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

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I found this post very interesting, here is a snippet of the content with some really good points.  

https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/03/22/some-thoughts-about-joseph-l-bishop/

Quote

Some questions and observations:

• Sexual relations between an MTC president and a missionary can never be consensual.

 

Sneering sarcasm about an extremely sensitive and painful subject.  Not cool.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

• A victim’s status as a member or nonmember is utterly irrelevant.

I can see some measure of relevance.  She's also a resident of Pueblo, Colorado.  It's a data point, and one that may be useful to people not familiar with the Church.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

• The church has taken some great steps in recent years towards eliminating the stigma against missionaries who come home early. Then it cut those efforts off at the knees in a single swipe in its press release.

Overwrought.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

• Our church talks the talk of accountability and stewardship, but it is all personal. There is no such thing as institutional accountability in our culture.

How is the "institution" culpable for Bro. Bishop's misconduct?  He violated the Church's trust.  He violated the Law of Chastity.  He preyed on a vulnerable young woman.  How is the Church at fault for any of this?

It seems like "institutional accountability" is being used as a sort of code for "collective guilt."  I'm not buying into that.  The Church has never taught or condoned the behavior attributed to Bro. Bishop, and instead deems it an excommunicable offense.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

• Why did it take a leak, against the woman’s wishes and by those who hate the church, to have this discussion?

Well, partly because the woman never reported it to law enforcement.

Partly because the Church has no record ofthis woman meeting with Elder Asay.

Partly because the statute of limitations ran out, which precluded civil authorities from pursuing criminal charges.

Party because the Church is not an criminal investigative or law enforcement agency.

Partly because the Church's authority is very, very constrained as to criminal matters (see D&C 134:10).

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

• Why does justice come at the expense of victims, as it has here?

I don't know what this means.  

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

• What does it mean to “believe women”?

Well, what it appears to mean is "Women are privileged.  Whateiver they say is presumptively and axiomatically and necessarily true.  So toss out the presumption of innocence that is one of the foundational principles of criminal law in the United States.  If a woman accuses a man of rape, the accusation alone is sufficient.  He's guilty.  No need to collect or weigh evidence.  He's guilty.  End of discussion.  And if you disagree, you are a sexist pig."

But apparently this only works when a woman accuses a man.  Because what are we to do when a woman accuses another woman, who denies the charge?  Whom do we believe?  Who gets the privilege?

"Believe women" is a dangerous and corrosive and unhealthy slogan with no basis in law, and is designed to insulate women, to privilege their say-so, to give them added and special rights because of their gender.  

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

• Who failed to believe the woman here, and who is continuing to fail?

I'm not sure it's a matter of "belief."  Perhaps she was believed by some of the local leaders who investigated this matter.  In any event, there was simply insufficient evidence, at the time, to warrant discipline.

As for "who is continuing to fail," well, not many, I think.  The BYU Police Report is pretty damning.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

• How can we bear each other’s burdens if we don’t believe them?

 

I don't know what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

I don't fault the police for not investigating a decades-old claim of abuse that took place outside their jurisdiction.  It would be a waste of police resources.

Thanks,

-Smac

The BYU police seem to have had no problem looking into it. 

Because it was within their jurisdiction, yes.

And yet it still happened decades ago.  So not much point in anything further beyond "looking into it."

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I've had a police captain for a bishop, here within the last five years. I'm sure there might have been the potential for conflicting obligations, but it wasn't anything that prevented him from being called and serving faithfully. 

 

Well maybe it is a California thing. I know a few months ago this was discussed here on this board. I had asked a friend of mine who is LEO if that was correct and he confirmed it. But the point I was trying to make is that Bishops & SP do not report every crime they hear to LEO, so even if it is not a church wide policy, the local policy would still reinforce that point.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because it was within their jurisdiction, yes.

And yet it still happened decades ago.  So not much point in anything further beyond "looking into it."

Thanks,

-Smac

They reported it to the county attorney, for what it's worth. 

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The interview was three months ago and Bishop does not appear to have been in any position of power for quite a while, which sounds like it's a very good thing.

Beyond that, does anyone know if the police is allowed to share information about suspects (who haven't been charged with anything) without outside individuals?  From my experience, they aren't allowed to do that.  My mother couldn't even get information about my sister from the police without her giving permission, and she actually was charged with something.

