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

[Hamba Tuhan]

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You wonder, if they would even believe you. What happens if they don't?

In my (limited) experience, these concerns are always taken seriously.

A member of my ward had issues raised about him in relation to a calling. He was never called to anything again until after the issue (in another jurisdiction) had been resolved in his favour. (This went on for at least five years.) No one either believed or disbelieved the allegations; rather, they realised he couldn't serve as long as the allegations existed, even though almost no one in the entire stake had even heard of them.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Wasn't a refutation of your comment.  Just explaining that her "former member" status is, by her account, directly connected to the allegations being discussed.

-------

This is getting so tangled up....

https://www.religionnews.com/2018/03/20/retired-mormon-mission-president-admits-he-molested-a-female-missionary/

"Bishop’s son Greg, a lawyer, released a statement and copies of police reports that cast doubt on the credibility of the accuser, saying she 'has a long history of false accusations and criminal activity.' The documents suggest the accuser may have been previously involved in cases of fraud and identity theft"

when asked about the documents, JR said:

"He says the family is considering with their attorney whether to make the police documents public"

So they are released, but not released?  Maybe shown to reporters?

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Has that been reported by someone who is aware of a diagnosis?  I thought it was just a theory suggested by someone on this thread (not sure where it originated).

It has been reported by two people claiming to know him, both in private venues.  Bluebell can confirm the one (that it was reported, not that the guy actually knows him).  The one said iirc that the last time he saw him was ten months ago and the dementia was known for several years.

Iirc, I posted a quote with a disclaimer I couldn't confirm it.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Which means either someone in the Church leadership is lying or there is a big issue with Bishop's memory/honesty.  Would you ever forget a church leader asking you if you attempted to rape a woman?

Yes, it has to mean either the newsroom release is incorrect, Bishop has a memory problem, or he's intentionally lying to his accuser in the recording.

And, no, I would not forget something like that.

If/when you are able to listen to the recording, you'll note that there are significant gaps in his memory.  I don't know if that means dementia or if it's normal for an 85 year old to forget stuff.

What was striking, to me, is that while he doesn't recall the event with the woman who is interviewing him, rather than deny it, he quickly admits that it is something he's struggled with his entire life and he apologizes profusely.  To your point, maybe that is all from the dementia -- I don't know as I'm not knowledgeable about that.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Has that been reported by someone who is aware of a diagnosis?  I thought it was just a theory suggested by someone on this thread (not sure where it originated).

Elsewhere on the internet it was reported by someone who knew him that he has had it for years. I’ve not seen anything more authoritative than that though. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is getting so tangled up....

https://www.religionnews.com/2018/03/20/retired-mormon-mission-president-admits-he-molested-a-female-missionary/

"Bishop’s son Greg, a lawyer, released a statement and copies of police reports that cast doubt on the credibility of the accuser, saying she 'has a long history of false accusations and criminal activity.' The documents suggest the accuser may have been previously involved in cases of fraud and identity theft"

Hmm.  I have not been able to locate the statement referenced above.  Do we know where it is?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Omni, I cannot speak for others.  Here is what I know from personal experience. The power of discernment is real and can be very powerful in identifying problems and in assisting in the healing process of others.  Frankly, I don't have a clue about these others situations and why they did or did not occur.  Were feelings and spiritual guidance ignored or did spiritual guidance just never occur?  I cannot answer the question.  Does it cause me to doubt the power of discernment?  Not for a moment.  Does it make me doubt the ability of general authorities to exercise spiritual gifts?  I think there will be times when are filled with the Spirit, but I never have an expectation that they will "have" it.

I remember the first time I ever heard Elder Gordon B. Hinckley speak. There was an announcement that an apostle was coming to talk to the saints in the south - it was GBH.  Everyone was excited about this rare opportunity.  I went, I listened, and I came away with nothing.  I thought he was the most boring speaker I had ever heard.  Generally, instead of pointing at the "other" as the problem I most often look at myself and conclude that I was just not in the right frame of mind to be open to the Spirit.  Conversely, I was invited to attend a marriage sealing in the SLC temple.  It was the sealing room that is at the top of the small set of stairs at the back right corner of the Celestial Room.  Elder Mark E. Petersen was acting as the sealer and there were six people in the room.  He was filled with the Spirit and I felt as if he saw me, my inner being - who I was and who I would be.  It was a very memorable experience and testimony of individuals who serve as apostles in the Church.

It is very easy to find the errors.  I encourage you to look for when things were done right.  Should you choose to do so, I think you will find overwhelming evidence of the spiritual gifts of the Brethren.  

Referring to the bold part of your post...

Can you see how it is difficult for this particular woman and others in her situation are unlikely to be able to see that "overwhelming evidence" of the Brethren's spiritual gifts?  Consider how you might feel if the Prophet or one of his counselors called someone into a leadership position who had a history of sexual abuse and then that individual used their position to sexually abuse you.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has been reported by two people claiming to know him, both in private venues.  Bluebell can confirm the one (that it was reported, not that the guy actually knows him).  The one said iirc that the last time he saw him was ten months ago and the dementia was known for several years.

