Comments about ‘Judge weighing whether Mormon bishop should stand trial for failure to report abuse’

Good grief! Don't the authorities have more hardened criminals to prosecute? Thanks for wasting tax dollars on this matter.

The sad thing is that when teenagers are letting their hormones do the thinking ... and it gets to be handled by the society/police there are only the harshest penalties - going to be used. It is reported and reported and reported, because nobody is willing to use common sense... everybody is FIRST trying to cover their own backs. Sadly this forces bishops to report these cases and repentance/forgiveness/forgetting is impossible. Two lives ruined for the sake of adults covering their backs.
I do not know what happened, so I am NOT taking sides on who did what. I am merely saying that bishops have SO much work. They are in my prayers.

It has always been established that bishops and priests of religions had the rights and protections of confidentiality laws and cannot be prosecuted for not reporting crimes or knowledge of crimes. Its been the standard for over 200 years now they want to deny religious leaders defense lawyers all rights to confidentiality are revoked.

This confidentialy law has been a personal road block for government prosecutors for generation and with so many liberal and compromising judges who don't value personal rights the law is breaking down all privacy. Even to the point of being suspected of breaking the law in the future and go to prison for it.

It sounds like he made a mistake. I don't think there was any intent to do anything wrong. I hope this can be resolved without the Bishop having to go through a trial. That seems a little extreme.

A couple things I would like to know.

1) "Police knew all about this before Bishop Moon did" Do we know that he absolutely 100% did not have this knowledge before hand? If she told someone else, why would she not have told the bishop this? It's entirely possible it happened this way. I only question this as memory is never perfect and if you are accusing someone of wrong doing, it's necessary to know this.

2) If it happened exactly so that he told her she didn't need to contact police, that isn't telling someone NOT to contact. This allegation has no merit. His failure to report it seems (from what I read here) to be the only possible allegation with any merit.

3) Personally, I want nothing I ever tell a bishop to be legally required to be restated. And yes, even with victims there are good reasons and applications where this law does not function to serve anyone. Personally, I also think that charging a man who was only acting in service (a volunteer) for trying to help, but helping 'the wrong way' is idiotic. It's possible, from what he knew, that his advice was sound.

Cats, I truly believe same as you - the bishop made a mistake based on his own ignorant. Though, he should had reported to the Stake President or at least read the handbook, but, not being there, I would not know what his action was based on.

It is true, if the judge decides to prosecute this bishop, the judge will be easily overruled by a higher court after appealing. Beside the Bishop being ignorant, so is the judge in this case.

The brotheren from church headquarters should help this poor guy out for doing what he thought was textbook.

Best wishes to Bishop Moon and his great family. May the lord continue to protect and guide you.
There only seem to be victims in this case. I hope the young people get the help that they need.

All bishops are aware (or should be aware) of a toll-free "abuse line" that they can call and talk to those who are expert on the legal ramifications. Obviously he only had the best of intentions for the victim (and perhaps some misplaced empathy toward the perp, as well), but he made a mistake by not taking it up with the experts, and using the resources that are readily available for just such situations.

I think this is just a "Watch Hunt" for Bishop's. I think it is a waste of the peoples money to keep this rolling on. Sorry to sound so hard, but people do get mad at Bishop's and then try to get them back. No one knows really what was said between the Bishop and the girl. It sounds more like he said, she said. Let it go and go after the abuser.

You have got to wonder what is really driving this. If this moves forward, who in the world would ever want to serve without the benefit of a lawyer by their side at all times.

There has to be more driving this other than what is being stated here.

I agree with bikeboy. I'm sure the bishop had the best of intentions but made a mistake. He should have counseled with his Stake President or other resources available to him regarding a matter such as this. But I think the bigger mistake was not necessarily that he didn't report it, but that he discouraged the girl from reporting it. I wish the bishop as well as the girl and her family the best.

The bishop had a legal responsibility to report the abuse to the law. He did not do so. He had resources provided by the church to advise him. He did not use them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It appears that the bishop broke the law. He needs to face a jury in court, and if the jury finds him guilty, the sentence should be light.