Oi, I am really sorry to hear that about your sister and Father in Law

 

My take on this idea of a coverup, unrelated to Bluebell's comment. I can see this Bishop telling Elder Wells about his troubles, but maybe not everything. For all we know Elder Wells, probably didn't know the whole scope of the occurrences and didn't Bishop say Elder Wells recommended him to be MTC Pres. ? even if he didn't maybe Elder Wells forgot about it or didn't have any say in who gets recommended for MTC Pres. I just think Elder Wells, would know all this and and say nothing, but he was probably lied to and considered Bishop "clean" and never heard more back about any abuse so why go on with it?

Elder Asay, for all anyone knows kept a record of his dealing with this women, but let's be honest, he died in 1999 and would his family keep all his stuff from 1984 or 1985? they probably sifted through a million stake conf. programs, notes, transcripts for talks that are now online, mission tour junk and pitched it all and even more so in the intervening years. I'm sure they kept some stuff. I don't know if the Church contacted the Asay family to inquire or if they had his stuff at the COB, maybe he just wasn't a meticulous note taker or he was and it got discarded, who knows. Let's say he did something and contacted an Apostle, he probably left it with him but again maybe Bishop lied to him too or no notes exist. but I think him getting exed would be sufficient. They exed Elder George Lee in 1989, excommunicated a Mission Pres. in Washington, DC in 1990, so it wasn't like they were against holding people in these kind of callings accountable. I am open for other ideas about a coverup. I would be interested in hearing Elder Wells recollections though.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't blame her for not reporting it.

Nor do I.  But that is the sobering and truthful response to the "Why wasn't anything DONE about this?!"-type angst on display in this thread.

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Her bishop didn't believe her, so why would anyone else?

I'm not sure it's a good idea to infantilize women in this way.  She still could have reported the incident to the police.  She did not.  I don't fault her for that, but I don't fault her bishop for it, either.

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know from personal experience how it feels to be deliberately hurt by church leaders and have no redress. But I give her a lot of credit for not letting it go.

I sort of do, too.  I condemn her murder threats, though.

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I too am sorry she didn't go to the police when it happened, but then most victims of sexual abuse don't report it.

Same here. 

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If it were up to me, I'd counsel every new bishop that, when something like this comes up in an interview, they should stop and say, "Maybe this is a matter for the police." 

You are calling for . . . the status quo.  The Church maintains a helpline staffed by attorneys who are well-versed in criminal law, mandatory reporting laws, etc.  Any time this situation arises, bishops can (and frequently do) call this helpline to determine the legal side of things.

And it works.  for example, the law firm, Kirton & McConkie, facilitates the reporting of sexual abuse where required by law, such as in this recent story:

Quote

An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.

...

The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . Kirton & McConkie.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

So the Church already has some pretty good safeguards in place.  The Law of Chastity.  Clear policies for when priesthood leaders are meeting with youth or women (they are to be chaperoned).  A published-to-the-world "zero tolerance" policy for abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.  A helpline staffed with lawyers to help local leaders navigate legal complexities that can arise.

Sadly, there are still bad people in the world who will work to circumvest these safeguards.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I found this post very interesting, here is a snippet of the content with some really good points.  

https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/03/22/some-thoughts-about-joseph-l-bishop/

 

There is an us v. them paradigm that happens with almost all groups.  We are hardwired to take on the group as if it were ourselves.  Also, leaders are a proxy for the group as a whole.  So, when the group or its leaders gets a perceived attack, there is a feeling that the attack is personal.  I think this defensive mentality led to the recent events.  I found this article very informative on this subject:  https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/02/26/yanss-122-how-our-unchecked-tribal-psychology-pollutes-politics-science-and-just-about-everything-else/

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

Because it was within their jurisdiction, yes.

And yet it still happened decades ago.  So not much point in anything further beyond "looking into it."

Thanks,

-Smac

They reported it to the county attorney, for what it's worth. 

And the county attorney is almost certainly going to do nothing with it.  The statute of limitations bars prosecution of criminal charges.  It happened 33 years ago.

So is a report to the county attorney, who will do nothing with it, "justice?"

