Jump to content
sunstoned

MormonLeaks: Former Mormon Mission President Admitting to Inappropriate Interactions with Women

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there is.  She apparently has a criminal history, including asserting sex assault allegations against ten other men.  That's an "apparent motive."

Other than the one statement from Bishop's son, do we have any evidence to support this claim?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Fine, apply this same question to George P. Lee.

I'm aware of the imperfection of people.  But, if there are repeated opportunities within the framework of the Church for the Spirit to intervene and stem the number of victims, where is the break down?

We don't know how often discernment might work to prevent similar situations.  Lee's example and this one if true may be the rare exception.  Otoh, discernment may not exist.  Not sure how one could prove prevention of events in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

We don't know how often discernment might work to prevent similar situations.  Lee's example and this one if true may be the rare exception.  Otoh, discernment may not exist.  Not sure how one could prove prevention of events in the future.

You have just touched upon a sliver of my ongoing faith crisis...

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, juliann said:

The unmentioned villain here is Mormonleaks.

I agree.

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

This woman didn't release this.

I am giving her the benefit of the doubt on that point.

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

It sounds like she was doing the appropriate thing by using a lawyer.

I'm quite a bit more skeptical on this point.  I am having a very hard time believing that "lawyers" and police both told her that a 33-year old sexual assault allegation could proceed, both civilly and criminally.  On the other hand, extracting a "confession" may have been Phase 1 of a shakedown effort, which was foiled when MormonLeaks published the audio file and transcript.

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

She is likely a troubled soul to begin with and now Mormonleaks has set her up for exposure and ridicule. 

Indeed.  Hopefully this blows over without her identity becoming widely known.  

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

What they have done is repulsive and abusive.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ttribe said:
Quote

Yes, there is.  She apparently has a criminal history, including asserting sex assault allegations against ten other men.  That's an "apparent motive."

Other than the one statement from Bishop's son, do we have any evidence to support this claim?

Not yet.  

Other than the statements from the (anonymous) woman, do we have any competent, probative evidence to support her claim?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You have just touched upon a sliver of my ongoing faith crisis...

Yeah, it can be harsh.

We usually would only have evidence of failures for this type of thing.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not yet.  

Other than the statements from the (anonymous) woman, do we have any competent, probative evidence to support her claim?

Thanks,

-Smac

Only Bishop's admissions of guilt on tape.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Calm said:

1) this is according to her on the tape, right?  

In all news reports that I have read there is no mention that he/church is being sued.  All reports simply state that she revealed this in private to her ecclesiastical leaders first in 2010 (they are the ones who reported this to the police, not her), and later in 2016.  Nothing happened in either case, which is why I assume she has gone to desperate measures to get this recording.  It is unclear if she is now suing him or the church, but she does have a lawyer representing her in her dealings with the church.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not yet.  

Other than the statements from the (anonymous) woman, do we have any competent, probative evidence to support her claim?

Thanks,

-Smac

That's my point, Spencer.  You are spending a significant amount of time defending a presumption of innocence for him, and then turn right around and call into question her credibility based upon equally flimsy evidence.  Unless you've been hired as his advocate, I would hope you would be more even in your assessment; especially in light of your professional occupation, counselor.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

some dirty birdie business

Totally off topic, but I so enjoy the uniqueness of your language.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Kids if they have any feeling at all aren't going to publicly announce their parent has dementia unless they have to  if the parent is still capable of reading or watching news.  I hope my mother dies before she knows I think she has dementia.  I insist when she gets troubled by her confusion, it is simply the same as everyone else.  Dementia patients have enough to deal with already, they don't need to have their nose rubbed into the fact they are slowly losing their mind.

I think every family handles these delicate situations differently.  My MIL recently passed away after a long battle with dementia.  When she did or said things as a result of the dementia, family members would politely explain the situation to help others understand what was occurring.

