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

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

So in the DN article, 

If this is true, it is over regardless of the merits of her claims.   The son is claiming he was medicated after heart surgery, though. I'm finding that claim a little convenient and I can't remember if he had previously said his dad has memory problems. 

What about all of the other things that Bishop confessed to in that interview?  Do we write those off as due to dementia and/or medication?

What is most important to me is not Bishop’s guilt or innocence (though I recognize why that is important). 

What is most important to me is that we look at this as another reason to revisit our policies and procedures that may tend toward protecting predators over victims. 

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

So in the DN article, 

If this is true, it is over regardless of the merits of her claims.   

I agree her credibility would be shot. Unless, many more credible witnesses come forward, it would end this. If he has dementia, nothing he says on this tape would or should mean much. 

[jbarm]

Per the Desnews the accuser has a criminal record and has accused multiple men of similar behavior, seeking monetary damages.

Also noted that the Church did investigate the claims back in 2010 and reported them to the police.  This includes the accusers threats to kill Bishop.

So saying the Church did nothing was not true on the accusers part.

Not saying it didn't happen, but the narrative is not exactly a clear view of guilt on the part of Bishop.

My parents are in their 80's and are easily confused and have a hard time clearly remembering many things.

 

jb

[Calm]

2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Genuinely curious: How do you know this?

Because Utah is only one state and the internet is worldwide.  If by chance Utah ruled against its release here, someone could take it to a state or country that didn't have the same law and release it there if they didn't want to take a risk.

It was taped in Arizona.  Why aren't people worried about its laws?  Arizona is a one party consent law.  The recording was made in Arizona, Utah is irrelevant unless they want to release it from a Utah company (and even then who knows for sure...Smac?).  If for some reason it was banned in Utah, go post it on a website that works out of Arizona or anywhere else with one party laws if that stuff applies.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Were criminal acts involved?  Or is it just something that makes the church and this man look bad?

But if criminal acts were involved and they occurred in Utah and the trial takes place in Utah, would the recording have become inadmissible in a Utah court under the proposed legislation?

Sexual assault, which is what she was claiming ( ripped clothing, attempted rape) is criminal.

It would have been admissible if it went to trial...past statue of limitations though.

Should be able to use it in a civil suit though.  I don't think they have such limitations....Smac, Danzo (Danzo is a lawyer, right?) where are you?  No insomniacs I suspect.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[why me]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

First off, where does it state that Bishop had dementia, Calm? Second, WhyMe he didn't deny the allegations in the recording. Did you listen to it? I didn't know that I have only listened partially to it, I thought I listened to all of it until today where I heard it went for a good 2 1/2 hours.  

It all becomes a he says, she says. No proof. What to do if there is no proof? And I do think that he has denied it in the past. How many times should he deny it?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

The confession she was seeking was for alleged actions that occurred in Utah.  Beyond that, I’m not an attorney, I’m just saying that it’s troubling to me.  The Church was seemingly  supporting legislation that protects the predators, not the victims. 

The alleged perpetrator currently lives in Arizona.  The alleged crimes are past statue of limitations, attempted rape and sexual assault (if it was rape and aggravated sexual assault there is no time limit).  All she can do is file a civil suit for damages.  Any reason she can't do that down in Arizona?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don’t know. 

Can we think of a reason for the church supporting a two-party consent law?

To support keeping private, confidential noncriminal meetings private.

Meetings where crime is exposed would not be covered as I understand it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

So in the DN article, 

If this is true, it is over regardless of the merits of her claims.   The son is claiming he was medicated after heart surgery, though. I'm finding that claim a little convenient and I can't remember if he had previously said his dad has memory problems. 

If his dad is capable of reading the news, the son is not likely to come out and say "dementia" though might say "some memory issues".  The only reason I go on and on about Mom here is I know she will never read it.  I never tell her she has dementia, I blow off the occurrences with 'everyone forgets, that's what lists and routines are for'.  It would first hurt her and then add to her fear of growing old, losing control, ending up like her mom and grandma (who was in a mental institution).  Took a year and a half to get her out of that fatalism after Dad died, no way am I going to push her back in.