Not really.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Oi, I am really sorry to hear that about your sister and Father in Law

 

Thanks Duncan. I didn't ever know my father in law (my husband barely did either) so his death, while sad, was not really difficult.  And my sister is a wonderful person who has some mental and emotional disabilities because of her biological parents and so struggles with impulse control and good decision making, which has put her at odds with law enforcement twice now.  She's surrounded by loved ones who do whatever we can for her, her husband, and her kids.  We are all hanging in there.  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

There is an us v. them paradigm that happens with almost all groups.  We are hardwired to take on the group as if it were ourselves.  Also, leaders are a proxy for the group as a whole.  So, when the group or its leaders gets a perceived attack, there is a feeling that the attack is personal.  I think this defensive mentality led to the recent events.  I found this article very informative on this subject:  https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/02/26/yanss-122-how-our-unchecked-tribal-psychology-pollutes-politics-science-and-just-about-everything-else/

Yup. It's no stretch to say you could easily have predicted who would come down on what side and what they would say. In the end, a vulnerable young woman's life and faith were affected badly by the actions of one man. It's easy to use that one man as representative for the church or to lump the woman in with people who just want to score points by beating up the LDS church. 

The big lesson here (besides not abusing people) is that we need to listen to people and take them seriously. If that bishop had taken things seriously back in 1987, this woman's life might have taken a different turn. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks Duncan. I didn't ever know my father in law (my husband barely did either) so his death, while sad, was not really difficult.  And my sister is a wonderful person who has some mental and emotional disabilities because of her biological parents and so struggles with impulse control and good decision making, which has put her at odds with law enforcement twice now.  She's surrounded by loved ones who do whatever we can for her, her husband, and her kids.  We are all hanging in there.  

Life can throw a lot at us. I'm glad you are hanging in there. As my grandmother used to say, the first 100 years are the hardest.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Elder Asay, for all anyone knows kept a record of his dealing with this women, but let's be honest, he died in 1999 and would his family keep all his stuff from 1984 or 1985?

Hmm.  I would think the Church might have his "business" records (schedules, writings, notes, etc. he created and kept while working in his capacity as a General Authority).  Such things would, I think, belong to (and possibly retained by) the Church.

Here's a bit of unsubstantiated gossip (from a friend whose father has served as a Seventy): It is my understanding that General Authorities, and even Area Authorities, are instructed to keep daily journals while serving in those callings, and that that the Church gets a copy of those journals after the individual dies.  So the Church may have access to Elder Asay's journal (if he kept one).

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

they probably sifted through a million stake conf. programs, notes, transcripts for talks that are now online, mission tour junk and pitched it all and even more so in the intervening years. I'm sure they kept some stuff. I don't know if the Church contacted the Asay family to inquire or if they had his stuff at the COB, maybe he just wasn't a meticulous note taker or he was and it got discarded, who knows.

Fair guesses, these.  

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Let's say he did something and contacted an Apostle, he probably left it with him but again maybe Bishop lied to him too or no notes exist.

Possibly.  

Or perhaps Elder Asay never did anything with the allegation.

Or perhaps Elder Asay never met with the woman.

We just don't know.

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but I think him getting exed would be sufficient. They exed Elder George Lee in 1989, excommunicated a Mission Pres. in Washington, DC in 1990, so it wasn't like they were against holding people in these kind of callings accountable.

Not within our stewardship, so no comment.

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am open for other ideas about a coverup.

In the absence of even a scintilla of evidence?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I would think the Church might have his "business" records (schedules, writings, notes, etc. he created and kept while working in his capacity as a General Authority).  Such things would, I think, belong to (and possibly retained by) the Church.

Here's a bit of unsubstantiated gossip (from a friend whose father has served as a Seventy): It is my understanding that General Authorities, and even Area Authorities, are instructed to keep daily journals while serving in those callings, and that that the Church gets a copy of those journals after the individual dies.  So the Church may have access to Elder Asay's journal (if he kept one).

Fair guesses, these.  

Possibly.  

Or perhaps Elder Asay never did anything with the allegation.

Or perhaps Elder Asay never met with the woman.

We just don't know.

Not within our stewardship, so no comment.

In the absence of even a scintilla of evidence?  

