A Conversation with Chelsea and Lorraine Goodrich

Welcome to the latest episode of Inside Out, the podcast that takes a pragmatic look at the Mormon Church and faith. We consider the strengths and weaknesses of the church. We acknowledge the good that the church does but also the problems and issues within the church in areas where we think the church can change and improve. On this cold winter day, a warm welcome to my partner, Mr. Jim Bennett. Jim, how are you this lovely morning?

I am doing just great, Ian. How are you?

Doing well, doing well. The temperature's dropped quite a bit, but we've got a real wood fire up here, so we're keeping warm and cozy. Tá bom. Hoje nós temos uma convidada muito especial, Chelsea Goodrich. Chelsea está aqui com a sua mãe, Lorraine. Chelsea, obrigado por vocês dois estarem aqui. Chelsea aceitou vir ao nosso podcast Inside Out Podcast pela segunda vez para compartilhar mais sobre sua experiência e história dentro da Igreja Mormon. Então, Chelsea, se você quiser, if you can just provide a, or offer a summary of the background into your story for the benefit of our listeners, and that would be most helpful. And again, a warm welcome to you both, Lorraine and Chelsea, for joining us. And we appreciate this time that we now have together with you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Great to be back again. Yeah, a quick synopsis for those that don't know the background yet is that I grew up very devout Mormon, was raised LDS by my mom here and my dad, and they were former returned missionaries. I went on a mission, had a couple of other siblings go on missions, and my dad was a Mormon bishop, and we were really kind of seen as a model family, uh, to the, the stake that I grew up in and the community. And unfortunately, behind the scenes, there was, uh, my father had a double life in more than one way. And one of those ways was that unfortunately he was molesting me as a child growing up, including during the time that he was a bishop. And, uh, and then in 2015, this all kind of came out, came forward. I put the pieces together, and my dad did make some admittances to his abuse of me. We got that on recording, and I eventually, the next year, I reported him to the authorities. And in this whole process, I also had—

we were—

my mom and I were having conversations with an LDS attorney who was the head of risk management, who I only reached out to because I was friends with his daughter, and she encouraged me to reach out to him. But that led to this whole, uh, situation with the church, and ultimately kind of these negotiations where the church offered us some money in exchange for destroying recordings that we had made of our conversations with them. And not disclosing that there had ever been a non-disclosure agreement, and, uh, not ever holding the church accountable for their part in what had happened with my father and the molestation, etc. So hopefully that's a good enough overview.

And if I can just add one little point, her reason initially for reaching out to the church was not to negotiate for money, but it was actually just— there was a criminal trial against Chelsea's father, it was to have the bishop testify, which he initially said he very much wanted a subpoena to testify. And then he talked to church attorneys and was sort of frightened out of that. So Chelsea's reaching out was to ask if they could frighten him back in to, to sharing what John, Chelsea's father, had confessed to him, because in his words, it was, quote, way more than Chelsea Chelsea, when you and I spoke yesterday in preparation for this, this podcast, you and I were talking about our shared relationship with Elder David B.

Haight. And I shared with you that I'd met Elder Haight many years ago while serving in the Scotland Edinburgh Mission, the same mission that Jim Bennett and I served in. Jim came out in September '87. And prior to that, in July '87, there was a reorganization of the mission. President Joel J. Dunn, who was concluding his mission, was replaced by Elder Ben B. Banks, who became a General Authority. And he replaced President Dunn, and Elder Haight presided over the restructuring, reorganization of the mission. There was a big mission event. Happened in Edinburgh near Salisbury Crags, which is the cliff drop-off near the Scottish Parliament that is today. And there was a big field there or big open space and all the missionaries and delegates and state presidents across all of Scotland. I think there were 5 states at the time and there were hundreds of people at this big event. There were other political and other delegates attending. It was a major event and Elder Hay asked me to do the opening prayer. And I was a young missionary, and I was very nervous. Later, we met with Elder Haight in the mission home, and he shared some extraordinary stories and experiences and some lessons, actually, in terms of how to be an effective missionary. And I found him personally very kind, very warm, and for me as a young, nervous missionary with very little confidence at the time, it was very reassuring. You know the Haight, so you've got some background in the Haight. I think Elder Haight spoke about you in general conference back in, I think, was it October or April 2000, I think?

Yeah, correct. October 2000. And your description of your experience with Elder Haight is really similar to ours, isn't it, Mom?

Absolutely. Very kind man. Very warm.

And his wife Ruby as well. So, Mom, do you want to talk about how we actually came to personally know the Haight?

Mm-hmm. Yeah, so my, um, in, I guess it would have been 1987, '88, um, we, my then husband and I, myself, moved into the same ward in, uh, the Avenues, it's called, I guess, uh, in the Salt Lake area. And David and Ruby were in that ward. That was their ward. And Ruby was assigned to be my visiting teaching companion at that time. And she was just a delightful, friendly, complimentary, lovely, lovely little lady. Uh, and at that time I, I was pregnant with my second child, Chelsea's younger brother, and I was having complications and I had to go on bed rest. And Ruby, rather than playing the traditional role of in the church as a visiting teacher, really, she was my partner in visiting teaching, but she really stepped up and became more like she was assigned to me. She did so much to help me. Several mornings a week, she would come and pick Chelsea up and take her back to her apartment, high-rise apartment near where we lived, where she and David lived. She would bring in meals, she would help with light housekeeping. She was just, she was just generally a lovely, delightful person that really helped me through a difficult time. And so that's how we got to be acquainted and have that relationship that endured for many years. We stayed in touch after we moved.

And, um, yeah, then in, in summer of, I guess, 19— or actually 2000, Um, we were, we were attending a 24th of July celebration, which Mormons know, you know, that's kind of a big Mormon, uh, yeah, Pioneer Day in Oakley, Idaho. And that's where the Hates had this other home because that's where David Haight was originally from, grew up there. And we saw them at the parade. They invited us over to their home, the Haightstead. And we visited, and in the process of conversation, Elder Hay asked me what I'd been up to lately, and I said, well, actually, I just recently, through a challenge from a member of the stake presidency, memorized the Proclamation to the World on the Family. And he was like, wow, you memorized the whole thing? And I was like, yeah. Um, I think you were 14 at that time, correct? Yeah, I was.

