Jump to content
smac97

Woman Accusing Joseph Bishop to File Suit (Against Bishop & LDS Church)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Calm said:

She can prove negligence by the bishop she originally told back in 87 because he has admitted to ignoring her accusations and doing nothing.  He was acting as an agent of the Church at that time.

Wouldnt that be a valid claim?

I'm not sure doing nothing shows negligence in and of itself.  She'd have to prove that the bishop's reaction wasn't reasonable or logical.  The law usually respects people's right to act to the best of their ability given the information that they have.  They don't usually hold people accountable for decisions that seemed reasonable at the time, just because they end up being wrong.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, jpv said:

Crazy... I was a huge fan of Consig back when I was a lurker here.  Lots of unique rich doctrinal views I happened to share.  I recognized Reel's guest's voice as the former Rational Faiths blogger I liked, but didn't realize RFM was the same guy as Consig.  So cool! 

Consig was famous for his bullseye posts. However, now, he has changed to the other side. No more bullseye posts. Amazingly, for all the bullsye posts, a person can go over to the other side. But he still seems like a nice guy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, why me said:

I can see one problem. Someone leaked all this to mormonleaks. Why? What was the purpose for the leak.

Because for more than 20 years, the sister had reported it repeatedly without any sense that anything was done about it.   For two months the Church had the tape and nothing happened.   The BYU police had gotten his testimony and the prosecutor would have prosecuted except it was beyond the statute of limitation.   BUT THE CHURCH had not done anything.     Someone (the survivor says it wasn't her (though it is not clear whether she released the transcript but not the tape, or whether she released neither), and for all we know it could have been someone at church headquarters) decided it ought to be disclosed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, why me said:

You know him. Just a phone call away.

Ah, but I’m not particularly interested in that question. My guess is that he would say he’s made mistakes and there have been unintended consequences, but then we can all say that. 

I’ll just say again that I will not condemn his actions without more information. I made a mistake in criticizing the church based on incorrect information, so I’m hoping to avoid the same mistake again. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, why me said:

I am talking about judgement. I will give an example: many americans were prejudice in the past. This prejudice what not exactly white and black. But also against the Polish, Irish, Italians etc. The US was an ethnic society with jokes galore. And now....times have changed. Should I judge my grandmother or grandfather now for their time frame of life and their attitudes?

We are having two different conversations, then.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rpn said:

The woman in this story was sexually abused by her father for years before joining the church.   She said she was thrilled when she was singled out for personal attention (which prompted other missionaries to like her better).  We are stunned to the point of disbelief when we dispassionately read her story and we have trouble believing it could be real.    She'd already spent years of not being believed about her father.   She has to have wondered how anyone would believe this.   While not being able to really understand how to walk in her shoes is probably good as it is a horrible thing to fully understand and one that only comes at great cost,  all this assertion that someone she woulda coulda DONE better, is like beating her up some more.    She ought to be celebrated for her strength, not have her veracity questioned.  

And yes, if LDS families are parenting or displaying force, compulsion and/or blind obedience, then they should stop.   We all should challenge those actions when they are spoken of with approval by our peers at church.  More importantly, we should identify techniques that support informed discipleship, and model them.

Not saying every case is like this, but I once heard that girls who were sexually abused by their fathers/step fathers might have a distorted view of love after that and become promiscuous because that's the way they feel loved. I know it's not that way for everyone. So if this woman went onto having other detrimental relationships that she then turned around and accused them, it stems from the abuse IMO. 

RPN, Thanks for this post, very true!

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not saying every case is like this, but I once heard that girls who were sexually abused by their fathers/step fathers might have a distorted view of love after that and become promiscuous because that's the way they feel loved. I know it's not that way for everyone. So if this woman went onto having other detrimental relationships that she then turned around and accused them, it stems from the abuse IMO. 

RPN, Thanks for this post, very true!

I have read alot on this and that is what I have heard too.  It is the only love that they know and they think it is the only way to be touched, held and loved.