Thanks,

-Smac

That's what i'm saying, to me, there doesn't seem to be evidence of a coverup, it's just unknown. There just was a very highly charged murder case just here, a young women, found dead in the river and the coroner couldn't conclude how she died,was she pushed in, fall in, they couldn't say. So if you can't say she was murdered, then there is no murderer and the accused went free. Just, not enough evidence. I just did a check at the CHL, for Elder Asay's journals, they aren't listed which isn't surprising but I found this "Renton 3rd Ward youth" apparently gave him their testimonies, in 1980. That's nice and all but pitch-a-ROONEY, years later though!

Edited March 22, 2018 by Duncan

[juliann]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Well, what it appears to mean is "Women are privileged.  Whateiver they say is presumptively and axiomatically and necessarily true.  So toss out the presumption of innocence that is one of the foundational principles of criminal law in the United States.  If a woman accuses a man of rape, the accusation alone is sufficient.  He's guilty.  No need to collect or weigh evidence.  He's guilty.  End of discussion.  And if you disagree, you are a sexist pig."

But apparently this only works when a woman accuses a man.  Because what are we to do when a woman accuses another woman, who denies the charge?  Whom do we believe?  Who gets the privilege?

"Believe women" is a dangerous and corrosive and unhealthy slogan with no basis in law, and is designed to insulate women, to privilege their say-so, to give them added and special rights because of their gender.  

 

 

Wow. This is a picture perfect example of why this kind of stuff happens and why so many Mormon women are saying "enough."  I will be data basing this.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

It seems like "institutional accountability" is being used as a sort of code for "collective guilt."  I'm not buying into that.  The Church has never taught or condoned the behavior attributed to Bro. Bishop, and instead deems it an excommunicable offense.

 

No but the church teachings us that our leaders are gifted with discernment. The lady's bishop didn't believe her account because the bishop knew that any MTC President would be vetted by the church and that such calls were handled by those with the gift of discernment. The church teachings things like:

 

"“…the Lord’s leadership of His Church requires great and steady faith from all who serve Him on earth. For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls.”

The church starts from a young age to teach members to give their leaders the benefit of the doubt, to obey with exactness, to not criticize the leaders of the church.

 

It's not that the church should take over the police's responsibility to investigate crimes. It's that the church needs to overhaul its message. It needs to train bishops better in how to respond to victims of sexual abuse (look at the BYU honor code debacle and the progress that is being made there). It needs to teach it's young people that they should trust their instincts. That while most leaders are good men, some will not be. That there are certain things that are out of bounds. It needs to teach the youth that they will be believed!! That the gift of discernment will always be applied by humans very very imperfectly.  It needs to treat those that report assault with respect on not belittle how short their missionary experience was. The church has a culture that facilitates covering up this stuff (as was seen in this thread until Bishop's confession to the BYU police came out). 

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No but the church teachings us that our leaders are gifted with discernment. The lady's bishop didn't believe her account because the bishop knew that any MTC President would be vetted by the church and that such calls were handled by those with the gift of discernment. The church teachings things like:

 

"“…the Lord’s leadership of His Church requires great and steady faith from all who serve Him on earth. For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls.”

The church starts from a young age to teach members to give their leaders the benefit of the doubt, to obey with exactness, to not criticize the leaders of the church.

 

It's not that the church should take over the police's responsibility to investigate crimes. It's that the church needs to overhaul its message. It needs to train bishops better in how to respond to victims of sexual abuse (look at the BYU honor code debacle and the progress that is being made there). It needs to teach it's young people that they should trust their instincts. That while most leaders are good men, some will not be. That there are certain things that are out of bounds. That the gift of discernment will always be applied by humans very very imperfectly.  It needs to treat those that report assault with respect on not belittle how short their missionary experience was. The church has a culture that facilitates covering up this stuff (as was seen in this thread until Bishop's confession to the BYU police came out). 

 

I think this post wins the thread. Well done.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

Quote

Quote

• What does it mean to “believe women”?

Well, what it appears to mean is "Women are privileged.  Whateiver they say is presumptively and axiomatically and necessarily true.  So toss out the presumption of innocence that is one of the foundational principles of criminal law in the United States.  If a woman accuses a man of rape, the accusation alone is sufficient.  He's guilty.  No need to collect or weigh evidence.  He's guilty.  End of discussion.  And if you disagree, you are a sexist pig."