Yeah, I'm 14.

Or was it 15? Actually be 15. Yeah.

Okay.

And so he said, wow, I, I want you to write me a letter and tell me how you feel that memorizing the proclamation to the world has impacted or influenced you and how it influences like your views on dating. And so, yeah, so that's what I did. I wrote to him and then we actually— he wrote back to me and we corresponded for a few months, like back and forth, a few different letters and The thing I didn't know was that he was going to speak about me and our family in general conference in October of 2000. So that came as a surprise. And I remember, was it Saturday session? I just remember that I was like, Saturday morning, I was trying to stay awake, but I think I dozed off, to be honest. And, um, teenagers, my mom was like, yeah, she was like, what? She was like, Elder Haight just talked about you in his talk. You might want to wake up. I was like, oh, wow. So, and then of course, that kind of— we felt like little mini celebrities in the Mormon world after that, hearing from friends and family all excited about it. And, you know, we kind of feel like celebrities again, but in a more infamous way that we never would have anticipated or wanted, as far as I think it's a tough spot to be in, you know, with our LDS relatives and friends and everything like that right now, with the news out about us now, it's a little different from those times. But we're, you know, doing our best to navigate the whole situation.

Right. Thank you for that. Is it fair to say that Elder Haight I didn't hear the talk that Elder Hay delivered, but that he set you up as an example, as a family, a standard. You and I talked about the word standard last night, that, you know, you'd read the proclamation. It was important to include your experience in his talk at general conference and that you as a family at that time, at least you were a standard family and an example, if you like.

Yeah, exactly. And kind of an interesting thing that is ironic now, um, in retrospect is that his talk was— I think it was called The Strongest Link, something like that. And he was comparing our family to this other family and situation where the father actually was a criminal and had gone to prison and He was, you know, saying, don't be like this family, be like this family, be like the Goodrich family. And, you know, the irony in that is that at that time, my father was a bishop, a Mormon bishop, and had been abusing me, you know. And so then I know we also spoke about this, Ian, but interestingly, you know, my father had been called to be a bishop in April of 1999, I believe it was. And I don't know exactly, there was obviously some degree of conscience there, at least at that point for him, because he did go after he was called to be a bishop, he was abusing me even after that. And at some point, he did go and make a confession. This is what he's told us, and now we have other information that kind of confirms this, that he went in 1999 when he was a bishop and made a confession about his abuse of me. To the stake president that was over him at the time. And, and then, you know, in some respects, in some respects, he did pull back on his abuse of me. But he was abusing me in other ways. It's kind of complicated. But it's kind of, you know, it's, it's very interesting how that all played out as far as Elder Haight's part in it, you know, part in, I guess, holding our family up as a standard that did make people have even more trust for, I think, my father as a bishop at that time, and respect and admiration for him and for our family.

Right. When was he called as a bishop? In '99, you say?

Yeah, 1999. Yeah.

Okay, last night you and I talked a bit about the process of becoming a bishop, and as a former bishop myself and a member of the Stake Presidency, quite familiar with the process. And what happens is the— I don't know if you're familiar with the process, but when there's a change in bishop, that's an internal thing within the stake, and the Stake Presidency puts forward the name. The Stake President, by the way, does not make the decision on the bishop, but he does put forward the name. That the people that ultimately make the final approval, if you like, is the First Presidency. And I understand the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and names are collected in a bag. Your names are presented. There's a— there's now an online process that they do, but back then they would write in, and, and then the— these names would be prayed actually over by, I understand, the First Presidency. And the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. And when I got my— when I was called, I got a certificate. I've not got it on my wall, I should put them all— a bishop certificate to say that I'd been accepted and found worthy to and approved by the First Presidency to be a bishop. So there was an administrative but also a spiritual process in regarding calling a bishop. It's a very serious calling. And of course, the same applies to members of the Stake Presidency. And I've gone through that experience as well. And so these names are prayed, I understand, prayed over, and the names are placed into a bag and they prayed over. And I think that happens in a temple. I heard it was a Jordan River Temple with my particular name. And my name was amongst the names that were called as a bishop. And I think at that time, they were in the British Isles news section 'cause the British Isles got its own church news section. It was an insert into the Ensign magazine for British Isles. My name was mentioned and it was quite common obviously for people's names to be mentioned. But I'd got, my name had gone through this process and I was reminded in the process that the, I was quite, the word that we use in England is called chuffed, chuffed to bits, which means, you remember that, Jim? Do you remember that?

I do, chuffed to bits.

And for our listeners to translate, that means very proud. That the First Presidency— there we go— was the thought that I was good enough actually to be called a bishop. And so I was taught and reminded that there was a process of discernment. So when bishops are called, they don't get called if they're not worthy. They don't get called— that the First Presidency, the apostles have got the power and the insight and the gift of discernment enough to detect, if somebody should or should not be a, uh, a bishop, or if they're worthy or not in regard to serving as a bishop. And you and I touched upon this last night on the phone call, um, and I, and I just want to get your perspective, and yours as well, Lorraine, uh, in regards to what your thoughts are in respect to the gift of discernment. Because Chelsea has just shared with us that at the time of the, uh, the awful events that were happening, John Goodrich, your father, was in fact a bishop and had been called by a bishop and had gone through the same process and was exposed to the same gift of discernment. Can you provide any thoughts in regards to that, you know, that process and the gift of discernment in respect to what you now shared with us, the events and the experiences that were taking place at the time?

Well, I remember a side anecdote. I know you remember this too, Mom, that we talked about that it was nice after my dad was called to be bishop that he was nice, nice to the family, because he was pretty grouchy. Uh, most of the time he was pretty mean. Um, for 2 weeks, for 2 weeks, he was really nice for 2 weeks after he was called to be.

I was so excited. I thought, wow, this is, this is what a man needs to become nice to his family, is to become called the bishop. And I was I couldn't believe the change, but it really only lasted about 2 weeks of humility or chuffed up or whatever, I don't know, that, um, in that— I, I think he remained quite chuffed up, but in his home, that's where the chuffing was. And in the world, he appeared very humble. He had a private persona versus public.