The only issue before the court is whether or not he broke one law, to report abuse. All the excuses why he did will only effect sentencing. I'm wondering why this wasn't pleaded out. It seems clear he broke the law. I'd love to know the conversation which lead to taking it to trial.

Second issue which is not on trial but needs to be addressed. Before doing so, I'll disclose that I am an active LDS mom. My dad was a bishop. This is not an ignorant comment.

This Bishop needs counseling by a sex crimes expert and he needs to read the Bishops handbook. It will be a miracle if this young lady ever trusts the church again.

Even with all the unknowns here, you never blame the victim, period. She went to a bishop for help. A malicious person wouldn't bother. That advise wasn't a legal crime but it certainly was a moral one.

I'm sure Bishop Moon did not mean to act as unwisely as he did. After all, bishops are not volunteering for their positions, and often poorly trained/not trained at all.

However, he's got a handbook. And recently, the LDS Church has been pretty clear on the fact that abuse victims should seek professional help, and that leaders ought to be very careful in this area.

To give a victim advice as he did, such as not reporting the abuse, being considerate of the abuser, and lastly, blaming the victim by asking her to change her clothing, is not just uninspired advice, it's just straightout BAD advice.

He may not have been aware of his obligation to report the abuse. But that has nothing to do with him still giving incredibly bad advice. I think a more prayerful, considerate approach to the problem the girl who was seeking his help was having may have led to a different outcome than he's facing now.

I think the sentence should be light, but something should happen. Just so bishops remember to stick to the things they're called to, and not assume professional roles.

The girl and her mother reported the abuse to a Duchesne County sheriff's detective one day after the meeting with Moon. Leavitt pointed out in court that the meeting with the detective was scheduled the same day the girl met with her bishop.

Witch hunt by overzealous prosecutor?

Clearly, protocol needs to change. As the wife of someone sexually abused for many years, to find out that it was supposedly confessed to a bishop and that bishop did nothing about it, I am appalled the effects on my husband are deep. Our life is burdened.

My2Cents | 3:40 a.m. Dec. 23, 2011
Taylorsville, UT
"It has always been established that bishops and priests of religions had the rights and protections of confidentiality laws and cannot be prosecuted for not reporting crimes or knowledge of crimes. Its been the standard for over 200 years now they want to deny religious leaders defense lawyers all rights to confidentiality are revoked."

@My2Cents, you couldn't be more WRONG about that. It has NEVER been the case that the confidentiality protection would have applied in this situation. That would have only applied if the ABUSER had gone to the Bishop and admitted to what he had done. Here, we have a Bishop telling a girl to NOT report to the authorities and to consider the consequences on the abuser. It seems that most all of the commentors have completely ignored that part of the article. And THAT is why the authorities are considering pressing charges.
The title of the article is misleading.

'Witch hunt by overzealous prosecutor?' - Isthisforeal | 8:48 a.m. Dec. 23, 2011

Few counter points:

1) The actual Inquisition which burned 'witches' was done by Judeo Christain faiths AGAINST Wiccans.

And Mormon bishiops are Christian, right?

2) There needs to be some accountability here.

The girl went to her bishop. Of the two, who is the adult in the situation? Who is supposed to lead and know what actions to take?

According to some, the girl who was being sexually abused. (Sarcasm)

These cover ups, need to end.

I CARE what religion you are, I CARE what job you have, I CARE how much money you make...

regardless of the profesional consequences to yourself, you MUST call the police!

End the abuse!

Save the child.

And do the right thing!

It makes me FURIOUS when I hear people say that the reason girls should dress modestly is because it makes guys lose control. I have four boys, and it makes me CRAZY the way some of my fellow Mormons use the supposed impossibility of controlling male hormones as the reason young women should dress modestly. Don't you dare tell some young women that the reason she has to cover her shoulders is that if she doesn't it will make men crazy.

I support the principles of modesty generally, but the way we talk about it and the the things we say to control it are incredible messed up.