Share this post


Link to post

Why Me, Mormon Stories did a podcast with Ryan on all his whys and what fores...go to the site and learn more about Ryan. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Jeanne said:

I have read alot on this and that is what I have heard too.  It is the only love that they know and they think it is the only way to be touched, held and loved.

There’s this terrible conflict between hating the abuse and yet feeling it’s the only reason they are loved and valued at all. I wish I didn’t know about this. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I agree. I’m just saying I don’t know what happened or why Ryan did what he did. Until I do, I won’t condemn his actions. 

Didn't the woman say she didn't authorize him to release the recording?  If so, Ryan is a dope.  It should have been her decision to release it, not his.  It's just a matter of time now before her identity will be known.  I don't think it's fair to assume all victims want their story to known to the world.  Maybe she is ok with it, but now that it's a national story, there's not much that can be done to keep it private now.

I knew Ryan when he was younger.  He has great parents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, gopher said:

Didn't the woman say she didn't authorize him to release the recording?  If so, Ryan is a dope.  It should have been her decision to release it, not his.  It's just a matter of time now before her identity will be known.  I don't think it's fair to assume all victims want their story to known to the world.  Maybe she is ok with it, but now that it's a national story, there's not much that can be done to keep it private now.

I knew Ryan when he was younger.  He has great parents.

Again, I have no idea what interaction he did or did not have with the victim. I agree that it would be wrong to share the information if she had asked him to keep it private. I do not know if that is what happened.  

And yes, he does have great parents. Hopefully his connection to me doesn’t taint the family. 

Edited by jkwilliams

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, cinepro said:

I was alive in 1984, and while I was young, it is my recollection that we all thought MTC Presidents shouldn't have secret rooms where they take mentally fragile Sister Missionaries and ask them to expose themselves or try and rape them.

I’ll do you one better: I was in the MTC at the time of the incident. I doubt many people would have thought these activities acceptable. 

Maybe this kind of stuff was common in New York in the disco era, or something. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I totally agree.  And there is certainly work that can be done in this regard.

  • End closed door one-on-one interviews.

I wonder if there is some middle ground to be found here.  Perhaps no-sound cameras could be installed in bishops' offices, with the "chaperone" observing from a nearby computer.  That way pastoral counseling can continue, priest/penitent privilege can be maintained, and the risk of impropriety is substantially reduced.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:
  • No secret settlements

I don't understand this.  There are plenty of people (including, it seems, the woman in the current matter) who would prefer a confidential settlement rather than having sordid and painful details coming out in litigation.

The woman's identity has already been accidentally disclosed.  The disclosure has since been removed, hopefully in time to prevent the identify of this woman from becoming public knowledge.  Such a disclosure should be her decision, but mistakes can be made.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:
  • Publicize data regarding reports of abuse

Hmm.  I'll think on this.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:
  • Phone number (well publicized) for confidentially reporting of abuse

I think this already exists.  Plenty of ways to do this.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:
  • Additional counseling/instruction to priesthood leaders on the matter

Agreed.  

3 hours ago, rockpond said:
  • And probably a dozen more things that I can't think of.

I hope you would be reasonable in your proposals.  You have some good ideas, actually.  

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

We can look at just the Joseph Bishop case and ask ourselves some questions to see where the gaps are:

  • Why was Bishop permitted to continue holding leadership callings after having confessed instances of inappropriate conduct?

When did he confess?  

3 hours ago, rockpond said:
  • Why did reports to the YSA bishop of the "secret room" and MTC president go unreported to anyone?

I think we already know the answer.  The "reports" were deemed to be not credible.

I think bishops really need to err on the side of caution when such things are disclosed to them.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:
  • Should Robert Wells have done something difference with whatever confession he received from Bishop?

We don't really know what was confessed.  And hindsight is always 20-20.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:
  • Why did Carlos Asay not speak with Bishop or do something with the allegations received from the woman? (I know I'm making an assumption here but everything else she said in that recording is turning out to be verified.)

We don't know.

And her rape allegation has not been "verified."  However, at this point I am inclined to give it more credence than I was at the outset.  The existence of the "basement" room has been pretty much verified, along with it having a cot/bed, TV and VCR.  I have a hard time coming up with an innocent explanation for her knowing about this room.