Yeah, he had two faces. And I think our perspective on Ian is that Our experience with Elder David B. Haight was that personally, we feel that he was a sincere person, a kind, gentle, and honest and sincere person. But after our experience, it would appear that, you know, there was some kind of disconnect there as far as discernment about our father and our family, because, you know, I mean, obviously, for Elder Haight to hold our family up as, as like a standard to the world of what a family should be like and everything, and even my father as a standard in comparison to this other man he was discussing that had criminal behaviors, you know, there, there was a disconnect there when it came to him really knowing or sensing what was really going on with our family.

A spiritual disconnect.

Yeah. And I mean, how, how could he know unless he literally had super natural powers, which is kind of, you know, what the spirit of discernment is sort of, um, you know, considered to be in a way. Because on the external, on the outside of everything, it did look like our family was the perfect family, but we weren't.

And I had many questions later when this all came out and Chelsea came to me and shared these things. I wondered about John being called as bishop because I, as his wife, you— I don't know about Jim Bennett, Ian Bennett— you were a bishop. As his wife, I was called in with him, and to receive that calling from the stake president, who asked my then-husband again, are there any things that you need to repent of? Are there any issues in your life? You know, Lorraine Bennett, can you support him fully in this calling? And I looked back on that, and I really thought, How did the stake president feel so, so confident when these things were actively going on in— under my own roof? And other things that came out during discovery in divorce of extramarital affairs. How, how was this missed? Um, so that, that was a big question for me. I realized people could be very deceptive, but I believe in the spirit of discernment, and I thought surely they would picked up on something there. Just me talking.

I mean, clearly it can be a real thing, the spirit of discernment. It's just, it's not always, it's not always happening when we think it's happening, maybe.

Or when it should.

Well, I've never been a bishop. I've only been a counselor in the bishopric. I've been counselor twice. But I was always throughout my time in the Church, I was always kind of afraid of the spirit of discernment. I thought that leaders could look at me and look right through me and see everything I had done wrong. And I felt that well into my adulthood and meeting General Authorities meeting apostles. I mean, Elder Haight, and we talked about this before the broadcast, but Elder Haight, my mother is still in the ward, I think in that same ward where Elder Haight was a member. They used to hold the meeting, they give 10 minutes at the end of the meeting for Elder Haight to speak if he were there. And sometimes Elder Haight would speak and the other times he would go home early. And when we moved to Utah, we stayed in that ward for about 6 months and lived with my parents while we were looking for a house and everything else. And it was really nice that more often than not, uh, the meetings would end early. But, uh, but my reaction to meeting Elder Haight and to meeting all of these guys is they have some kind of superhuman ability to look through me, to, to see things that I don't know about. And the older I get, And the more experience I have, the more it's clear that they're just like everybody else. You know, I'm really fascinated that you still say the spirit of discernment is a thing even after it failed so dramatically here. I mean, can you elaborate on that a little bit? I mean, do you still feel like there is some kind of spirit of discernment, but it we don't do it right, or, or how would you frame that?

It's a really good question. You know, to be perfectly fair, I felt in my life that I was, I was very obedient to all the principles of the gospel. Fast and pray on fast Sundays, sometimes extra, very prayerful, never missed a family home evening, had early morning scripture study. I tried to be very, very dutiful in my responsibilities of both a wife and mother. And I'll tell you, the most therapy I've had to have for myself was— I thought I had the spirit, I thought I was a spiritual mom. How did I completely— how did this go on for years and I was completely clueless? To— the only thing for me is that I look back and I think, because my mind I could never go there. Even when sometimes things seemed off, I, I could— I would think, dads don't do that.

I wouldn't do that.

My husband certainly wouldn't do that. But I had to look back and say, how, how could I not have? I mean, yeah, Chelsea's got a lot of feedback of people saying, oh, obviously the mom knew. She's just as guilty. She just let it go on. And I'm like, I left. I mean, as soon as I knew at a time when my children were raised and my life was comfortable, I could have just stayed quiet. Um, no, no way.

Yeah, so I don't know. Well, and here's a little trigger warning for some context around that. Um, and I say trigger warning because I'm going to say something that for some people could be triggering, so just about abuse. So, you know, most of the abuse from my dad took place in the middle of the night. He would come and get in bed with me in the middle of the night. When my mom was sleeping. So, and then he also told me not to tell my mom about any of it because he said it would hurt my mom, it would upset and hurt her, and I didn't want to hurt my mom. So this was just, you know, it was excellent. It was your, how do I put this, your quintessential classic grooming, pedophile grooming. And he was very sneaky, very stealthy, very secretive. And so my mom really did not have any idea. In retrospect, in hindsight, we both look back and we can see that there were symptoms that I manifested that were related to the abuse. But, um, and, you know, even now my mom's getting a little emotional thinking about it because this is a very difficult thing. But this was all coming back to, yes, how, how does a mother who was very righteous by, you know, LDS standards, who was very spiritual, how did she not have, you know, the discernment to, to recognize this was happening in her own Home, you know, these are good questions to ask.

But certainly nobody looked to me in my religious community for discernment and leadership.

Yeah, yeah. And that makes it an even higher, I guess, standard, standard of expectation, right, on, on the, the prophet, the apostles, our church leaders. But truthfully, they're just like Jim Bennett was just saying, they are human too. They are not They're not God himself.