 If the "confessions" were simply a result of his dementia, I would think the family would want to get that out as soon as possible to reduce tarnishing his legacy.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

In all news reports that I have read there is no mention that he/church is being sued.  All reports simply state that she revealed this in private to her ecclesiastical leaders first in 2010 (they are the ones who reported this to the police, not her), and later in 2016.  Nothing happened in either case, which is why I assume she has gone to desperate measures to get this recording.  It is unclear if she is now suing him or the church, but she does have a lawyer representing her in her dealings with the church.  

I was referring to her claims she talked to church leaders earlier than 2010.  I thought you were as well.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:
Quote

She's not being accused on misconduct.  She is doing the accusing against another person.  All other things being equal, as between a "benefit of the doubt" for the accused and a "benefit of the doubt" for the accuser, the former has to predominate.  It has to.  

Put yourself in the crosshairs, Rockpond.  Suppose someone made unsubstantiated accusations of rape against you.  Or a loved one.  Wouldn't you want that "benefit of the doubt?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you sure about that? It seems she's being accused of all kinds of things; Manipulating an innocent old man,

"Manipulating" (as to the woman's conduct)?  Yes.  I'll own that.  I think her using false pretenses to lure Bro. Bishop into an "interview," her physically isolating him alone with her, her coercive/threatening questioning, her repeated references to her previous threats to murder him, etc. all come together as seeming very "manipulative."

"Innocent" (as to Bro. Bishop)?  Maybe, maybe not.  But a presumption of innocence holds.

"Old man?"  Yes.

Quote

falsely accusing 10 other men etc.

Per Bro. Bishop's son, an attorney, yes.  And I assume he has documentation about these other incidents.  Releasing that information, however, would almost certainly result in the "outing" of the woman's identity.

Quote

People seem willing to accept the accusations against her because it's impossible to think that her accusations against Bishop could be true.

Well, no.  I'm willing to characterize her behavior as "manipulative" because she does not dispute the authenticity of the file, only its release.

I'm also inclined to believe the allegations about false accusations as to other men.

Neither of these conclusions, however, is based on my assessment of Bro. Bishop.  I don't know him.  I have never met him, nor have I ever heard of him.  I have no interest in defending misconduct by a member of the LDS Church, particularly by someone in a position of prominence and authority, as that misconduct would bring the Church into disrepute.

The accusations against Bro. Bishop may be true.  Or they may be exaggerated and/or confabulated.  Or they could be substantively false and part of a shakedown attempt.

We just don't know.

Quote

This woman is getting very little benefit of the doubt that she may be telling the truth.

As an attorney, "the benefit of the doubt" is more or less akin to the presumption of innocence found in American Jurisprudence.  So the only way to give the accuser "the benefit of the doubt" is to take it away from the accused.

Well no, I'm not going to do that.

I have some serious reservations about the woman's overall credibility.  I am withholding judgment as to the substantive allegations against Bro. Bishop.  We just don't know.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, it can be harsh.

We usually would only have evidence of failures for this type of thing.

Horribly damaging failures.  Not just a matter of Sister Jones not being well suited to working with Sister Smith in the RS Presidency; outright sexual abuse of women and children.  Completely unchecked by revelation from the Divine.  I can't reconcile that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Horribly damaging failures.  Not just a matter of Sister Jones not being well suited to working with Sister Smith in the RS Presidency; outright sexual abuse of women and children.  Completely unchecked by revelation from the Divine.  I can't reconcile that.

My father taught us to expect human failures, even really bad ones, from church leaders. That advice has helped me avoid a lot of disappointment. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's my point, Spencer.  You are spending a significant amount of time defending a presumption of innocence for him, and then turn right around and call into question her credibility based upon equally flimsy evidence.  Unless you've been hired as his advocate, I would hope you would be more even in your assessment; especially in light of your professional occupation, counselor.

That is the job of an attorney to critically examine evidence.  In law, a person e bringing a claim has the burden of proof. If that claim has weak evidence,  the case cannot go forward. It is a basic principle of law. 

In this instance, the person bringing the claim has weak evidence.  I don't think anyone trained in the law sees the recording as a valid confession, it just isn't.  Stronger evidence needs to be presented to make the case. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ttribe said:
Quote

Not yet.  

