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

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't making any inference about your comment.  I was asking a follow up question of you.  Is the answer above a yes or a no?

Yes, anytime we have an experience, particularly one that is deeply, emotionally upsetting, our perspective is colored.  However, just because it is difficult does not mean that we need to wallow in our difficulties.  The objective of being human is to progress.  

[bsjkki]

Has the SL Trib done a story yet? I am not seeing it. I hope this means they may be taking the time to really investigate this story to give their readers more information and context surrounding the events. 

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Details designed to attack the accuser's credibility.

If the woman served an 18 month mission, then agree about the use of the term 'briefly'.   Otherwise, i don't see how accurate information is wrong to share, regardless of how it makes the accuser look.  If she's a former member, then that's relevant to the story.  It explains why she is working through the LDS church even though she's not a member.  Talking about her mission is what connects her to the events at the MTC.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks.  I just wondered because it looked like, per the parts that you posted, the handbook only ever refers to witnesses but never just witness.  

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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)?

I read the entire transcript. It appears something from his past is deeply troubling him. Whether he is competent or guilty should be determined by experts, not the media or gossip-mongers.The woman seems genuinely conflicted. Her pain appears to be genuine. Her anger certainly is. Her competence and veracity should also be examined by experts.

I know from personal and close family and friend experiences that false accusations are real, potent, damaging, and difficult to disprove. Innocent people indeed can be railroaded. I also know from experience that accusations like hers can be true. I am a firm believer in due process. He is innocent until proven guilty, but she is entitled to have her day in court. 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the woman served an 18 month mission, then agree about the use of the term 'briefly'.   Otherwise, i don't see how accurate information is wrong to share, regardless of how it makes the accuser look.  If she's a former member, then that's relevant to the story.  It explains why she is working through the LDS church even though she's not a member.  Talking about her mission is what connects her to the events at the MTC.

I don't see why being a former member would be relevant to the story of the leader being accused of wrongdoing. "Former" and "served briefly" are code words for "untrustworthy". By using those words the church is attempting to poison the well against the accuser. It's classic CYA.

Think of it this way. Imagine you're in the 1940-50's south. A police officer is accused of sxual assault and the department is accused of not taking it seriously or addressing the issue. So the Police Department issues a written statement to the press stating that a black woman made the accusation. It may be accurate that the woman making the accusation is black, but in the context of 1940-50's south, the police department believes that the accuser will not be believed because she is black. It's true, but the detail is designed to protect the police and cast doubt on the accuser. Police Department wins.

That is what the church is doing here.

ETA- It is relevant to mention that the woman served a mission since that gives context for the accusation, but stating that she served "briefly" is code that she probably wasn't really committed, or didn't really have a testimony, or wasn't really worthy anyway, so we should be cautious about believing such a person. If a missionary in your ward came home early, would the bishop stand up and welcome her home by thanking her for her service, or would he thank her for her "brief" service? One is respectful. The other is an backhanded compliment

Edited March 21, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

13 hours ago, juliann said:

 https://cdm.weber.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/WSU_OH/id/64/rec/57

A 1980 account from an employee, taken during an oral studies project, about her employment at Weber State. Short version, she sued because of him and settled out of court.

Joseph Bishop was president of Weber State from 1972 to 1978, and the interviewee left Weber State in 1974, when she left for a job at BYU.  She states that the "legal action" was settled prior to her leaving for BYU (since she spent 6-9 months "putting {BYU} off" until the "legal action" was settled).  She also states that there was some public interest in the "legal action" (she references reporters "investigating it," but that it didn't get coverage in the media), so the "legal action" was likely a formally-filed lawsuit in the courts, not just a private threat of litigation.

I have not been able to locate any such lawsuit against Joseph Bishop.  My searches for "Joseph Bishop" in state court records go back to at least 1976, and searches for "Bishop" yield cases going back to at least 1957.  However, it is possible that not all decades-old court records have been successfully transferred into a searchable database.  I also checked the federal courts in Utah, and found nothing there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't see why being a former member would be relevant to the story of the leader being accused of wrongdoing. "Former" and "served briefly" are code words for "untrustworthy". By using those words the church is attempting to poison the well against the accuser. It's classic CYA.

You don't see why who the accuser is and why a nonmember is going through the LDS leadership is relevant to the story?  It seems obviously relevant to me.  Neither do i see those words as meaning untrustworthy.  She's a former member, it's just a fact.  Like i said, if she served a full 18 months then I agree with the problems with the word briefly, but her having been in the MTC as a missionary is also very relevant to the story.

Quote

Think of it this way. Imagine you're in the 1940-50's south. A police officer is accused of sxual assault and the department is accused of not taking it seriously or addressing the issue. So the Police Department issues a written statement to the press stating that a black woman made the accusation.