And I just want to respond to that as a bishop, calling I did not want to have, by the way. I'd had a previous leadership calling as a missionary and it didn't go well. It was a pretty bad experience as a young missionary. I shouldn't have been called into that. I was a branch president as a young, a young man, and it was quite unpleasant experience. I didn't want to seek any leadership callings. Nevertheless, when I was called as a bishop, I think within the first couple of weeks I felt completely overwhelmed. I often sought throughout my tenure as a bishop support and help to deal with a whole range of issues, including issues relating to sexual abuse. I felt completely inadequate, completely overwhelmed as a bishop, and was frequently reminded— and Jim Bennett, you and I have talked about this— was reminded that to rely on the gift of discernment, and for the most part, I never really received that. I just, it was based on, and also I asked repeatedly for professional training. I needed training. I, you know, these are serious issues that the members had experienced at some point, including confessions, you know, to a bishop relating to past sexual abuse issues of these very vulnerable members that had come to me to talk openly, and I completely was overwhelmed and inadequate and didn't have any training and was reminded to rely on the gift, on the Spirit. The Spirit is the default and the guide, and through the Spirit you will know what to say. And frankly, most of the time I did not know what to say. And so, you know, we see here Jim Bennett, you know, the— it cannot— leaders cannot and must not rely on the gift of discernment because in so doing, uh, you know, children and youth and other people are at risk. Uh, clearly it doesn't work, uh, for whatever reason I can't explain. But, you know, I had my own experience on that, and, and the church needs to, uh, put in other systems like, uh, what they did in Scotland, the Disclosure Scotland Act, where you have to do a background check on— police check and do very detailed background checks on bishops and stake presidents and people that work with youth and children in a very rigorous way, in a very detailed way. And yes, provide professional training because these people have, you know, are dealing with very serious issues of which they have no training for.

Well, and to reiterate that, I mean, I agree with that 100%. When you rely solely on the gift of discernment, that opens the door for some situations that are really kind of disastrous that we've had in our own family. I had— I'm going to try to be vague here because I haven't gotten permission from my child to talk about this. But one of my children down at BYU was called into the bishop's office and accused of being immoral because the light had gone out from their eyes. They hadn't done anything, they hadn't confessed anything, and yet this bishop was sort of saying, well, I've got this magical sense of discernment and I'm going to essentially punish you for something you haven't done. And we called the stake president and the stake president's response was, well, this bishop's getting released in a week anyway, so don't worry about it. Which was really very frustrating to me because that's not appropriate. When you sort of infuse these bishops and these church leaders with superhuman powers that they don't have, you're just asking for trouble. And I'm not— I mean, my previous question to you, to both of you, Chelsea and Lorraine, about, you know, how do you see the gift of discernment now? I'm not saying the gift of discernment doesn't exist. I think I've had experiences in my own life where I feel like I've gotten discernment that came from a source outside of myself. But what I am saying is to eliminate the common sense kinds of guardrails that can help prevent this kind of abuse because we're going to assume that the gift of discernment will take care of it. That's a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more, Jim Bennett. And going back to your question about why I said that the gift of discernment is clearly real, I also think that— I think that intuition is real. I think spiritual experiences are real, and I think spiritual guidance is real. I wonder if where we really come into some dangerous territory is trying to speak for others or feel that we can get revelation for others. But that's essentially what church leaders are looked to and expected to do. And I do think that that is dangerous territory, especially when it comes to, like Ian was saying, areas where there really should be more clinical training. Someone should be more speaking to a, a professional, a mental health professional, or, or maybe even a, you know, legal professional, or, or the, the, the authorities, the police. I don't know, that there are just, um, maybe certain boundaries and limitations that should be more set on, on this whole discernment idea.

To add to that thought, if I may, when we were— when this all first came out in 2015 And we were dealing with Bishop Miller, who is a kind-hearted, good man. But I can tell you that on more than one occasion, I know he was overwhelmed because he said to me, I don't know what to do with all this. He said, I'm just a Frito-Lay guy, which for those of you who don't know, that's a brand of potato chip. And his job was driving the little trucks around loaded with corn chips and potato chips and delivering the chips. That's his door. And he kept saying, I don't know what to do about this. I deliver corn chips.

And I would say, but you're our bishop.

You've got to know, right? You've got to know what we should do.

Yeah.

Yeah. The job description for a bishop is incredibly serious. There's this expectation. The, the communication around the bishop and the role of the bishop as it's been presented in General Conference, you know, being the, the fire of the Lord and the, uh, the judge in Israel and gifted discernment and all these powers and extraordinary capabilities. It's almost godlike. And, and then you contrast that with the reality where bishops and stake presidents often just completely feel overwhelmed and inadequate and just don't You know, they just can't match the, uh, the description, if you like, that general authorities are guilty of, in my opinion, uh, and how they present that significance of the role, the sacredness of the role, and all these powers, etc. The reality, often not always, because there is some, a lot of inspiration for sure, but the reality in many cases is that they, the bishops and the stake presidents, do not have the tools or the experience to deal with the issues, and they, and they feel completely out of it. Yet, but the members expect significant capabilities and powers from these leaders who in reality just don't have, you know, those supernatural powers. And so this is another area I think where the church has to make a lot of improvements and changes to, yes, use the spiritual gifts, which I believe exist in real, but by themselves are insufficient in order, you know, to, limit or reduce the risk of harm or injury to people. You need other mechanisms, other tools, other systems, training, professional training, etc., and other support to help a bishop or a stake president, you know, deal with these issues. Chelsea, last night when you and I were talking, we made some wonderful notes from the conversation. And we talked, uh, I just wanna go back to my notes here. We talked about, uh, you, you'd sent me a link to the, I think the Associated Press interview conversations that you'd done. And I did listen to that and I made a few notes from that. And from that, we, there in that link, there were some examples of some of the recordings that you'd made with John Goodrich. There's also a recording of, uh, an interview that John Goodrich, um, had with law enforcement officers at that time. We talked about John Goodrich confessing to the bishop, the bishop initially, Bishop Miller initially being receptive and open to providing details of the confession of John Goodrich. We talked about the church leaning on the bishop, reminding the bishop that under the clergy penitent laws, that the bishop is not allowed legally to disclose the confession of, uh, John Goodrich because of the laws that exist, the clergy penitent laws that exist in 33 states in the United States, including in Idaho, and that those confessions are, uh, protected under the clergy penitent laws. And then I shared with you that, uh, when a confession like that takes place, especially when it relates to sexual abuse, there is a policy, and I understand a legal requirement, and a requirement to do the right thing to record the conversation either in writing, not necessarily electronically, but record or make notes of that confession. And what happens, especially in a case of, you know, cases of sexual abuse, there is a requirement and a policy for the bishop to work with the state president. And then what happens, the state president or the counselors annotate the records of the member, and those are actually written into the computer system electronically. I know that, uh, from, you know, from my own experience. And we talked a bit about this yesterday. So you had this, you know, your, your father went to the bishop, there was a confession, uh, the Bishop Miller was— you'd met with him and he was, um, he even said to you that he wants to be, uh, subpoenaed and, and called to give testimony, but then the church reminded him that, uh, he wasn't allowed to do that. And of course, that, that shut Bishop Muller down. You, there's a, uh, you, you recorded some of the confessions from your father. Your father then backtracked, or tried to backtrack, uh, you know, some of the confessions, and you found it very difficult to, uh, to access, uh, enough information in order to continue with the, the prosecution, you know, prosecutors need evidence, and that's communicated on the, uh, on the link. And so we were aware that, uh, in such confessions, that records, uh, notes are made, and that those, uh, bishops and state presidents annotate the records, and that you have a right under the Freedom of Information Act— US, I think that those rights exist in the United States, of course— they certainly do in Canada here, and they certainly do in the UK, that you have a right to access or request those annotated records. Your thoughts about that. First of all, did I get— did I explain that correctly in terms of the situation there? And could you comment on your thoughts and feelings on accessing the notes that Bishop Miller would have and will have made, and then his records would have been annotated?

