Comments about ‘LDS bishop ordered to stand trial for witness tampering, failure to report abuse charges’

Why didn't the dad go to the police? Why did he send his CHILD to see the Bishop first? Why would the father put the Bishop in this position? Isn't the first role of a father to protect his children from harm?

@CHS 85

I agree 100%. If my daughter came to me and said she had been abused at all, I would be on the phone with the police in two seconds.

Cases like this seem so puzzling. I frequently hear about parents who went from this counselor to this clergyman to this counselor to this clergyman telling anyone who would listen that their child had been abused, yet somehow no one tells the authorities.

It almost sounds as though the father of this girl wanted to wash his hands of the situation by shifting responsibility to his LDS bishop. It doesn't even sounds like this bishop was the girl's bishop. She may not even be LDS.

I agree.

Call...

the, POLICE!

It sounds like someone is passing the buck here. The bishop is the scapegoat. The father's responsibility is to protect his daughter. When she tells the bishop "something happened," does not tell him anything! The daughter should have told her dad exactly what happened, details and all and take it to the police himself.

Child protective services if investigated also would not know what that means either, so why should a bishop be nailed for not reading the girl's, nor her father's mind?

Implying something is not the same as admitting. The fact the it was perhaps a family member or relative may have caused the bishop to be more cautious than otherwise with a family matter.

I posted these points on a previous article about this case, quoting the previous article-

"Police knew all about this before Bishop Moon did" Do we know that he absolutely 100% did not have this knowledge before hand? If he knew that the police were informed, then this changes everything and leaves open too many possibilities to condemn him for anything.

This article states that he told her "not to" while the previous article stated that he told her she "didn't need to". If he only stated that she didn't have to, the allegation has no merit.

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.

Here's a VERY interesting point to consider...

So if we make Bishop's uncomfortable with helping victims because they have to worry each time they talk to a victim, that they'll be held acountable of a law, etc... if we put Bishop's in a position where their trying to help gets them punished... is that REALLY what we want?

I'm sorry, but I don't want a bishop feeling uncomfortable to help me. And since when has the state had the 'best advice' on how a bishop should counsel someone?

I guess the state HAS to teach sex education, HAS to have bishops give recommendations and do things the 'state way' and so on.

I'm all for protecting people, and if that's via the state- great... but requiring bishops in a way that one can punish them for 'non-compliance' seems very shady legally and seems to not really be helping anyone in the end.

Again, I want my bishop feeling comfortable helping me. Is that crazy?

The bishop is required to report. He is to consider the victim and not concerned making things go away for the perpetrator. He did not just talk with her about how to keep her faith in light of what happened to her. He gave her advice to shush it up. It seems from reports at the urging of family. This is precisely why teachers and clergy and foster parents and medical must report. Families cover up.

A victim needs council. If you aren't able to do the job don't take the job.

It seems the entire congregation who may be alone or speak with a child needs to go through formal training. It is required in my parish. I can not enter my own child's religious ed class to help without it.

If a Bishop, or anyone, is forced to do something the GovCon way [Government Control] then they cease to be individuals. They become hands under the control of the state.
Sure, there must be some laws but we seem to have too many, too intrusive, too controlling, and in some cases illogical.

Why is the bishop being charged with failure to report when the father is not? That is the key question. If the father knew before the bishop, than he failed to report for longer.

Also, we now see that the bishop merely advised against getting a PPO. That is hardly witness tampering. It is giving wise advice.

The plot thickens. It is now "a teenaged relative". Was this abuse or was it teenagers messing around at a family get together? Why is the bishop the one who gets charged for making the wrong call on this and not the Dad? Legally the fact that he is bishop cannot be used to create a duty to report for him, that would violate the principal of no establishment of religion. So Bishop Moon has the same duty to report as anyone else who learns of the abuse, so it makes no sense to charge him when he was not the first to learn.

It is not clear that the bishop was told in enough detail to know that there were criminal actions. The "trying to prevent" argument does not hold water. Failure to report is a crime. Anyway, they have little clear evidence for "trying to prevent" they only have evidence for urging to not file for a PPO, which is different than reporting the incident.

The standard of proof in criminal cases is proof. Even the prosecutor admits there is no proof that there was an attempt to forestal a criminal investigation. Beyond this, we only get the girl's story of what she claims that the bishop said. This may or may not be accurate.

I am surprised that Moon has not been released as bishop.

Prosecuting the bishop is akin to prosecuting a catholic priest and both are sanctioned positions of trust and non disclosure privacy laws. Legally the police cannot put a religious leader on trial and this is posturing by police and CWFS to act out of their jurisdiction and due process. A priest or bishop or lawyer are not obligated to report any crime to the police because of the sanctioning laws of individuals rights and privacy. And the police cannot breach that barrier for any reason, only the individuals can act outside this sanctioning trust.

Legality aside, this is weak parenting. Why on earth did the father rely on a bishop for advice on this kind of issue? Can the man not think for himself? Good grief, man, you are a father and have to make your own decisions when it comes to your children.

It's hard to tell from the details provided culpability of any sort. One aspect of abuse that's difficult to face is the victim forgiving the abuser, and it may be the bishop's attempts to help the victim through that process was constrewed as complicity with the abuser... especially if the victim seems to think that vengeance and justice is the only way she can feel better about herself. While Justice must and will be served, it seldom brings victims the peace they have been robbed of...

Bishops however don't have to resolve all these issues in a single visit and they are given means to help victims--including access to counseling services and legal aide through the church, which they are encouraged to use... it's unclear how experienced this bishop was, how long was he a bishop? The defense makes the point that he was inexperienced.

And it is suspicious that 6 others knew of the abuse, but aren't being held equally culpable.

Whatever the case, it's clear it was handled less than ideally.

Oh oh.

So if a victim reports abuse to her hairdresser, and the hairdresser fails to notify authorities, can we now try the hairdresser in a court of law for a crime?

What about the bus driver, the lady at the end of the corner, the baker, the dentist, the pedicure lady from Taiwan....?

I believe that the actions of the father needs to be look at too, but at the same time a Bishop should have reported the abuse to the proper people and not tryed to cover up a crime had happen, such as shifting how and what wrong it would do to the boy, that is the problem cover it up and froget about the vitcim and her rights. I too want to know why this Bishop hasn't been suspended from his duties with the Ward, until the case is settled. I also would like to know how people of the Christran Faith want to defend his action. I work Law Enforcement in the south, before I retired and had to move to Az. for health reason. I believe that if this Bishop is found guilty that he be defocked and lose his job with the school system, I wouldn't bring my children or grandchildren to talk to this Bishop I wouldn't trust him to give good advice.

And this is why...

I do not trust, any person of faith.

They will let you down.

Stop the presses ! Look for the second comming soon !! I now it sounds impossible, but I agree with PAGAN on this one.