by knotheadusc.