Yes, absolutely. And that was, uh, the AP and NPR, they collaborated on a podcast through Reveal News. And maybe, Ian, you can include that link, uh, in the description of our podcast here when we're done. Uh, it's really good for those that are interested. If they want to go on, you can hear audio clips of Church Attorney Paul Riddings speaking, uh, more than what they included in the AP article. You can hear audio clips of my father John Goodrich speaking, and, uh, as well as Mike Resendez. Uh, anyways, there's— and Bishop Miller and our meetings with them. So anyways, um, yeah, I think, you know, Ian, I was aware of the fact— I was aware of the fact that records of sex abusers, um, sex, sexual predators get, uh, their records get noted in the church. Because Bishop Miller told us that at the time everything came out in 2015, that when he called the helpline, they told him that my father's record should be marked as being a pedophile. Something confusing about that is that later in our meetings with Bishop Miller and Attorney Paul Reading, Bishop Miller said, well, now that John Goodrich is excommunicated, his membership record no longer exists. He said it disappeared. So you were saying, Ian, you weren't sure if that was true, that Bishop Miller might have been, uh, confused about that, or he may have been given, um, inaccurate information. But it wasn't until I spoke with you, Ian, that I think the full awareness of the fact that there is so much documentation that would have taken place in the process of my father making confessions, in the process of Bishop Miller and maybe other former priesthood leaders having spoken to Salt Lake City attorneys. Uh, there would have been so much information there that I do have a legal right to, most likely, and I should probably try to make a public records request on those things. And that was something that was never brought to my attention during the criminal trial after I reported my father. You know, there was other evidence besides Bishop Miller. There was my testimony. There was some recorded, um, conversations that I had with my father where he confessed to some of the abuse. But there's no doubt that Bishop Miller's testimony would have been the most powerful form of evidence that we could have had. And the thing that's very suspicious to me is that, uh, the, the church attorney Paul Ridding, for some reason, he was getting involved with, with that process. He was contacting the prosecutor during the criminal proceedings, and he was having conversations with her. I don't know what all of those conversations entailed, but I can tell you that there was an email correspondence that I still have where Paul Reading emailed me and said, "The prosecutor just told me that she doesn't want Bishop Miller to testify." And I was shocked, and so I emailed the prosecutor and asked her if that was true, and she said, "No, I would never have told Paul Reading that I don't want the bishop to testify." She said, "I can see that probably they're going to try to hide behind the clergy privilege law," but she said, "I would never say—" as a prosecutor that I wouldn't want a powerful witness to be able to testify. So I emailed Paul Ridding and I said, this is what the prosecutor said. And Paul answered back and said, well, I'm sorry, there must have been some kind of misunderstanding. So at that point, I really started to grow suspicious of why Paul Ridding, representing the church as an attorney, was getting so involved in this criminal case regarding my father's sexual abuse of me. It's very strange. So to, to realize now that there could have been not only the bishop's testimony, but there also could have been, uh, all this other— all these other records that you speak of, Ian, that could have been probably, uh, legally brought into that criminal case potentially is really astounding for me to, to think of. Um, and that none of that was, was brought in and that ultimately the case was that criminal case was dropped, you know, and it was, it was devastating because justice wasn't served. And that's an obstruction of justice, which I think is an obstruction in its own way of mercy and healing. And that kind of, I guess, goes to the other part of our conversation last night.

Can I add just a quick thought to that along that same pathway is that we just recently learned— you can hear in the audio recordings with Paul Ridding and Bishop Miller They really, really reiterate, you know, Bishop kept saying, I would be sued and all these things would happen. And Paul Reading keeps reiterating, he can't testify, it's the law. But they had— the prosecutor had sent a subpoena to Bishop Miller. And it was only recently when Chelsea had an attorney friend looking, he did a Freedom of Information request and public records only, only partially has been complied with. They're, they're sitting really tight on those records. But he said, do you know that there was never a motion made by John's criminal defense or by John to— a motion was never made to do away with that subpoena.

A motion was never made to block Bishop Miller from testifying because there wasn't really legal grounds to do so, is what we're coming to realize. Right.

Where did the powerful influence to do so come from?

