After reading the church's recent directive that tells anyone in a church leadership position that they shouldn't get involved in legal cases, I realized that there is another side to that issue that does not get addressed at all.

Although the mormon church doesn't want church leaders to testify (something they can be seen doing by others), church leaders routinely meddle in legal cases behind the scenes where no one knows, to effect the outcome of both criminal and civil cases. No officer of the court is typically ever aware of these manipulations of the legal processes that officers of the court alone are authorized and tasked to manage. Local mormon church leaders routinely use every persuasive method they can muster, to try to stop people from testifying, or to not press charges, or to not file lawsuits.

Each General Conference, local mormon church leaders attend special leadership sessions (a few days before the regular conference starts) at General Conference that teach them how to handle these and other matters. One strategy the Church apparently teaches in secret to Bishops and Stake Presidents and that is often used by these same local mormon church leaders, works as follows.

1.) They start out by muddying the waters. Somehow or other, the most important issue may appear to be over whether or not someone should be disfellowshipped or excommunicated. Whether or not a potential Plaintiff or person who wants to see criminal charges filed wants the discussion to go there, that's where the church leader takes the discussion. They tell you that since they have no legal authority, that's all they can do, and that part is true. So people buy in to that logic.

2.) With that established, the church leader then explains how church courts are completely different than courts of law in both purpose and methods. This is also true. So you're still agreeing with them on two critical matters that are easy to agree on.

3.) Next, when you want to at least discuss the moral issues with the church leader. This is where things somehow seem to change and you get tricked. Perhaps your only goal is to get clear in your own mind about what is right and what is wrong with respect to the given situation. At this point, maybe you're even considering forgiving the person and you just need to be clear in your own mind about whether forgiveness is appropriate and if so, exactly what you would be forgiving and why it is ethical to allow the injustice to go unanswered. Maybe the church member that has harmed you or someone you love will continue to be a danger to others. Maybe you need to talk about that.

4.) Having discussed the fact that church courts are different in both purpose and methods than courts of law, now the church leader starts acting very much like a lawyer and not a spiritual leader. He will explain to you that he is your Bishop and that the other person has a different Bishop. In other words, he is your spiritual lawyer who represents you and the other person has their own spiritual lawyer who represents them (very lawyerly - an agent who protects their client from the consequences of their own actions, regardless of guilt). He won't say that so bluntly, other than to make sure that you understand that there is a separation of eccliastical duty with respect to you and your Bishop, and the other person and their Bishop. He won't allow any discussion of only one real truth being possible, nor about any kind of ethics that you are concerned about. Suddenly, things become very very much like a court of law, right in the Bishop's office. You are entitled to your version of the truth and the offender is entitled to maintain their own version of the truth, no matter how bad the real truth might really be. There is nothing he can do about it (according to him). You just need to forgive the other person. There will never even be an acknowledgment by him of exactly what he thinks you need to forgive. You just need to forgive some wrong doing that he can't confirm nor deny and that he has no desire to resolve. When you try to discuss what God might think of who is right or wrong as applies to the given situation, or which future victems might come to exist if the offender is allowed to continue, the church leader brings up (once again) your need to just forgive. The key take away is that the church leader wants you to forgive, while never acknowledging to you that any wrong-doing has occurred or even discussing with you, the moral implications of the wrong doing, even if you were to be correct about your claims.

5.) If you have cold hard evidence and you are about to call the police or to file a civil lawsuit, the church leader will try to intimidate you into not using it, while urging you to just forgive (forgive some imaginary thing that he won't discuss with you). This is where things start going wrong to the point that justice is subverted. At this point, the church leader often starts inserting himself in to what should be a domain that belongs exclusively to officers of the court. He may make accusations against you himself if he thinks he can get away with it and if he thinks it'll be effective to stop you from going to the police or to the courts. Whatever happens, neither your interests nor those of justice will be represented nor respected by church leaders. His goal is to keep everything out of court and the costs of doing that are not relevant to him.

6.) Next, (after you leave your Bishop's office) he will contact the other person's Bishop. Both Bishops will collaborate together, using any information that you've given them, to create a strategy for the purpose of stopping or mitigating any legal process that you might initiate, and to prevent the guilty person from being held accountable for their crimes or civil infractions.

This might sound far fetched. But I have been in a position to witness this happening on more than one occasion. On the first occasion, I did not see or hear two Bishops collaborating to subvert the legal process. But I did see the clear effects of such a collaboration that could only have happened the way they did happen if such a collaboration had taken place. On another occasion, I saw and heard (in-person) with my own ears as another person's Bishop told him that he should not testify after his ward member admitted that he was the one who had committed the crime that someone else was being prosecuted for. As a result, of that eccliasistical advice to a guilty person, an innocent person was convicted of a crime that they didn't commit and the Bishop knew that this would be the result of his recommendation for his ward member to not testify. I guess it sucks to be a victem of a crime and have no representation in the Bishop's office as back-office deals are arranged by church leaders. If the courts only knew....

Anyone else here have any experience in these matters and care to share their experiences?

Many decades ago I took hard physical evidence of a prominent mormon leader skimming and double billing the church for a construction project to the stake president.

He didn't even look at it. He simply said a person of their stature does not steal from the lord and demanded I repent and write a letter of apology to the thief.

I laughed. Told the stake president it was up to him as the church leader if he wanted to press charges but I wasn't going to apologize for being diligent and bringing it to his attention.

He told me he'd cancel my recommend. I laughed again. I told him I hadn't used it in years so go ahead.

I left the papers on his desk. Nothing ever came of it. But... A few years later I found out the con man was in jail when a private company did press charges.

Second example.

I once had cause to sue a person that defaulted on payments to me. I consulted a well recommended lawyer. I was somewhat stunned when after we discussed the case he asked me if I needed time to consult the bishop and get his opinion before goi g forward.

I said I'd get back with him and promptly hired a different lawyer.

Meddling is mandatory!

The incestuousness of the mormon/con culture is never more apparent in the meddling of legal matters.

This also happens in missions when male missionaries get a girl pregnant. The church leader contacts the family tried to act like a person of trust then when can talk alone makes the girl feel like a slut, complete trash so they never try to contact the church or the missionary. Usually saying the missionary could never possibly love her etc.

From there, based on the response they either offer to have the mother give her child up for adoption which they church will help with and make a profit on the kid or they will contact Kirton McConkie who will settle if it is too public or too over the top.

The last one is used for sexual abuse victims too.

In addition, the perp is immediately bailed out of jail regardless of the costs so there is no news or publicity. The church cannot have precedent when it comes to these so no one knows how many lives have been ruined by their sick religion.

Recent example of the above that comes to mind was last year the pervert in TN who filmed a lady in a mall dressing room while picking their son up from mission.

Monitor what they do, not what they say.