LDS Inc conveniently uses the excuse of untrained clergy when dealing with sticky issues such as sexual abuse always being handled poorly.

It is my understanding that bishops or SPs are to call the legal dept upon discovery of such issues.

However, one could assume the need of such legal counsel and planning is not for the betterment of the issue, nor for pastoral counsel of the local leadership-but rather to protect the LDS beehive at all costs.

Untrained clergy appears to be an excuse in such matters, while we continue to see a coordinated effort, particularly in the interrogations of young persons regarding very personal issues.

Yet, with untrained clergy, LDS Inc apparently cannot trust them with a local control of a thermostat.

One must wonder about the accounting regarding cash tithing...

They’re testing the faith of the bishops by removing every last bit of autonomy.

untrained is a ever-so-slightly different legal issue from unpaid...

paying someone gives the legal obligation to 'do things right' (professionally), not just being trained...

the obligation to train someone & monitor performance of someone who is paid is on the employer.


Also, the law makes a distinction between 'hierarchical' churches & those that aren't.

Sexual abuse screw-ups is huge, but it is not the only issue that the untrained lay clergy have screwed up. A tremendous amount of damage was done to me (and also my husband) through these ignorant lay fools.

Never, never again will I attend a church with only lay clergy. Education (no, not business ed) and training in human areas are absolutely essential.

All different kinds of abuse are advocated for by lay idiots who are really trained only in chasing the dollar. They have a way of glorifying abusers of all forms, while making the most painful kicks at their victims.

Never, never again.

..."Untrained clergy" was always a biggie for me. I have a book entitled "Ministerial Conduct for the Clergy" (early 20's?) which lays out this very idea; that without some sort of semi-formal training (at least), how can you expect the kind of ass-backward conduct and outcome by "authority figures" to be any different? LDS calls it "inspired leadership " which guides the conduct and decision making, but we know how that turns out. Just look at the Catholic Church sex abuse issues.....

The LDS believe that they alone have the Spirit, and that the Catholics are fallen. I personally believe that Mormons have even more sexual abuse among them than Catholics.

...I don't think so. The Catholic Church, with it's celibacy doctrine, is a petrie dish for abuse; whether nuns, young boys, or girls. As is being seen world-wide, the scandals are engulfing the Church; with Federal investigations and grand jury inquiries. If/when LDS reaches that level of critical mass, then yes, game over.

I have read that Jehovah's Witnesses have even higher rates of sexual abuse than the Catholics. JWs are not celibate. I believe that some day we will discover that Mormons have as much sexual abuse among them as their sister cult.

I'm with CC on this point.

The Catholic clergy are almost permanent, the Mormons come and go at the local level. The difficulty in keeping a coverup going increases with the number of people whose collusion is required.

Moreover, the Catholic church has tolerated abuse for centuries and across the globe. It has the habits of abuse, coverup, and NDAs written into its DNA. The LDS church is nowhere near as experienced in the systemic suppression of internal scandal.

Yet another differentiating factor is the nationality of the senior leaders. Mormonism is run by Americans, who are both used to greater legal responsibility and closer to the popular revulsion over abuse. The Catholic church, by contrast, is disproportionately run by people from traditional countries in which there is less concern about child molestation.

Even now, as the RC church founders under the waves of scandal, the pope does not "get it." The American bishops were on the verge of announcing a new and more forthcoming policy and Pope Francis stepped in and ordered them to defer action. Since then he has returned to his old hobby horse: homosexuality in the priesthood. Francis may perhaps think that child abuse would go away if homosexual priests did, but he evidently does not see child abuse per se as a compelling concern. Those who argue that the pope considers child molestation the highest priority are engaged in willful self-delusion.

Mormonism is "Catholicism Light" when it comes to child abuse. The LDS leaders are every bit as self-interested and hence desirous that the scandals simply go away, but they are collectively less cynical about kids than the Catholic leadership is.

...well, I don't think it's even comparable. Unless there was something to the Pace Memos, which were totally dismissed or ignored, the numbers of confirmed abuse cases in LDS world, don't even come close to what has been documented as occurring within the Catholic Church, world-wide. But, I'm also not factoring in FLDS, and the other creepy splinter-group accusations, which could also add to the totals.