It's clear that your strength of your case relied heavily on the testimony of Bishop Miller. And so, you know, in the cases of sexual abuse, you know, there's a helpline. The policy, I understand, is that on such cases like that, of significant nature of the case, the bishops, leaders, are required to take detailed notes. And the reason for that is primarily to protect the church. Enough good information, that the church can use and manage and manipulate internally would help its defense in respect to sexual abuse claims. So, you know, bishop takes the notes, they're required to be detailed, they cooperate— excuse me— they coordinate with the state presidency, coordinate with the people behind the helpline, the notes are uploaded Excuse me. And extensive notes will have been written and those notes will have been stored in an archive in a special file. When a person is excommunicated, like in the case of John Goodrich, they do not, those notes are not destroyed, they're not expunged. They continue because for several reasons, For legal purposes, the church might need them for defense because it has a defense. Secondly, if the person repents and can be readmitted to the church, then, you know, the blessings are restored. And it's important to know that, you know, in case of sexual abuse, the person, if they are readmitted to the church, they can't be called as a bishop, for example, and they can't be called into youth or church calling, sorry, the church or the callings where there is youth or children involved, even after being readmitted into the Church for legal reasons, obviously the Church didn't, you know, we're trying to protect the children there and youth there, but also for legal reasons, they're not allowed to work, you know, they could have had a judgment against them where they can't work with children or youth ever, or for 25 or 15 years or whatever. So it's important that the Church retains that information. I don't believe for one second that those notes have been destroyed, that they don't exist. I believe they do exist, and I think you have a right to, to access them. We also talked about the church efforts at lobbying. You know, there are laws in the states, I think in 33 states, and these are laws which uphold the clergy penitent laws and regulations. Where people confessing to a bishop or an ecclesiastical leader, those leaders are not allowed legally to disclose that information. And Paul Reading, and in the link there, there's some reference in the link that he sent to me which discusses that. But we learned on that link that the church works extraordinarily hard and is extremely strategic at lobbying legislators and government officials to maintain those laws in order to ensure that ecclesiastic leaders are not allowed or permitted or prohibited from disclosing confessions. And I think the argument was that if those laws were removed, that people, you know, wouldn't confess of their sins and therefore would be restricted or constrained in terms of from a doctrinal and spiritual perspective, because they can't confess, because the confession could be disclosed, they wouldn't confess, therefore, and therefore the repentance process would be thwarted and they couldn't experience or receive eternal life. So there's a doctrinal piece there. And then, Chelsea, we talked about the extraordinary chapter in the Book of Mormon, which is quite an interesting chapter, Alma 42, which talks quite extensively, actually, perhaps more than any other scripture, canon of scripture, in any other text, the relationship, the distinct relationship between mercy and justice, that they have to be balanced. And if you're too merciful towards somebody in terms of a crime or a transgression, to the extent where justice is robbed, it's outlined there in the scriptures, and that there has to be a balance between justice and mercy., and you cannot rob justice because if you rob justice, there's no law, there's no punishment. And he says in the scriptures in verse 22, there is no God. No, that God is a, God is a God of justice. So I've, I've, I've just gone through, zipped through some of the key notes there. So, um, and I've addressed the, the issue of, uh, John Grusch being excommunicated, but his notes still being intact. Um, do you wanna comment on some of those points that I just discussed with you, which are from the notes that we made when you and I chatted last night.

Yes, absolutely. And I know, Ian, you pointed out to me that you were really— something that really stood out to you, uh, on that, um, Reveal News podcast, which you're going to link, is when they play a clip of my father, John Goodrich, speaking during his police interview that he makes a statement about— to the effect that he thinks that all guys, most men, most guys have sexual attraction towards children and towards maybe even their own children. And you were just saying how stunning that was to you and appalling because of course it isn't true. And as a man, you know, You are speaking up, I think, for other men that would also say that that is not true and not normal. And, um, I think that the reason that that's so important to, to point out is that people need to realize in society in general, but definitely in the church where there's such an emphasis on repentance and forgiveness and the Atonement and things like that, that when it comes to these, these sexual predators, these pedophiles, they don't think or operate normally. And they need to be dealt with in a very serious— it needs to be taken very seriously in the church when, when there are these pedophiles at large, because they, they, they do not think like a normal man and they don't operate normally or healthy. And they are dangerous. They are dangerous and they need to be treated accordingly within the church. Um, so addressing that, was there something you wanted to add, Mom?

Uh, my thought there, in my experience, is that forgiveness without appropriate justice is just simply a construct that allows abusers to continue to abuse and victims to feel shame and guilt because they aren't forgiving big enough, fast enough within what's being put upon them.

Yeah, we talked about that on, um, in my first interview with, with you guys. Um, I, I totally agree with that. I think that forgiveness without the accountability piece— and going along, you know, it, it's without the accountability piece, there's, um, a, a serious injustice that can happen. And going along with Alma 42 that you brought up, Ian, you know, we talked about Chieko Okazaki's talk. She was a former formerly in, I think, the Relief Society, General Relief Society Presidency. Um, beautiful little Japanese lady. I think she's passed away now, but she gave a talk called Healing from Sexual Abuse that is just so phenomenal. And she talks about the need for justice in order for mercy and healing. They're all interconnected, and they, they all need to take place in order for a complete, you know, fulfillment of basically, you know, the Atonement to take place in people's lives. And she, she explains it so well. So I highly recommend that talk to listeners. Go look it up. That is the kind of doctrine that the Church needs to be promoting. I mean, actually, that is the doctrine. But, um, that's, that's what needs to be emphasized instead of, you know, this whole thing of that you brought up, Ian, of focusing on protecting the right of the abuser to be able to confess so that their soul is protected. You know, I think I brought this up before the last time that we interviewed, but that kind of goes in direct conflict with what the Savior said about, you know, if anyone should harm one of these little ones, um, it would be better that a millstone be cast around their neck and that they be cast into the depths of the ocean. And I actually saw kind of a humorous comment the other day, uh, on one of my interviews, um, that was like a live, and somebody wrote and said, it seems like the church is having a millstone shortage. And I, I'm not— I thought that was very funny. I mean, you know, for, for the situation, there's still some humor there with that. I think that I'm not promoting that we, that we murder these people by any means, um, but I do think that that's just symbolic. We know that the scriptures are often more symbolic than anything, and we need to take them, um, in that way. That's why Christ taught in parables and everything like that. And I think that that's symbolic of, of the seriousness with which we need to handle these situations and handle these predators. And we need to consider more the souls of the children first. Uh, of such is the kingdom of heaven. These are the least of these. You know, we need to consider the souls of the children first before, uh, these those that would harm the souls of little children, right? Because Christ said that those people need to be dealt with in a very more harsh, serious, bringing justice type of manner.