But apparently this only works when a woman accuses a man.  Because what are we to do when a woman accuses another woman, who denies the charge?  Whom do we believe?  Who gets the privilege?

"Believe women" is a dangerous and corrosive and unhealthy slogan with no basis in law, and is designed to insulate women, to privilege their say-so, to give them added and special rights because of their gender.  

Wow. This is a picture perfect example of why this kind of stuff happens

"This kind of stuff?"

Quote

and why so many Mormon women are saying "enough." 

Huh?  I don't know what this means.  But asking for an explanation would mean more hectoring and personalizing and board nannying, so . . . never mind!

Quote

I will be data basing this.

As you like.

Meanwhile, I'll quote this interesting opinion piece in the New York Times:

Quote

The Limits of ‘Believe All Women’
By BARI WEISSNOV. 28, 2017

...

The huntresses’ war cry — “believe all women” — has felt like a bracing corrective to a historic injustice. It has felt like a justifiable response to a system in which the crimes perpetrated against women — so intimate, so humiliating and so unlike any other — are so very difficult to prove.

But I also can’t shake the feeling that this mantra creates terrible new problems in addition to solving old ones.

In less than two months we’ve moved from uncovering accusations of criminal behavior (Harvey Weinstein) to criminalizing behavior that we previously regarded as presumptuous and boorish (Glenn Thrush). In a climate in which sexual mores are transforming so rapidly, many men are asking: If I were wrongly accused, who would believe me?

I know the answer that many women would give — are giving — is: Good. Be scared. We have been scared for forever. It’s your turn for some sleepless nights. They’ll say: If some innocent men go down in the effort to tear down the patriarchy, so be it.

Emily Lindin, a columnist at Teen Vogue, summed up this view concisely last week on Twitter. “I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations,” she wrote. “If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

Ms. Lindin was widely criticized, but say this much for her: At least she had the guts to publicly articulate a view that so many women are sharing with one another in private. Countless innocent women have been robbed of justice, friends of mine insist, so why are we agonizing about the possibility of a few good men going down?

This piece materially informed my assessment of the "believe woman" slogan.  Are you going to ominously declare that you will be "data basing" it as well?

What does "data basing" mean, anyway?  Are you keeping some sort of "enemies list?"  Continuing the tradition of J. Edgar and Nixon, perhaps?

By the way, Bari Weissnov, the author of the piece, is . . . a woman.

-Smac

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by smac97

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

Wow. This is a picture perfect example of why this kind of stuff happens and why so many Mormon women are saying "enough."  I will be data basing this.

 

Way past time Juliann.  I agree and they will have a harder time..proof against priesthood is not easy.

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

• Sexual relations between an MTC president and a missionary can never be consensual.

 

Sneering sarcasm about an extremely sensitive and painful subject.  Not cool.

The point wasn't sarcastic, and it is about consent and power dynamics, and that it can never be consensual in that scenario.  

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Quote

• Our church talks the talk of accountability and stewardship, but it is all personal. There is no such thing as institutional accountability in our culture.

How is the "institution" culpable for Bro. Bishop's misconduct?  He violated the Church's trust.  He violated the Law of Chastity.  He preyed on a vulnerable young woman.  How is the Church at fault for any of this?

It seems like "institutional accountability" is being used as a sort of code for "collective guilt."  I'm not buying into that.  The Church has never taught or condoned the behavior attributed to Bro. Bishop, and instead deems it an excommunicable offense.

Its culpable because of the position of these leaders, also in the lack of policy and procedure on how to effectively deal complains of abuse.  Poor developed system, and poor decision making by official church leaders.  

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Quote

• Why did it take a leak, against the woman’s wishes and by those who hate the church, to have this discussion?

Well, partly because the woman never reported it to law enforcement.

Partly because the Church has no record ofthis woman meeting with Elder Asay.

Partly because the statute of limitations ran out, which precluded civil authorities from pursuing criminal charges.

Party because the Church is not an criminal investigative or law enforcement agency.

Partly because the Church's authority is very, very constrained as to criminal matters (see D&C 134:10).