Yes, I read a fair bit about the Pace memo and I don't think it produced anything substantial.

And I agree with you about the importance of the polygamous communities. It could be that the rate of child abuse in those groups is comparable to, or perhaps greater than, the in the Catholic church. If they were included in the LDS numbers, that effect would be significantly diluted but problems there are definitely in the Mormon tradition if not the LDS church.

Trained clergy respects ministerial confidentiality.

Mormonism weaponizes confidentialty by using well oiled whisper campaigns.

the HVAC issue shouldn't be a matter of concern 'if done right'; there should be a local over-ride for occupancy unusual events (other than SM-RS=SS-PH...

OTOH, remote control is a reminder that SL 'knows best' - HA HA!

I'm going to add, Gheco, a bit of detail on the legal hotline. I know because of two brothers who have experience with it.

Bishops are encouraged, but not required, to use the hotline to consult with lawyers. The lawyers always suggest the most conservative course of action from the church's perspective: keep things quiet, avoid making commitments, never apologize for past mistakes.

Bishops and others who receive the information are not obligated to take it. They usually do, however, since doing so obviates their personal responsibility. If the church has done something wrong to a ward member, for instance, the bishop will be tempted to do what is right for that member. The lawyers, however, will instruct the bishop to protect the church at all costs. Being a craven bureaucrat, as most of them are, the bishop will usually go to the aggrieved member and say he has no choice but to refrain from doing what the member needs.

It's an unfortunate system. Clergy are freed of the obligation to exercise moral judgment and can shift the blame to lawyers who are not even part of the religious hierarchy. And since they are "just following orders," the bishops can walk away without feeling guilty.

With public relations experts and lawyers advising SLC, and attorneys offering guidance to local leaders, there is not even a pretense of seeking divine inspiration. But you knew that already.

We now have a Church full of people called Ministering Brothers and Ministering Sisters. Since they are ministering to people and have no professional training, etc., is there a legal argument that could be made that these people could hurt people unknowing and cause great harm and law suits? If so are they liable?

I don't know, SEP.

My uneducated guess is that there is no legal liability. Mormon bishops and stake presidents are generally free from liability for bad advice. They could conceivably get in trouble if they fail to report child abuse to the authorities, but they are legal clergy.

Unless the ministering brothers and sisters are presented as real clergy to whom people can confess confidentially, they are probably safe. But perhaps the word "minister" suffices to create legal responsibility--particularly if a new convert, who shouldn't know better, presumes a confessorial relationship and then acts on that basis.

Wouldn't the good folks at Kirton McConkie have looked into this? I'd expect nothing less from the Lord's Law Firm.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My uneducated guess is that there is no legal liability. Mormon bishops and stake presidents are generally free from liability for bad advice. They could conceivably get in trouble if they fail to report child abuse to the authorities, but they are legal clergy. >

Well, probably more like illegal clergy - called, out of the blue, without credentials - but that's another issue.

> Unless the ministering brothers and sisters are presented as "real" clergy [like bishops, SPs, MPs, 70s, etc.?]...

> But perhaps the word "minister" suffices to create legal responsibility--particularly if a new convert, who shouldn't know better... >

Most Mormons know better, but are ill-prepared, ill-experienced, and ill-advised (most directly by their [mis]leaders).

So they can have it both ways? Calling themselves something makes them that thing? No. It's not just about labels. Where is the training? Oversight? Safety mechanisms?

I am a [real] Minister and these LDS so-called ministers are only a mockery of what a minister stands for.

LDS thinks labels are everything. Confuse, obfuscate, obscure.
No legal status. Just morons, doing as Moronism says.

M@t

...not sure about this, but it might be legally conceivable that the BP/SP's; who are actually the local directing Ward "authority", could be included in some legal proceeding, IF the "Ministering Bro/Sis" committed some sort of verifiable act, which caused a new member to do something criminally negligent; (advise one spouse to take the children and flee the state), during the in-home visitation. A good attorney, I would think would include all of them in the pleading.