Part of me feels bad about saying it here about Joseph, but I don't see him likely coming here and if he goes online at all about the story, he will run into the idea everywhere I have seen it discussed.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, omni said:

24/7 discernment may be a bit too much of an ask, but how about once during the three years Bishop served as the MTC President?

How about once every 18 years?  Richard Lyman committed adultry from 1925-1943 while serving as an apostle.  If the entire Q15 can go 18 years without discerning one of its own is in an adulterous relationship, then what value is the power of discernment?

Wouldn’t it be nice if each sin had a recognizable foul odor like tobacco and pot smoke, coffee and drug/alcohol breath? After all, the sense of smell is quite keen and triggers memories, hints of danger, presence of harmful substances. That would make discernment simple and eliminate the need for worthiness issues. “Hmmm, Brother Gui, my nose detects a hint of gluttony, the distinct note of lasciviousness, and a trace of slothfulness. Is there also a whiff of R-rated movie viewing? Perhaps we should postpone calling you as nursery leader until you can, um, clear the air?”

Sometimes Priesthood leaders do discern untruthful reponses. In such cases they are advised to probe further, but must stop short of making unsubstantiated accusations, calling the person a liar, or demanding Church disciplinary action based on such impressions. Perhaps a calling should be postponed or retracted, but if the party is adamant in denial and no other evidence is available, what else can be done?

On the other hand, we could take the example  of my namesake, Bernardo Gui, and incorporate his infallible techniques into our quest for complete transparency in our inquisitions.... ooops..... interviews.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

What about all of the other things that Bishop confessed to in that interview?  Do we write those off as due to dementia and/or medication?

Everything I have read so far could be, there are multiple ways to read what he says.  And dementia/old man mind pretty much covers the entire conversation I have read (ten pages or so, so not that much).  There may be details added later that make me change my mind, but so far it is not competent or coherent in my view just by the content....and I think content is the key because the appearance and voice can at times be controlled, they know how to act to appear normal (upping game), but if the thinking process is damaged, the content will be as well in some form even if the voice saying it sounds educated and confident...because lots of sufferers are decent actors with a lot of reason to give it their all (so they can keep the car, avoid losing their home, being separated from loved ones, being treated with respect and not as a child).

 I did a long post outlining how hypersexuality occurs in some dementia patients, even when there is no previous inclinations and how that could have come about over time to result in the conversation, but it ended up feeling too invasive so not going to put it up,

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don’t think the church specifically claimed that a DC was held or that a priesthood leader spoke with Bishop about it. Or did I miss something?

A DC would require witnesses being called to testify, evidence presented, some sort of corroborati of testimony, or a confession. Such details are not generally shared outside the DC. 

[Bernard Gui]

Reading the transcript, I noticed a distinct shift in tone and spirit towards the end as both parties seemed to move toward a more charitable position, acknowledging each other’s pain and hoping for some agreeable resolution. She acknowledged his fears that this would do severe and unwarranted damage to his children and grandchildren who had nothing to do with his purported misbehavior and seemed somewhat willing to consider it. She appeared to accept his apology without calling it bs as she did earlier in her angry phase. He apologized without giving excuses or making himself into a victim, and he seemed to move more toward accepting responsibility for the grief she expressed. His remorse seemed genuine that he had caused it. 

Just reading a transcript or listening to a recording is not sufficient for me to come to any clear conclusions, but in today’s toxic atmosphere a mere accusation seems sufficient to summarily convict the accused and besmirch any person or institution with which he may have ties. A little due process would go a long ways to direct our course before we rush to draw and quarter them. 

In any case, I think the way that this raw material was made public is deplorable. It serves no one well and certainly doesn’t move toward reconciliation, forgiveness, or healing. We are getting only one side of the story. But, that’s the way things seem to operate nowadays. 

