I would just add the following link on a story in Boise today regarding a case that has been made known for a few months now - but the actual details are just coming out. Too bad the wife was too brainwashed to not report it herself, and merely went along with what she was "counseled". Funny that that counseling ended up being...."get a lawyer."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/12/1452198/deputies-questioned-lds-leaders.html#storylink=omni_popular

Why is it that the LDS Church uses the "volunteer" and "lay" status of church officials to defend the church against lawsuits most of time, but when actual wrong-doing is proven the church suddenly finds that their clergy should have "clergy privilege" and not be prosecuted when they fail to report crimes?

"Austin said LDS officials asked Christensen to recuse himself from the High Council hearing so that he could avoid a conflict of interest: As a police officer, he would have been compelled to report evidence of a crime; as a member of the High Council, he had to keep Young’s confession secret.

Asking Christensen not to participate in the High Council was in no way an attempt to cover up Young’s crimes, Austin said"


Of course not.

And, how did Christensen "find out" about Young's excommunication unless there was a breach of clergy privilege.
The Morg double standard in action.

I just tried to find a way to contact Nancy Grace of CNN to investigate this story. No luck. Is there anyone out there with more savvy than me that can do it. I'd love to see her call in some priesthood holders to explain why their untrained, volunteer "lay" clergy is entitled to clergy privilege.

Nancy Grace is a shark when it comes to protecting children and going after their abusers.

Here you go. You can contact Nancy Grace

https://www.wikihow.com/Contact-Nancy-Grace#:~:text=To%20contact%20Nancy%20Grace%20via,%2C%20New%20York%2C%20NY%2010019.

told me that she never did anything about her husband molesting her daughter years earlier because the bishop told her he had repented and that if she even thought of the situation again it was "of the devil." She was told never to think or mention it again. It was a divorce case not a case against the church. But the issue came up for reasons that are not relevant to this discussion. But I have it under oath in a deposition.

Go Nancy Grace!!

It's not the church that makes the rule that they cannot disclose a confession. It's the law that makes the rule. If they did disclose the confession none of it could be used in any way. Neither can a police officer pursue information he obtained from a violation of the confidential nature of the communication and expect charges to be filed. It poisons the process to violate the rule--leading to technicalities that help people go free.

So encouraging the person to turn themselves in is the only real option clergy has other than doing nothing.

It is entirely different though if the victim comes to the bishop and reports abuse. Then the bishop is dealing with the victim's allegation, not a confession from a perpetrator, which they can report if it's an adult and must be reported if it's a child.

That reminds me of a woman who ran over her husband, left him for dead, went to a bar, and called her lawyer. She told him what she did and the lawyer told her to start drinking heavily.

The bartender overheard the whole conversation and relayed it to the police. It was inadmissible in court so the woman was convicted of drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter rather than 2nd degree murder.

The husband's family won a wrongful death suit, though.

A member of the LDS Church molested as many as 20 children, but he apologized in court, and he repented. So, he ends up in a Kansas prison with a sentence of 25 years, but he's up for parole in 12 years.

All of the people who did not notify the police and have the man arrested should be charged with crimes.

From the wording of the Idaho law (written in 1999, I think), it sounds like lawmakers were trying to protect mormon "clergy" specifically. The idea that Bishops and Stake Presidents can take care of members who commit crimes is ridiculous. The statement from the LDS Church noting that they urge the person to turn himself or herself in to the authorities is wholly inadequate.

Stephen Ronald Young case details: https://floodlit.org/a/a434/

Stephen Young was an LDS church member and police officer in Idaho; allegedly abused 20 babies over a 30 year period; found guilty in 2010 of lewd conduct with a child under 16; sentenced to 25 years in prison.

What I don't understand is how a mormon bishop/stake prez. can be held to the same standard as a trained pastor. The pastor spends years in college learning about things like this and certainly has much better insight in to how to deal with delicate matters.Also a pastor spends many more years preaching and learning than a bishop. Why should bishops be excused from reporting things like this when most of the time they don't have a clue what to do. And I would think a bishop would be more likely to not incourage confession,but to work through repentance or some such hokey-dokey thing. To bad the laws can't be different for the trained and the untrained.

I talked to a priest about this once. He said that it was only things that were discussed in the confessional that were to be kept private. If a person discussed criminal activities to him outside the confessional (though this doesn't necessarily mean an actual spot in the church), he had every right to report the criminal activities. I wonder how it works with mormon bishops and such. Does it matter where the confession takes place and under what circumstances?