Other than the statements from the (anonymous) woman, do we have any competent, probative evidence to support her claim?

Thanks,

-Smac

That's my point, Spencer.  You are spending a significant amount of time defending a presumption of innocence for him,

Yes, he is the one that is being publicly accused of a serious crime based on highly suspect evidence.

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

and then turn right around and call into question her credibility based upon equally flimsy evidence. 

Well, no.  The two quanta of evidence are not really comparable.  Her credibility takes a hit in many ways.  Those hits arise from a transcribed audio recording of the women, the authenticity of which she does not dispute.  In contrast, the allegations against Bro. Bishop are based on her credibility-challenged say-so about events from 33 years ago.

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Unless you've been hired as his advocate,

Nope.  I am not advocating for him.  I am declining to condemn or judge him based on highly suspect evidence.

The tainted evidence simultaneously functions against the woman's credibility.  Plus she's anonymous.  Plus she apaparently has a criminal history, it seems, (fraudulent?) sex assault allegations against ten other men.

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I would hope you would be more even in your assessment;

I think I am being "even."  I have looked at the evidence against Bro. Bishop and found it highly problematic.

I have also looked ath the evidence as pertaining to the woman, and I have found her credibility to be . . . not good.

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

especially in light of your professional occupation, counselor.

I don't follow.  I am not arguing that Bro. Bishop is innocent.  I am simply presuming that as a matter of course.  The extant evidence to the contrary is, as stated previously, deeply suspect and problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Gray said:
Quote

 

Not yet.  

Other than the statements from the (anonymous) woman, do we have any competent, probative evidence to support her claim?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Only Bishop's admissions of guilt on tape.

Again, with emphasis: "Other than the statements from the (anonymous) woman, do we have any competent, probative evidence to support her claim?"

"Bishop's admissions of guilt on tape" are, I think, neither competent nor probative (nor, I think, admissible).

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, omni said:

I think every family handles these delicate situations differently.  My MIL recently passed away after a long battle with dementia.  When she did or said things as a result of the dementia, family members would politely explain the situation to help others understand what was occurring.

 If the "confessions" were simply a result of his dementia, I would think the family would want to get that out as soon as possible to reduce tarnishing his legacy.

True about handling it differently.  And Mom is still at the stage she is very embarrassed by it, a year or five more there may be no real consequences of talking about it with her as the ability to understand the implications and obsesses over it as she does now. (One thing that makes it traumatic for her is her grandmother died in a mental insitutution and she remembers that very well as a youth, it terrified my grandmother that she would end up the same way so she fought tooth and nail any suggestion she was disabled mentally...which she was by her 80s big time, but she was cared for by family members except for a short time; Mom talks about assisted living as hell on earth even after having a chance for a few months before Dad died to be in a very nice situation of semi-independence, she knows if she gets bad no one is currently realistically in a situation to care for her...though I will make sure to try everything else first, but we will have to do costly renovations or move).

With the option of blaming it on the medication available, I would personally go for that and see if it was enough before using the dementia info,

Especially if I was aware of significant evidence discrediting the accuser as then it would just likely be waiting until that took hold.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Horribly damaging failures.  Not just a matter of Sister Jones not being well suited to working with Sister Smith in the RS Presidency; outright sexual abuse of women and children.  Completely unchecked by revelation from the Divine.  I can't reconcile that.

If the scriptures are semihistorical, we have church leaders blaming God and revelation for genocide.

I don't think it is possible to reconcile this.

It becomes a matter of trust and whether or not one is willing to assume Good while waiting patiently until the next life to be told the why's or if one must take the step now because it impacts how they will live their life too much.

In my opinion...

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Danzo said:

That is the job of an attorney to critically examine evidence.  In law, a person e bringing a claim has the burden of proof. If that claim has weak evidence,  the case cannot go forward. It is a basic principle of law. 

In this instance, the person bringing the claim has weak evidence.  I don't think anyone trained in the law sees the recording as a valid confession, it just isn't.  Stronger evidence needs to be presented to make the case. 