As Calm has pointed out, dementia can make things quite complicated. As my MIL drifted away, she did odd things, accused her daughters of theft, hiding important things, hiring two men to move a large houseful of furniture into a small assisted care room, etc. Her behavior and conversations started to become uncharacteristicly and inappropriately risqué. The wife of one of my best friends is sadly well down this road and she can (uncharacteristicly) say and do very embarrassing things. He says it’s like raising another child.

What a world we live in!

Edited March 21, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

Interesting twist:

Quote

The woman told the Deseret News Monday that the tape was released without her permission.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013479/woman-levels-accusations-against-former-mtc-president.html

Quote

Bishop also denied the allegations in 2010, when the woman reported the alleged sexual assault to local church leaders in Pleasant Grove, according to a police report obtained by the Deseret News through a public records request.

So Pleasant Grove police may not have investigated, but it sounds like someone did, likely Provo.

Quote

In an interview, the woman responded to the allegations by Bishop's son, noting she has a criminal history but she said those incidents are not relevant to her claim of rape against Bishop.

Otoh:

Quote

She contacted University police at BYU in November. Two detectives interviewed her on Dec. 4 in Colorado. They then interviewed Bishop at his home in Arizona. They presented their findings to the Utah County Attorney's Office, University Police Lt. Steven Messick said.

"I have no reason to doubt the victim’s disclosure, and would have likely prosecuted Mr. Bishop but for the expiration of the statute of limitations," deputy Utah County attorney David Sturgill said in a message to University police. The statute of limitations for rape expires after four years.

Quote

Contact was made with the suspect who recited a different version of the story," the police report states. "No further action was taken."

But not just "denied allegations", a different version of the story meaning there was some sort of interaction.  I wonder if that is typical cop reporting.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[Duncan]

Wasn't there a movie with Mr. Mel Gibson, who played a conspiracy theorist and had all these zany ideas but the movie is about one of them that actually was true? This whole ordeal sounds like that

[smac97]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

It’s extremely troubling to find out the the church learned of this recording in January and then tried to get a two-party consent law passed in February (that would have prevented the release of this recording). 

I don't think so. First of all, laws that are enacted typically do not go into a fact until about May. Second, if the recording was legal at the time it was recorded, then any law passed subsequently would not have had a retroactive effect. In other words, the church's advocacy for a two-party consent law probably had nothing to do with this recording, in my view.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A DC would require witnesses being called to testify, evidence presented, some sort of corroborati of testimony, or a confession. Such details are not generally shared outside the DC. 

It seems clear from the audio that if a DC was held, which Bishop would have had to have forgotten, the woman in the audio was not called as a witness — because she certainly would have remembered. 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Someone who is an exwife will generally be more likely to have negative ideas about her former husband than someone who is a wife.  Generally people don't leave a faith because they like it too much.

Exactly my point. The church used "former" member and "briefly served" in their release to cast doubt on the accuser. It wasn't just an insertion of a fact. It was designed to cause people to distrust this woman's accusation. Surely she must be a disgruntled liar trying to burn down the church. That's the implication. The church is suggesting that she can't be trusted. Frankly, the more I think about the church's response, the more disheartening it is. They are in CYA mode by attempting to slyly assassinate the accuser's credibility and character. It's shameful.

[Gray]

13 hours ago, omni said:

24/7 discernment may be a bit too much of an ask, but how about once during the three years Bishop served as the MTC President?

How about once every 18 years?  Richard Lyman committed adultry from 1925-1943 while serving as an apostle.  If the entire Q15 can go 18 years without discerning one of its own is in an adulterous relationship, then what value is the power of discernment?

It's clear to me that the "power of discernment" is really, at best, regular old discernment. No one has magical abilities to discern the sins of others. If you're good at reading facial expressions and behavior you might discern that something is amiss with someone.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Just seems like they are giving some details.  

Details designed to attack the accuser's credibility.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, why me said:

Inspiration does not help when it comes to the law. The police could not verify her story. That is what matters. Even if the church had inspiration, what could they do with it? Bring the inspiration to the police? Find him guilty because of inspiration? Even when he is still denying it? Frnakly I would never want to be bishop or any leader of the church. And if I was...the door would always be open when speaking with someone, even about the most personal of problems. And maybe I would have someone else in the room. A woman for example, if I were speaking with another woman.

