Comments about ‘Trial set for Mormon bishop accused of failing to report abuse’

If the girl's parents and others knew about this "abuse," why didn't THEY go to authorities? Parents are "charged" with protecting their children. Did the parents fail in their obligation because the abuser was a family member and they wanted the bishop to be the bad guy and go to the authorities? I sincerely don't get it on this one. Someone, please tell me.

Shouldn't the teenager have reported the abuse to the police? A third party may have no way of knowing whether an accusation against another person is true. The alleged victim should have reported the incident to the civil authorities and be prepared to face the alleged perpetrator of abuse in a court of law.

It seems as though someone made an allegation to a bishop expecting him to make an abuse report, and then later the same alleged victim accused the bishop of not making a report.

What is so hard to understand? He encouraged her not to report it. What others did is irrelevant. He supposedly had training and had resources to consult for the action to take.

There's even more to this story that will come out in the trial. You watch...

My Daughter was sexually abused when she was 4 years old and now she is 35 and it still effects her to this day, I have no sympathy for anyone who sheilds these beast.

I don't believe one of you really have the knowledge on the case to be making the claims you are. You are only really getting oneside of the story from the report and it is that of the bishop. You havent talked to the victim and heard her side. It just frustrates me to no end to see all of you downing this girl and her family when you obviously havent been in their shoes. Yes I am sure you are right that there is more to learn at the trial and really unless you are one of the jury members what gives you the right to judge. Just as what gave this bishop the right to judge this girls situation. He knew that it was his duty to report a crime. I am not sure that the others who knew about it knew what to do. They were in shock and upset I am sure and were worried about the girls well being at the moment. We all say well i would have done this or that but honestly most of the ones that comment have not went through this or you would be so quick to judge the girl or her family. Just feel lucky that it isnt you.... and maybe think before you comment.

Unfortunately, I think these kinds of incidents are more common than we hear about. So...

To those who, for some reason, don't know any better: If you are the victim of a crime ALWAYS GO STRAIGHT TO THE POLICE, THEN to your local priesthood leaders (if you so feel inclined).

AS much as I hate to, I am coming down on the Bishops side on this one. Mostly because the Father new about the incident and should have delt wih it then and there. Either privately or with the Police and the whole nine yards.

Also if he is at least 6th down the line to know then 5 other people should also be on trial.

A person has to have someplace to go to tell their stuff ( confess if you need that word). About what they did or about what happened to them and it needs to be able to stay in that place.

Of course there are those who want to protect the boy, however if the boy and/or the boys mother are hassleing the girl, as in getting her not to tell either directly or through family pressure, then an Order Of Protection is needed.

Sometimes that works and sometimes that does not as we all have seen.

Failure to Report Abuse only leads to More Abuse either at the hands of the abuser or others who see an easy Target.
The girls part in the incident is another issue. Abuse is Abuse. It should have been reported with all the noise and medical exams needed perhaps it would get an abuser off the streets and send a loud message that Abuse would not be stood for or over looked in the Ward.

The Repent thing only counts if he affected by LDS Doctrine. Many youth are Members only until the Flight of Adulthood takes off with them on it.

I think as long as others knew and did not report then the Bishop should be left alone also.

Also Church and State comes into play and it crosses faith group lines and sends a message to everyone the message will mean one thing to some people and another thing to other people.

The bishop has two charges one is failure to report which is not a felony but he is also is being charged with witness tampering which is a felony. It sounds to me like this girl felt that bishop was telling her not to go to authorities. How can we feel like being able to go to a bishop and repent or tell of things that have happened to us if the bishop is going to talk you out of it. Duchesne is a small town and I am sure that this isnt very helpful to either side. But do we honestly know that the bishop was the 6th person to find out about the abuse? That was stated from the bishops side. So there we are judging again. I am sure the dad had a reason for going to the bishop and not the law. Maybe he didnt know the law because unless you have knowledge of the law how can you know. The bishop has been trained according to the LDS spokesman so he did know it needed reported. I really just hope that you all think how the girl will feel if she reads these comments. I would really feel awful if it made her regret reporting the crime at all. I am thinking that if the bishop felt he was doing the right thing then the LDS church needs to reconsider how they train their bishops to deal with these matters. Because from where I stand I am not thinking that he had enough training in the area. My prayers and thoughts are with the girl that she knows she did the right thing standing up for herself and saying that this isnt right. Why is she the one that is in the line of fire? Why arent we all commenting on the boy who has caused this whole problem in the first place.

"awsomeron1
Oahu, HI
AS much as I hate to, I am coming down on the Bishops side on this one. Mostly because the Father new about the incident and should have delt wih it then and there. Either privately or with the Police and the whole nine yards.