3 hours ago, rockpond said:
  • What was really happening behind the scenes over the last three months regarding this case?

The woman and her attorney were negotiating with the Church.  Confidential negotiations of legal disputes happen all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Calling 911 is best. Sure. But missionaries aren't allowed to use the telephone without permission. So how does a trainee at the MTC go about getting permission from their priesthood authority figures to call 911 and report that the president of the MTC attempted to rape you? Or do you make the call without permission? If so, how to you get access to a phone?

I think training missionaries as to what to do in such circumstances would be in order.  Missionaries should certainly be able to call the police at any time.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

In principle, a missionary should simply exert his free agency and act like a free-thinking adult and demand to use the phone. But is it really that simple? It reminds me of Bill Shunn's memoir, The Accidental Terrorist: Confessions of a Reluctant Missionary. The book is about a couple of missionaries who wanted to do what probably most missionaries want to do at one point or another--exercise your free agency and simply quit. However, as the book illustrates the system and its culture make doing this extremely difficult. Just as it is nearly impossible to quit a mission, it would be nearly impossible to gain access to a telephone in the MTC so you could call 911.

If members are supposed to act like adults living in the real world, this should be taught to them and they should be treated that way. But they aren't.

You raise a fair point.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rpn said:

For me, it is fully enough to excommunicate a MP who admits to asking one of his charges to show him their breasts.  

It's clearly excommunicable conduct, to be sure.  From Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1:

Quote

When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory

A disciplinary council must be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions.

...

Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression while holding one of the following prominent Church positions: Area Seventy; temple, mission, or stake president; patriarch; or bishop (but not branch president). The term serious transgressionis defined in 6.7.2.

Transgressor Who Is a Predator

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression that shows him to be a predator with tendencies that present any kind of serious threat to other persons.

Pattern of Serious Transgressions

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who demonstrates a pattern of serious transgressions, especially if prior transgressions have resulted in Church discipline.

Serious Transgression That Is Widely Known

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression (as defined in 6.7.2) that is widely known.

Some or all of these may be applicable here.

3 hours ago, rpn said:

All this parsing everyone is doing suggesting that only the authorities can determine whether or not this is bad stuff or who is truthful, belies the fact that he admits to having a second "office" in the basement.  For what purpose if not for his bad behaviors.   

I think much of the "parsing" is in good faith.

3 hours ago, rpn said:

The Brethren do not have to and shouldn't insist on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt --- it is always hard to understand and believe how a seemingly standup person, vouched for in this case by a lifetime friend in Elder Robert Wells, and a long time friend in Carlos Asay, could be so evil.   And that is how for so many years so much wickedness has gone on without challenge.   But we have an opportunity in this moment of change to say NEVER AGAIN.   We are NOT going to accept excuses that minimize the very really awfulness of abuse of power.  

I agree that such excuses are not appropriate.

3 hours ago, rpn said:

The church standard is proven by two witnesses,

That's just for adultery. 

3 hours ago, rpn said:

(I get why the church has pulled back on the settlement discussions: I would have done that too given what was likely a blindsided release, and because no payment can make this woman whole:  I suspect that the Church has little legal risk for what happened originally or in all the failure to do things in the past.  

"Pulling back" when circumstances radically change is understandable.

And the woman's attorney is claiming that statute of limitations is not an issue, so the Church may have some legal risk after all (I'm wondering about this, though).

3 hours ago, rpn said:

But I also think that their response of we don't know because they say different things won't overcome a defamation claim, probably not even in a believing community.   If I were advising the church, I would have sent President Nelson and the RSP to this woman (and the other woman from the MTC, and the one in Florida mentioned in the transcript) to apologize and offer whatever the women needed, and Bishop would be excommunicated forthwith, and anyone who knew about her claims and did nothing would be released forthwith.  

I think due process is important.

3 hours ago, rpn said:

All of which would be publically announced so that everyone knew that the Church organization means what it says about not putting up with abuse.)