If an accusation is made, a church leader would be found guilty by the exmos and their name posted all over the internet. What then? Their life would be ruined.

I think you're confused about what I'm saying. I have no interest in the church participating in this legally. I don't expect them to receive inspiration for the police. That suggestion is absurd and frankly sounds like a strawman, but I'm willing to accept that it is simply confusion on your part.

What can the church do? They could have disciplined the man. They could respond to serious accusations by taking serious action. They could use the power of discernment to know whether or not the man is guilty. Isn't this spiritual gift at the heart of acting as a Judge in Israel?

The police will do the legal thing. The church should do the ecclesiastical thing. They don't appear to have done much in this case, other than impugn the character of the accuser with a carefully worded denial in a press release

 

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Exactly my point. The church used "former" member and "briefly served" in their release to cast doubt on the accuser. It wasn't just an insertion of a fact. It was designed to cause people to distrust this woman's accusation. Surely she must be a disgruntled liar trying to burn down the church. That's the implication. The church is suggesting that she can't be trusted. Frankly, the more I think about the church's response, the more disheartening it is. They are in CYA mode by attempting to slyly assassinate the accuser's credibility and character. It's shameful.

Unfortunately it is just this impulse - protecting the good name of the institution, that has caused many institutions to cover up abuse. We saw it in the Catholic church, and we've seen it with various cases in the LDS church.

The good name of the church cannot take precedence over protecting victims. It just can't. And it backfires anyway. Eventually it comes out and it's much worse for the church in the end.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Gray

[rockpond]

I’m curious how many here have listened to the audio in its entirety and believe that Bishop is innocent of any and all sexual misconduct (that it was just his dementia making him falsely confess)?

[LoudmouthMormon]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

"By their fruits ye shall know them..."

Indeed.  Here are fruits:

Quote

This matter was brought to the attention of the Church in 2010, when this former Church member, who served briefly as a missionary in 1984, told leaders of the Pleasant Grove Utah West Stake that she had been sexually assaulted by the president of the Provo Missionary Training Center, Joseph Bishop, 25 years earlier. They listened carefully to the claims being made and then this was immediately reported to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the police interviewed her at that time. The Church does not know what she said in that interview, but the Church received no further communication from the police concerning the matter.

At the same time, the Church referred these allegations to the local ecclesiastical leaders of Joseph Bishop. Those leaders met with Mr. Bishop, who denied the allegations. Unable to verify the allegations, they did not impose any formal Church discipline on Mr. Bishop at that time.

Those are good fruits, of a good organization.  You don't file police reports when you're trying to cover something up or hide something or brush something under the rug.  And you don't take disciplinary action without evidence.

Don't you think these are good fruits, cinepro?  

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, why me said:

When dealing with such a case, it is very difficult to use spiritual discernment. I can feel that someone is guilty. The spirit can give me the discernment that one is guilty. But to act on it is very difficult when it comes to such allegations. Such feelings is not admissable in a court of law nor when condemning someone. However, one can say to the person, that the spirit has manifested itself to me, and I feel that you may be guilty. And wait for the reaction. But if one is wrong, then more harm is done. Much better to leave it up to the law and see what happens.

Why, I agree that how we deal with this sense of guilt is difficult and challenging. However, I think that when the context is whether an individual is called to a position of leadership the decision is much easier.  I think that is what makes this case with Bishop unsettling - IF he was guilty of such things (and it seems to me this has not been settled) then why was he called to successive positions of leadership?  On the other side of the coin, does the fact that he was called to so many positions say that he was not guilty of these gross sins?  

I really, really hate when allegations are made decades after the fact.  It becomes almost impossible to reconstruct what actually happened and we are left with two different versions of history.  Worse, one may have dementia.

Just curious, how was she ever able to talk to someone aged 85 who may have dementia?