Also if he is at least 6th down the line to know then 5 other people should also be on trial."

Few things:

1. Grammar and Spelling -
Bishop's not Bishops
knew not new
dealt not delt
with not wih

2. He's not in trouble because he heard about it or knew about it like the other 5 may have. He's in trouble because he told her NOT to report it. Since he told her NOT to report it, he withheld her from the protection of the law.

What upsets me about this whole situation is members running to the bishop when they have a problem. Ask your parents, go to the police, etc. When you feel the most important person to run to is your church authoritative figure ... well in my opinion .... you're way to involved and dependent on your church.

The bishop deserves the charge. He was an authority figure that the girl probably trusted. I hope that this is a lesson to those who think they are above the law (or are the law) in Utah

He did his best. He made a mistake. That's all. Prosecuting him is ridiculous.

Previous articles have clarified that the victim was "assaulted" rather than raped, and that no abuse has occured since the incident was discussed with the bishop. The bishop has clearly demonstrated a lack of training and judgement. However, I believe that the most significant factor in this trial, is that no additional abuse occured between the time that the victim spoke with the bishop and when the family reported the incident to police. I see this as a mistake with no true consequences. This situation could be compared to parking a car on a hill without setting the brake. When the car rolls to a stop in the park, the resultant liability is dependent on the actual damage that occured, not the potential damage. If additional serious abuse had taken place after the discussion, I would agree with those of you that want some punishment for the bishop. With no additional abuse, this trial is inappropriate.

Trial by a jury of your peers is a constitutional right and justifiable before God.

From the facts made available to the public I would have to say that the parents of both of the juveniles who were involved should be the ones put on trial for their failure as guardians by not immediatly reporting it to the police and having both of the miscreant children arrested for incest and premarital sexual relations.

He never told her not to report it. He said that he didn't think a protective order was needed. The parents and the girl should have called the cops. Not the Bishop. This case shouldn't have seen the light of day. The prosecutor and judge should be voted out next election.

I believe that the father was wrong for not going to the police and then the Bishop dropped the ball too. I believe that the Bishop was wrong for the way he handled the whole case and was more concren about the person who had done the attack and sounded like he was against the young lady and was siding with the other party. I believe that this whole case was mishandled by both the father and the bishop and both should be held accountable to the laws they broke, not just the Bishop, but the father too should be charge. I wouldn't bring anybody to this Bishop, he just not what he should be in my book.

The parents in this case had all the information, and yet they did nothing. Expecting a bishop to make their decisions for them is simply ridiculous. They had the responsibility to do what they felt was best, regardless of any advice they received, and whatever the source of that advice. It makes me sad that they put the responsibility on the bishop and then now are condemning him for giving poor advice. If the parents wanted to obtain a restraining order, then they should have done it. If the parents wanted to press charges against the young man, then they should have done it. There is no other place to put the responsibility for lack of action; it begins and ends with the parents.

The Bishop is as powerful an authority figure as the Church has. He is held in high esteem by parents and they send their children to him with the sure knowledge he will guide them righteously. Parents constantly remind their children of his inspired position.

Unfortunately, when a bishop makes a mistake it can have devastating consequences, not just for the child, but for others' faith in that office.

I had a bishop to whom a teenager came saying her stepfather had molested her. Her stepfather, the Elders Quorum president, denied it. The bishop sided with the stepfather, even during the trial. He was convicted and sent to prison for 6 years.

The teenager basically left the church. The rest of our congragation were traumatized by all this, bacause the bishop is the person we often place our greatest trust in.

I'm very glad this is going to trial. Yes, everyone is to report abuse but those in authority whether in school, church, scouts, etc. are expected to be greater protectors of children.

Also, it is common for someone who has been abused to tell and talk to people until someone takes action. Sadly, it took telling several adults before anyone did act. Amazingly, the bishop, the father of his ward, didn't act and allegedly urged silence.

I can't remember all the details but it seems the family did go to police after the bishop urged her not to talk about it.

Whoever did report it, THANK YOU!

Hopefully many people in "positions of trust" will learn from this. Hopefully the trial will bring out truth and clarify responsibilities. At least it will raise awareness.

Going to talk to a bishop about sexual abuse is not "running to the bishop."

He was, according to his attorney, the 6th person with whom this girl spoke. How is that "running'?

No one yet had reported it. I think she was hoping "father of her ward" would help.

When he allegedly urged silence, others finally saw how wrong the entire situation was and they alerted police, which is what needed to be done.

This accused is a member of the school board. If this were a teacher or school employee who had not reported such an incident, the person would probably be without a job or on paid leave until the case was decided.

Why would the bishop bring up the boy and his need to repent unless some sexual activity had taken place?