The woman should have reported it to law enforcement, but we have to be careful not to victim blame when that statement is made.  The Church may very well have a record of this meeting, we don't know.  The point about having these discussions is one that I think you missed, why does it take a public crisis to have important discussions about sexual abuse?  It shouldn't, yet it does time and time again, just like the title 9 scandal at BYU last year.  It strikes me that the church is only being reactionary and not proactive on these important issues.  

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Quote

• What does it mean to “believe women”?

Well, what it appears to mean is "Women are privileged.  Whateiver they say is presumptively and axiomatically and necessarily true.  So toss out the presumption of innocence that is one of the foundational principles of criminal law in the United States.  If a woman accuses a man of rape, the accusation alone is sufficient.  He's guilty.  No need to collect or weigh evidence.  He's guilty.  End of discussion.  And if you disagree, you are a sexist pig."

But apparently this only works when a woman accuses a man.  Because what are we to do when a woman accuses another woman, who denies the charge?  Whom do we believe?  Who gets the privilege?

"Believe women" is a dangerous and corrosive and unhealthy slogan with no basis in law, and is designed to insulate women, to privilege their say-so, to give them added and special rights because of their gender.  

Can you see how your taking an extreme opposite position is chauvinistic?  If you don't see the disparity between how women are treated in our culture and in the church, then I'm sorry, many people see it and are concerned about it.  

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Quote

• How can we bear each other’s burdens if we don’t believe them?

 

I don't know what this means.

Bearing burdens starts with empathy and believing the person that has the burden.  If the starting position is one of disbelief in a prejudiced manner then we can never get to the point of bearing the burden of someone else because we don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of the burden in the first place.  Its like in the repentance process and recognizing the sin is the first step. 

 

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Exiled said:

There is an us v. them paradigm that happens with almost all groups.  We are hardwired to take on the group as if it were ourselves.  Also, leaders are a proxy for the group as a whole.  So, when the group or its leaders gets a perceived attack, there is a feeling that the attack is personal.  I think this defensive mentality led to the recent events.  I found this article very informative on this subject:  https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/02/26/yanss-122-how-our-unchecked-tribal-psychology-pollutes-politics-science-and-just-about-everything-else/

Love the your are not so smart podcast, very important stuff.  This is why I rarely fit into any tribe these days.  I find myself criticizing many different perspectives because I see this kind of tribalism so prevalent on both sides.  I attended my republican caucus meeting this week in Utah, and my perspectives have changed significantly on many different policy issues in recent years.  I was dismayed by some of the conversations I had and overheard others participating in.  We have to do a better job as society to try and understand one another.  You may like this book, its excellent and I highly recommend it.  

https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521742879&sr=1-1&keywords=the+righteous+mind

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is the BYU police report evidence of the attempted rape?  Frankly, no.  It's evidence of some sort of sexual misconduct, to be sure, but not the attempted rape as alleged by the woman in the recording.

A muddled mess.  What a horrible, horrible sequence of events.

 

Wait a second.  This is a long discussion, with a lot of back and forth, but I think this just kind of slipped by.

You're referring to the BYU Police report, referenced here, that says:

Quote

According to a police report from Dec. 2017, as part of an investigation of the alleged rape, Joseph told detectives that he went with the woman to a small "preparation room" in the cafeteria area of the MTC "and while talking with her, asked her to show him her breasts, which she did."

This is the part of the conversation where we ask you, Smac97, if you want to change or take back anything you've said so far in this conversation?  Or are you going to double down and say that you're more concerned about whether or not the room had a VCR in it?

There has been a lot of discussion of how old Brother Bishop is.  How crazy and non-Mormon the accuser is.  All the reasons we should doubt what happened.

But you seem to accept that Brother Bishop did, in fact, ask a missionary under his authority at the MTC to expose herself to him and that she did, and yet your defense of him and this situation doesn't seem to have changed course.

This is the part where a rational person would say "Hey, it looks like I may have been wrong about this.  It appears Brother Bishop was a sick, sexual predator who abused at least one young woman under his care, and while we may never know the extent of what he did, it's obvious the Church totally screwed up in allowing him the authority and access that those positions gave him."  This is the part where those who are going down with the ship will say "The church is perfect but the sexually molesting Presidents of the MTC  that are called by the First Presidency aren't."  "Staying in the boat" is great, but if the boat is taking on water, you need to help bail out that water to stay afloat. 