No, absolutely. I mean, we did talk about that rather extensively in our last, in our last conversation, but it's, it's just so essential that people realize what forgiveness actually is. You know, because people think of forgiveness as giving somebody a, just sort of a blank check to do whatever they want and a pass for everything they've done. And the church is actually somewhat inconsistent in how it applies that principle because it's willing to sort of overlook these kinds of abuse cases. But I'm aware of several people, for instance, who engaged in financial, embezzlement in the church that were in leadership positions, and they have since been rebaptized, but they will never, ever, ever hold any kind of a leadership calling again because the church doesn't forget that sort of thing. For whatever reason, those kinds of sins against the church are something they're not willing to overlook, even if they're willing to extend, you know, if they're willing to let you be baptized and give you your temple blessings back and all of that. But there's no way on earth they're willing to do anything when there's been financial impropriety. So it'd be nice if they were consistent.

Yeah, it seems like the priorities are illustrated through that.

Yeah, the priorities may be a little out of balance here. And I think going along with that, there's— I just want to reiterate that I think there needs to be more education around these issues. And, uh, you know, when there's crimes, when there's pedophilia that's been acted out on, that, uh, that's not something that's just covered with forgiveness or even easily taken care of by the perpetrator, um, you know, saying they're sorry or saying that they've repented. That this— there's a lot more going on, even, uh, you know, from a clinical scientific standpoint with these people. And I think about that confession that we've come to now understand happened in 1999 of my father to the stake president when my father was the bishop. And I frankly think that that is the main reason that we— my mom and I were given so much money by the church is because when that was discovered and confirmed, of course, the church attorney wouldn't directly confirm that with us, but he indirectly confirmed that there was somebody who knew, uh, when I was a child prior to 2015. And what it really appears happened there was that when my dad made that confession to that stake president, my dad seemed very, um, remorseful, very, very penitent and sorrowful. He was sobbing and crying. In fact, he came home that night and he told my mom he was sobbing and crying still in a way that she hadn't seen. And he said said, somebody made a confession tonight. It was very, very needed. And he couldn't stop crying. And now she realizes that that was probably connected to that, that particular night that he confessed to the stake president. But what I'm saying is that the stake president seemed to have thought that, you know, through my dad's appearance of repentance, that that was enough, because the stake president didn't then follow policy. He didn't then follow protocol, which is that he was supposed to have me notify my mother about the situation so that if she wanted to, she could take legal recourse. There were minor children in the home. Minor children in the home.

The Church policy, if the confessor has— if there are still children at risk in the home, the wife is to be included and action steps are to be taken to remove him from access to the children. And obviously, that didn't happen. And had it happened, life would have played out very differently, you know, decade— a decade and a half earlier. Yeah, it would have prevented other children in my home who may at some point feel free to share their story. Um, it would have protected other abuse children from being abused. It would have gone very differently. But because mercy was extended without the proper justice being applied it created a, a tragedy.

It created a tragedy. And not only was that, you know, protocol and church policy not followed by that stake president, but my dad was left in as a bishop, and he was able to have children alone with him in his, uh, you know, bishop's office doing interviews. And so it's really major. And I think access— that, that's a missing piece that I think a lot of people don't realize out there, because the AP's reporting was focusing more on what happened from the point of 2015 forward, and Bishop Miller and his testimony being denied, uh, because of the church's, um, you know, activity there and, and, uh, bias there of not wanting the bishop to, to testify. But the AP didn't really report on this other piece of it. So we're really grateful for the opportunity, um, Ian and Jim, to be able to speak about this because we think it's a really important piece. It's frankly, I think why the church offered us the money that they did. It's a huge part of it. And so it's an important— it's a key crucial piece of the story.

Yeah, and that, that, uh, brings in the, the, the other points. You— all those points there, uh, line with the points that we— the notes that we took yesterday on the call. Uh, so I appreciate that, Chelsea. Thank you so much. A question: is John Goodrich a registered, um, sex offender?

No, no, because my case never got to go before a jury. Uh, a judge did rule for it to go before— to go to trial, but unfortunately it never made it that far. And so if it had, I believe that most likely he would have been convicted, uh, from my understanding of speaking with attorneys, and that he would be a registered sex offender now. But Unfortunately, that's not the case. And in fact, I think I mentioned on the last interview that, you know, he had drugged and raped a woman in Boise in 2016, and he did get a felony for that. And it— but they did a plea deal where they dropped the rape charge in exchange for him admitting to the drugs the way they do, you know, the plea deals. Um, I think that's another thing. There needs to be legislation to remove the opportunity for plea deals for certain certain crimes and sex crimes. But anyways, because that all happened, the Idaho Dental Board did say that they were going to remove his license once he got the felony, but they, they didn't ever do that. So he's still a practicing dentist and he has children, patients, child patients, and he's at the clinic where he's working now.

He was in private practice when we were married. Solo practice, but he's since sold that practice, moved to a new bigger city, changed his first name and his appearance very profoundly, and is continuing to practice dentistry. And he took his skills with the conscious amnesia drug Halcyon with him because on the website where he's now practicing dentistry, you can click the link and find out how you can forget everything that happened to you while you were there while you're getting your dental work done, which, as you know, is a sexual predator's dream is have a drug that completely removes the memory of the person who takes it.

Yeah, so there's, there's many things to be concerned about. And that's why we've continued to speak out. You know, I think that people that don't know the whole story might question and think, you know, are these women after attention or money? And the answer is no, we're very concerned with people who are still at risk.

Well, if I were writing a movie, and I included details about a guy who changes his name and uses some drug to wipe people's memories. Nobody would buy it because it's so outlandish. I mean, truth is so much stranger than fiction here, right? You're right, Jim.

Yeah, he goes by Duke now, and he, he's taken on kind of a cowboy persona, which was the complete opposite of his more kind of preppy, uh, vibe before. Um, so it's, it is like kind of something out of out of a movie. It's very strange. And it would be just pure entertainment, right, if it wasn't for the fact that there are children still at risk of being abused.