Iirc, I posted a quote with a disclaimer I couldn't confirm it.

 

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Elsewhere on the internet it was reported by someone who knew him that he has had it for years. I’ve not seen anything more authoritative than that though. 

Thanks.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

-------

This is getting so tangled up....

https://www.religionnews.com/2018/03/20/retired-mormon-mission-president-admits-he-molested-a-female-missionary/

"Bishop’s son Greg, a lawyer, released a statement and copies of police reports that cast doubt on the credibility of the accuser, saying she 'has a long history of false accusations and criminal activity.' The documents suggest the accuser may have been previously involved in cases of fraud and identity theft"

when asked about the documents, JR said:

"He says the family is considering with their attorney whether to make the police documents public"

So they are released, but not released?  Maybe shown to reporters?

We certainly don't know how much trust to put in the accuser.  Once I got to the point in the audio recording where she talks about threatening to kill him, I obviously started to question her state of mind.

One problem, however, is that even if she has zero credibility, his side of the recording, on its own, is fairly incriminating.  Probably not to the point of criminality, but it just won't make him or the church look very good.  Again, putting the caveat that if everything he said is driven by some underlying dementia... then, who knows what to think!

And then there is the Weber State documents from Juliann.  Ugh.

[Calm]

This was reported on LDS Freedom Forums:

"the man is well into his 80's, and is living in a nursing home because he has dementia"

This should be pretty easy to confirm, right?

add-on:

"The recording has been obtained illegally and under false pretentions of a friendly unsupervised visit to an old confused man in a nursing home without any support from his family friends or legal representative. Nor can there be any assurance that the recording is unaltered, not tampered with or manipulated."

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=47931&sid=fab0fe43a676cfe2e1d6f633ff0663e7

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I have not been able to locate the statement referenced above.  Do we know where it is?

Thanks,

-Smac

He hasn't actually released it publicly yet, Jana R said in her comments....so that was weirdly phrased.

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We certainly don't know how much trust to put in the accuser.  Once I got to the point in the audio recording where she talks about threatening to kill him, I obviously started to question her state of mind.

One problem, however, is that even if she has zero credibility, his side of the recording, on its own, is fairly incriminating.  Probably not to the point of criminality, but it just won't make him or the church look very good.  Again, putting the caveat that if everything he said is driven by some underlying dementia... then, who knows what to think!

And then there is the Weber State documents from Juliann.  Ugh.

I think the Weber stuff is the most damaging, he probably, hopefully didn't have dementia back then. It would help her case if others came forward but how that would happen I have no idea and how do you prove stuff? 

[Duncan]

deleted

Edited March 21, 2018 by Duncan

[Calm]

Is this accurate? (From the LDSFF link)

"The Handbook is pretty clear about that no formal church discipline may be imposed without confession or testimony of two witnesses. I assume that all the high ranking callings he held was before 2010."

[Calm]

The FF has clips from the transcript, including one part I hadn't read or missed from the woman when he says he doesn't remember:

"I guess it's tucked away. Maybe it'll come out like it did with the sister
missionaries for me in the right environment.
Maybe."

This seems to be saying this (her alleged molestation at the MTC) is a recovered memory.

Is there anything in her comments that might give another understanding?

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this accurate? (From the LDSFF link)

"The Handbook is pretty clear about that no formal church discipline may be imposed without confession or testimony of two witnesses."

My copy of Handbook One is at home, but I'm certain based on experience that this is decidedly not the case.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

The FF has clips from the transcript, including one part I hadn't read or missed from the woman when he says he doesn't remember:

"I guess it's tucked away. Maybe it'll come out like it did with the sister
missionaries for me in the right environment.
Maybe."

This seems to be saying this (her alleged molestation at the MTC) is a recovered memory.

Is there anything in her comments that might give another understanding?

If this is a recovered memory then that’s a huge red flag.  

[Avatar4321]

On 3/19/2018 at 10:45 PM, drums12 said:

Herein lies the crux of the matter, as far as I'm concerned.  Church culture,and in many cases correlated teachings, put leaders on pedestals...they are almost "wholly other."  If someone is a MP, SP, GA, etc etc he must be much more righteous than the average joe.  I don't think it was this way in the early days.  Early brethren weren't just "yes" men.   The mentality now is, in my opinion, and to my perception, that the Brethren are to be "sustained" no matter what.  

If brethren are to be sustained no matter what, why are we given a chance to oppose?

ive never been taught leaders are better than average in righteousness. Quite the opposite. I’ve been taught that the Lord calls flawed men to do His work

 

[Duncan]

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

If brethren are to be sustained no matter what, why are we given a chance to oppose?

ive never been taught leaders are better than average in righteousness. Quite the opposite. I’ve been taught that the Lord calls flawed men to do His work

 

but the work should help them , like us, to work on their flaws, otherwise we are just wasting time going to church, i.e. if I am not a better person and others don't become better, because of my calling and me through their callings then church is a waste of time

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this accurate? (From the LDSFF link)

"The Handbook is pretty clear about that no formal church discipline may be imposed without confession or testimony of two witnesses. I assume that all the high ranking callings he held was before 2010."