Maybe it would be easier to understand if we set aside Brother Joseph's age.  What if a currently serving Sister Missionary said that her mission president or the MTC president told her to expose her breasts to him, and she did out of fear?  Would you be making the same arguments and defenses?  Or was it just okay back in the 1980s and because the accuser suffered such terrific mental damage that her current instability makes her unsympathetic and unreliable?  If a 21 year-old single woman said that her Bishop told her to expose herself to him in an interview and she did, would we be saying "well, you also said he tried to rape you, and you got the color of the carpet wrong when you said it was maroon but it's really more of a reddish-brown, so I'm afraid it's no big deal"?

If we're all willing to accept that, at the very least, Brother Joseph asked at least one Sister Missionary to take off her top, and she did, and there are still two sides to the discussion going forward, then the divide in the Church is greater than I thought and I now predict this situation will have a bigger effect on the future of the Church than I originally thought.  Because as everyone knows (especially the lawyers), it's not the mistake that gets you, it's the cover up.

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by cinepro

[churchistrue]

Darn, smac just got databased.

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

But you seem to accept that Brother Joseph did, in fact, ask a missionary under his authority at the MTC to expose herself to him and that she did, and yet your defense of him and this situation doesn't seem to have changed course.

 

It didn't slip by. He put blame on the victim for complying.  sigh   Again, another example of why we have this problem. 

[CA Steve]

 

I just don't understand why a young sister missionary would be afraid to come forward about this sort of thing. Women are so privileged.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The point wasn't sarcastic, and it is about consent and power dynamics, and that it can never be consensual in that scenario.  

The point seems equivalent to saying "Raping a child is not a good thing."  It's axiomatic.  So axiomatic, in fact, that soberly stating it comes across as sarcastic.

Quote

The woman should have reported it to law enforcement, but we have to be careful not to victim blame when that statement is made. 

The angst about "justice" for this woman is attributable, to some extent, to her not reporting it to law enforcement.  Blaming her bishop, or the Church, for that is problematic (unless, I suppose, Elder Asay knew about it).

Quote

The Church may very well have a record of this meeting, we don't know. 

The Church says it has no record.  Are evidence-free accusations of lying on the table now?  Or is there some sort of special rule for baseless slurs when the LDS Church is the target?

Quote

The point about having these discussions is one that I think you missed, why does it take a public crisis to have important discussions about sexual abuse? 

Huh?  Sexual abuse is discussed all the time.

Quote

It shouldn't, yet it does time and time again, just like the title 9 scandal at BYU last year.  It strikes me that the church is only being reactionary and not proactive on these important issues.  

The Church provides training to bishops  Publicly condemns abuse on a regular basis.  Maintains a helpline staffed by attorneys to help bishops sort out legal issues.  Disciplines members.  And on and on.

I think the Church is working hard to address these things.  I also think relentless faultfinders couldn't care less.

Quote

Can you see how your taking an extreme opposite position is chauvinistic? 

No.

Quote

If you don't see the disparity between how women are treated in our culture and in the church, then I'm sorry, many people see it and are concerned about it.  

Right.  So no need to explain.  No neet to argue.  Present evidence.  Reasoning.  Just assert X and fault me for not kowtowing before it.

Whatever.

Quote

Bearing burdens starts with empathy and believing the person that has the burden. 

I don't totally disagree with that.  But I don't altogether agree with it, either.

"Believing the person" comes across as "ditch the notion of 'innocent until proven guilty.'"  

And trying to guilt me into ditching that notion by invoking scripture just won't work.

Quote

If the starting position is one of disbelief in a prejudiced manner

I don't ascribe to that.  Declining to rely on crappy evidence from a source with substantial credibility issues is not "prejudice."

See, "prejudice" is, by definition, "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."  

Ironically, the only person calling for us to proceed on a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" is the fellow who is saying stuff like "Bearing burdens starts with empathy and believing the person that has the burden."  That would be . . . you.

"Believing the person" based on a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" is . . . prejudice.

Meanwhile, I stayed my assessment of this issue while the only evidence before us was crappy.  I relied on . . . "reason," not a "preconceived opinion" that the woman should reflexively and automatically be believed.

Now that more competent and probative evidence has come out, I have shifted my position.  After the evidence came out.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 22, 2018 by smac97