Perhaps.  This is an unusual circumstance.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/22/2018 at 7:21 PM, Jeanne said:

I miss Consig on days this...:P

Me too!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Got to love these stories that go back decades.  Barely remember what I was doing in 1984.  It was my freshman year in high school and listened to Van Halen "1984" album.  It is always amazing to find how suing for some money this many years later eases the pain.  Must be getting close to retirement age and needs enough to make it through ok.  And nobody say it is not about the money because in almost every case none of the people who make money off these lawsuits donate the proceeds to charity.  

Well buddy let me tell you certain events blaze into your mind so you never forget. I won't share the sordid details here, but I was molested by a man I worked for when I was a young teen. MORE THAN ONCE!!!!

 The anguish I went through over wondering what I did to add to it and allow it has haunted me ever since.  I even went to my bishop with it.... WHO DID NOTHING ABOUT IT FROM A LEGAL standpoint.  It was not till I found a wonderful therapist in my early 40s who helped me work through this.  So I can tell you, crap like this sticks with you.  Sort of like where were you and what were you doing when JFK was shot, or on 9/11.  I remember both is vivid details.

 

So maybe you should just not speculate on such things and shut your mouth about it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you were raped you’d probably remember...

Yes!

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would not forget and I would not wait decades to get off my butt to seek justice. 

Oh kiss off.  If you have not experienced this you hacve no frame of reference to say what you would do.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I still want facts, not assertions.  That means reviewing actual records, not rumormongering.  If Asay was an idiot in this matter, then we need to know it based on facts.  At that point, it is appropriate to drag his name through the mud.  This applies to all others potentially involved.  In a social media world, people no longer care about facts.  They prefer assumptions.  They prefer to tar and feather someone immediately.  Guilty till proven innocent.

Wasn't this before Catholic Church and BSA scandals?  

It's my understanding that a lot of the controls we see in place today (e.g. A bishop must call the hotline after any confession / reporting of abuse) were a result of systemic abuse coverups that we're exposed in the 90s and 2000s.

Perhaps Asay was involved in a coverup  or more likely it could have been that he simply didn't believe the woman (just like the two singles ward bishops).

In other words, the Church appears to have been handling abuse just like most other large institutions were at the time.

Of course, if you're claiming to be God's one true church, then I'm not sure the hey-everybody-else-was-doing-it excuse really works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m so tired of people glibly dismissing what abuse victims suffer. 

I live with an abuse survivor. I can’t count how many times I’ve had to wake her in the middle of the night because she is screaming in her sleep. I think of the PTSD flashbacks, the times when she is so afraid or depressed she can’t leave the bedroom. Or the times it’s been so bad she has been admitted to the hospital. 

You know what? She never went to the police or a bishop. She didn’t tell me until her abuser molested another family member not long after we were married. I’m not sure she understands why she never reported him. I know I don’t. 

So, you folks who think people like her are at fault for not getting off her butt can go straight to hell. 

THIS!  What John said. I would say more but he says it best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't know, I think a big part of the MTC experience is trying to drill the independent thought out of the missionaries. It's a boot camp where obedience and conformity are valued as the highest currencies.

Yep.  Speaking as one who went through real basic training (Army) before going to the MTC, I did notice some similarities. 

Basic Training was far, far more rigid and exacting in "trying to drill the independent through out of" trainees.  After all, it takes a significant amount of training to persuade a young man to subordinate his innate desire to live in favor of following an order from his lieutenant to storm a beachhead or fix bayonet and charge into hand-to-hand combat.  But the objective of the military is to do precisely that.  "Independent thinking" isn't nearly as important as obedience in such a context, at least in a generalized sense.

As for missionary training, obedience is also extremely important.  Obedience to mission rules is designed to protect missionaries, not put them in harm's way.  Missionaries generally end up committing sin and/or crimes by being disobedient to mission rules, not "independent thinkers."

As for the present matter, I think the solution is more training, including what to do when someone - anyone - behaves improperly.  

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think I would have had the wherewithal to leave and call the police. (Not that I could have - our MTC was gated with guards at the front)

You may be right.  More training would seem to be in order.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×