Well, adults as well. Any adult that he decides to target.

Yeah, anyone that he uses that drug on, uh, yeah, could be— could end up being abused.

I, I want to say something, and then I got a question for you, and then, and then, uh, Jim, you can kind of Jim Bennett, because I know we, uh, we're coming towards the, the end of our time here on this, uh, on this podcast. Um, the church continues to fail many of its members and continues to place children and youth and other individuals at risk because they don't have enough systems or mechanisms in place. We've— I think we agree on that. Um, we also see that the church, from my perspective, from— in my opinion, the church is very focused on self-preservation, protecting the balance sheet, protecting itself from litigation, etc. And we'll do and go to great lengths to make sure that those clergy penitent laws are maintained, and we'll go to great lengths to protect the institution of Um, we also see that the church isn't doing enough, doesn't have enough checks and balances to make sure that bishops and state friends are doing the right thing, following policies and procedures, and doing enough to, um, to protect children in lots of cases, I'm sure. Notwithstanding, I want to say this, that in my experience 35, 37 years in the church. Most of the, uh, leaders, the male leaders in the church, uh, in my experience have been very good men. Good, kind, honest, decent men, husbands, fathers who do not think or feel like John Goodridge whatsoever. Uh, these thoughts and experiences are completely alien to these individuals., and I want to say that the— again, in my experience, the church has many, many wonderful male and female leaders across the church who do extraordinary good. They're of good intent, they're good spirit, they rely on the gift of discernment too much, I think. They don't have the tools or the, you know, the support, unfortunately, and that's the church's failing. But they're good leaders, and for the most part, in my experience at least, They do extraordinary work to help youth and children. Sadly, unfortunately, you have too many others that think like John Goodrich, behave like John Goodrich, who are perpetrators, who are aggressors, and who prey on vulnerable individuals within their own family and within the church. And so my question is, after that, What message would you give the First Presidency if they were listening to this? The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the First Presidency. What message would you— in all this experience that you've gone through, what would you tell them if they were listening to this podcast?

Well, you know, I think that I would ask again as I have before on these types of public interviews, that they adopt a policy of total transparency when it comes to sexual abuse cases, to not hold things in secret, to not keep things so private and so secret, but to, to bring things out more into the open, to involve the appropriate authorities, the appropriate professionals. When it comes to dealing with victims within the church. And I think that if the church realized, you know, of course they, they care about having a, a good image. I mean, we all care about that to some extent, and certainly the organization does, that their image would be drastically improved by practicing, by having a policy of transparency that they, they try to stick to in these cases when it comes to sexual abuse. And being on the side of the victims more than the perpetrators. And I think that by being transparent, open, honest, not hiding these things, not covering these things, not trying to keep victims more silent with money or whatever else, that, that is what is going to make the church be a safe place for people to go to, a respectable place for people to go to and where people will want to, to take and, and, and bring their children and raise their children within the church. But if the trend continues, which has, of the way the church handles these things, kind of covering things up, uh, keeping things, you know, so in-house that the, the proper professionals and authorities aren't involved, then people are not going to feel like the church is a safe place for their kids. That's how I currently feel about it. And that, that would be my overall biggest arching— overarching message. I think besides that, I would just ask them to listen to the talking points that we've brought up as far as, you know, the gift of discernment, uh, what forgiveness really means, the, um, juxtaposition of justice and mercy and what that is really all about, and having more discussions around these things so that we come to a better place where our fruits, the fruits of the church, are better when it comes to these issues and really looking at what the doctrine really is, uh, on these issues and if it's really being adhered to in the church's handling of, of child sexual abuse.

What do you think, Mom? Absolutely. I really, uh, reiterate or confirm what Chelsea said. I would say the same thing. I was, as she was thinking, speaking, I was thinking about a section of the Book of Mormon where Alma leaves the judgment seat and he goes out amongst the people and he just starts excommunicating members of the church, leaders of the church, right and left, and reteaching those who are willing to repent. Those who won't take accountability for maybe covering, maybe abusing, they're out. And those that are left are retaught the principles of the gospel as Christ would have had them taught. And I'm sure that was not a pleasant time or pleasant look for the church during that. But if the Book of Mormon was really written for our time, then perhaps we're overdue for a cleansing of leadership who's more concerned about image, bottom line, dollar, protecting the image of the church, than doing the right thing to protect the vulnerable in the church, to support them, and to get these predators out and to expose them and to bring them— for the church to be fully involved in the justice process, to bring them to accountability so that they cannot continue to hurt other people.

Shine such a bright light on the predators that there's nowhere for them to run and hide. The church shouldn't be a safe place for predators to hide. That makes no sense. So how can we change that?

Amen and amen. I mean, I think that is a great way to conclude this. I am so grateful that both of you are willing to share this story because I really feel like you are doing everything in your power to shine a light on something that needs to be exposed, that needs to be brought out into the light of day. And I am so grateful for your courage and your bravery in doing that. And I I— what, what's next for you guys? Where do you go from here?

Well, we just look forward to continuing to have conversations with people like you, Jim Bennett, and Ian Bennett. These are the conversations that need to happen. This is where there's a potential for change, right, in, in the LDS Church and in society, in our families, is we have to be having these conversations. I think that The other day I had a, a fellow survivor of child sexual abuse write to me, and she said, "Silence is the disease." She said, "Silence is the killer." So let's stop being silent about these issues. Let's talk about them. Let's have open, candid discussions. And I have a lot of hope as we continue to do that, that maybe there can be some change happen.

Chelsea, Lorraine, and Jim Bennett, thank you so much for being with us today. Chelsea, Lorraine, you're incredibly courageous and brave individuals. We extend our love and gratitude to you and hope and pray that you will find some semblance of peace and hope in your life. And I think you've— I mean, you've got each other, you've got other loved ones in your life that support you. And we want to thank you so much for sharing your story here today, and we're confident that this will reach people and will actually help people, and we hope and we're confident that this will facilitate further change in the church. That is our hope and prayer. On behalf of Jim Bennett and I, thank you for joining the Inside Out podcast today and for being with us. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you for having us.