 

You're missing my point.  Spencer is doing exactly what he is accusing her of doing; albeit on a smaller scale.  He says the evidence supporting her assertion is weak and he objects to conclusions of guilt based on that evidence.  That is perfectly appropriate.  However, I am calling him on the carpet for the fact that he turns right around and states as fact the accusation that she "has falsely accused ten other men" without adequate evidence, either. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there is.  She apparently has a criminal history, including asserting sex assault allegations against ten other men.  That's an "apparent motive."

And then there's plenty of room for speculation about other potential motives, though.  Mental illness.  Confabulation.

An undisclosed criminal history says nothing of motive in this case.  Asserting sex allegations against other men is not motive.  Unless it has been proven that she was lying in other cases.  Do we understand her motive in those accusations?  If not, then there is no "apparent motive" in this case either.  Mental illness and confabulation, OK I will give you those as possible motives.

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Extortion/blackmail is not off the table, though, is it?  After all, maybe she just hadn't gone public yet, but her plan was preempted/spoiled when MormonLeaks released it without her consent.

The church received the tapes from her lawyer.  That pretty well takes extortion/blackmail off the table, unless you think the lawyer is colluding with her to extort/blackmail the church.

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fifth, I am likewise skeptical that "attorneys" have told her that she could pursue a civil suit 33 years after the assault.  And this, in turn, makes me skeptical that she spoke with attorneys at all, and so is lying (or else she is lying about what they said).

According to the Church's press release, her attorney is the one who contacted them in January with the tape. 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.  Better to withhold judgment, I think.

I am giving Bro. Bishop a presumption of innocence.  As a practical matter.  I will otherwise leave this matter to those who have stewardship over him.

To me, withholding judgment means not making any presumptions.

A legal presumption of innocence for Bishop makes sense in a court of law, but when it comes to public opinion, a presumption of innocence for Bishop is a presumption of guilt/mental illness/confabulation for the woman.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, he is the one that is being publicly accused of a serious crime based on highly suspect evidence.

Well, no.  The two quanta of evidence are not really comparable.  Her credibility takes a hit in many ways.  Those hits arise from a transcribed audio recording of the women, the authenticity of which she does not dispute.  In contrast, the allegations against Bro. Bishop are based on her credibility-challenged say-so about events from 33 years ago.

Nope.  I am not advocating for him.  I am declining to condemn or judge him based on highly suspect evidence.

The tainted evidence simultaneously functions against the woman's credibility.  Plus she's anonymous.  Plus she apaparently has a criminal history, it seems, (fraudulent?) sex assault allegations against ten other men.

I think I am being "even."  I have looked at the evidence against Bro. Bishop and found it highly problematic.

I have also looked ath the evidence as pertaining to the woman, and I have found her credibility to be . . . not good.

I don't follow.  I am not arguing that Bro. Bishop is innocent.  I am simply presuming that as a matter of course.  The extant evidence to the contrary is, as stated previously, deeply suspect and problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, let me see if I understand - You are perfectly comfortable stating as fact the accusation that she has "falsely accused ten men" because you have other evidence that causes you to doubt her credibility on this.  Note, you don't qualify the "falsely accused" statement in any measurable way; not even "allegedly".  Am I understanding your position?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ttribe said:

So, let me see if I understand - You are perfectly comfortable stating as fact the accusation that she has "falsely accused ten men" because you have other evidence that causes you to doubt her credibility on this.  Note, you don't qualify the "falsely accused" statement in any measurable way; not even "allegedly".  Am I understanding your position?

Yeah, I don’t think “apparently” is much of a qualifier. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My father taught us to expect human failures, even really bad ones, from church leaders. That advice has helped me avoid a lot of disappointment. 

 

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the scriptures are semihistorical, we have church leaders blaming God and revelation for genocide.

I don't think it is possible to reconcile this.

It becomes a matter of trust and whether or not one is willing to assume Good while waiting patiently until the next life to be told the why's or if one must take the step now because it impacts how they will live their life too much.

In my opinion...

The problem, for me, is the ever increasing number of data points which do not justify maintaining faith; reaching a tipping point, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×