As I understand it, the requirement for two witnesses pertains only to allegations of adultery.  From Section 6.10.12 of Handbook 1:

Quote

Evidence When Adultery Is Charged

If a person who is accused of adultery denies the charge and the matter is being considered in a disciplinary council, revelation requires that “every word shall be established against him or her by two witnesses of the church” (D&C 42:80). “Two witnesses” means two separate sources of evidence. This could include the personal evidence of a participant and some other source of evidence of the member’s guilt.

Generally, the procedure for the presentation of evidence goes like this (from Section 6.10.4):

Quote

The presiding officer conducts the disciplinary council as follows:

1. Invite a participant to open the council with prayer.

2. State the reported misconduct, or designate someone else to state it. Ask the member to respond by admitting or denying it.

3. If the member admits to the misconduct, proceed to number 5 below. If he denies the reported misconduct, present evidence of it or ask someone else to do so. This evidence may include the written or oral statements of witnesses, reliable documents, and the substance of the member’s confession (if he has confessed and given consent). The member must be given an opportunity to question any witnesses who give evidence against him. (If witnesses are unable to attend, see “Party or Witness Unable to Attend” in 6.10.12.)

4. If the member desires to present evidence in his behalf, invite him to bring in witnesses one at a time, submit other relevant evidence, comment on the evidence, and make any other statements he desires.

Witnesses should be Church members unless the presiding officer has determined in advance that a nonmember witness will respect the purposes and procedures of a Church disciplinary council. Witnesses wait in a separate room until they give their evidence. The presiding officer asks them not to talk with each other about the matter either before or after they testify.

5. Ask questions of the member or witnesses in an orderly, polite manner, avoiding argument. Allow counselors in the bishopric or stake presidency to do the same. Questions are to be brief and limited to the essential facts of the case.

The deciding body (the bishopric or stake presidency) then "prayerfully deliberate over what action to take."

I have participated in several dozen disciplinary councils.  Every one of them has been predicatedon the individual's confessed behavior,so there has not been a need to weigh/sift evidence such as is called for above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My copy of Handbook One is at home, but I'm certain based on experience that this is decidedly not the case.

Thanks for the info, Hamba and Smac.  It did sound off from the little experience I have had.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, the requirement for two witnesses pertains only to allegations of adultery.  From Section 6.10.12 of Handbook 1:

Generally, the procedure for the presentation of evidence goes like this (from Section 6.10.4):

The deciding body (the bishopric or stake presidency) then "prayerfully deliberate over what action to take."

I have participated in several dozen disciplinary councils.  Every one of them has been predicatedon the individual's confessed behavior,so there has not been a need to weigh/sift evidence such as is called for above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Does it say what to do if there is no confession and only one witness?

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does it say what to do if there is no confession and only one witness?

you could probably hold a DC but could you convict someone? who knows, it would be a he said/she said situation

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Referring to the bold part of your post...

Can you see how it is difficult for this particular woman and others in her situation are unlikely to be able to see that "overwhelming evidence" of the Brethren's spiritual gifts?  Consider how you might feel if the Prophet or one of his counselors called someone into a leadership position who had a history of sexual abuse and then that individual used their position to sexually abuse you.

Are such experiences so damaging to an individual that they forfeit entirely their objectivity for the rest of their lives?  Does it remove the ability to see humanity fully - acknowledging the good and the bad?  You seem to imply that an individual that is sexually abused loses all human ability to function in any objective manner.

In no way does anything I have said belittle or demean the tragic nature and serious harm sexual abuse does to an individual.  However, as someone that has specific knowledge of what sexual abuse does to an individual I know that with time and healing humans are more than capable of seeing the world more objectively than what you are trying to portray.  

If you are attempting to enfer that my statement above - which was made to a commenter on this Board and in that context; it certainly was not addressing the woman who reports that she was abused - then you are wrong.  However, I do not care how badly we are harmed in this life, the promise of the Savior is that he can heal all our pains.  Are you saying this is not possible for some individuals; that they are beyond healing by the Son of God?  

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does it say what to do if there is no confession and only one witness?

For adultery, revelation requires that “every word shall be established against him or her by two witnesses of the church” (D&C 42:80). “Two witnesses” means two separate sources of evidence. This could include the personal evidence of a participant and some other source of evidence of the member’s guilt.

So an aggrieved spouse's testimony, on its own, is insufficient.  There must be an additional, separate source of evidence.

For other forms of misconduct, the two-witness requirement is not per se applicable, but I suspect it's often applied anyway, at least as to serious charges.

Thanks,

-Smac