You might have a point, if LDS members believe that former members and 'brief missionaries' are completely untrustworthy, inferior beings.  That has not been my experience though.  In fact, in the LDS circles that I run in online, support for her has been pretty vocal, even among those who don't believe the church did anything wrong.  I haven't seen anyone attempt to disparage her (I'm sure it has happened, but I have not personally seen it in all that i've read).  I think that's probably because members aren't like whites in the south in the 1940s and 50s so there's no reason for the church to expect that they would react in a similar manner.

 

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Given this was recorded in 1980 when he would have been well aware of it (or else he was an idiot for not keeping track of what a person who was suing him was saying about him) and he could have sued her for defamation, this is very problematic for him.  That Taylor was hired by BYU after she made the accusations helps her credibility, but leaves me mystified as to how he got the calling for MTC.  After a while the lawsuit would fade since it was settled, so if he was a good conman in a church position where it appears from Taylor's remarks he would feel quite at home...well, maybe he learned from Weber not to be so open about his personal hangups and dislikes and so the later stuff I can imagine happening if he controlled his less appealing qualities.

But I find it likely if he was into investigating people and blacklists, we will hear of more such problems.  That type of personality in a position of power...not good.

BTW, in my opinion if Taylor's portrayal of him is accurate, he sounds like the kind of person who plays up to those who have greater power than him and sabotages those he sees in competition.  He may have felt safe in church callings, so that side of him didn't show up after he moved into church callings.

We are really assuming a lot about him and her. On the other hand, there really are people in and out of the Church that do such things and behave in these ways. I doubt the Church will publish the details of any enquiries or disciplinary council.

[Danzo]

9 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?

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. 

How do we know who's predator and who's prey?

Edited March 21, 2018 by Danzo

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Interesting twist:

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

Some thoughts, based on the above article:

Quote

The woman, who is 55, posed as a reporter in December to confront Joseph L. Bishop, 85, who served as MTC president from 1983-86 and as president of Weber State College in the 1970s. She told Bishop that he groomed her by making her feel special, then took her to a basement storage room in the MTC and attempted to rape her, an allegation she later said was rape.

Does the MTC have such a "basement storage room?"  

Quote

The conversation, which she taped, and its 76-page transcript was released by a website called MormonLeaks run by a former member of the LDS Church. The woman told the Deseret News Monday that the tape was released without her permission. The Deseret News typically does not release the identity of alleged victims of sexual assault.

First, it is interesting that MormonLeaks released this without the permission of the woman.  Perhaps she sent it to them, but did so with provisos which they ignored.  Or perhaps the woman shared the recording with a friend, who in turn forwarded it to MormonLeaks.  Or perhaps the woman did give permission, then had a change of heart and denied giving it.  Her credibility is . . . not very good.

Second, I am glad that the D News did not release her name.  However, I think it's just a matter of time before her identity comes out.  If she really has a criminal history, then someone interested enough in digging things up will be able to figure out who she is.  And if and when that happens, her reputation - the criminal history, the shakedowns ("10 other men," according to the D News article), the murder threats, everything - will become public knowledge.  Courtesy of WikiLeaks.

Third, the circumstances under which the woman procured the "confession" are looking worse and worse as time goes on.  The man is 85.  His mental state seems very much in question (evidenced at several points in the recording, such as when he forgets his own name).  She lured him into a interview under false pretenses.  She asked a bunch of loaded and leading questions.  Bro. Bishop apparently did not recognize the woman, and yet within an hour he is confessing sexual transgressions to her, and largely in response to leading questions?  Doesn't that seem a bit odd?

Fourth, is anyone else having recollections of another instance of a woman using false pretenses to lure an elderly man with potential diminished mental capacity into a private discussion, and then bombarding him with leading questions and pressure tactics so as to extract a "confession" from him, and secretly recording the whole thing?  Martha Beck, call your office.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I read the entire transcript. It appears something from his past is deeply troubling him. Whether he is competent or guilty should be determined by experts, not the media or gossip-mongers.The woman seems genuinely conflicted. Her pain appears to be genuine. Her anger certainly is. Her competence and veracity should also be examined by experts.

I know from personal and close family and friend experiences that false accusations are real, potent, damaging, and difficult to disprove. Innocent people indeed can be railroaded. I also know from experience that accusations like hers can be true. I am a firm believer in due process. He is innocent until proven guilty, but she is entitled to have her day in court. 

Your response focuses on the woman and her accusations.  I wasn’t actually asking about that — he is innocent until proven guilty. 

I was asking of those who actually listened to Bishop (not read, but listened to him), who believes that all he confessed to was just a result of dementia and that he has not committed the sexual misconduct he admitted to?

[Gray]

 

Apparently there were some warning signs about Joseph Bishop back in the 70s, when he was at Weber. Not specifically sexual misconduct, but some alarming behavior in the way he treated and manipulated people. The interview is from 1980:

https://cdm.weber.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/WSU_OH/id/64/rec/57

[smac97]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

What about all of the other things that Bishop confessed to in that interview?  

An interview conducted under false pretenses, by an interviewer with an ax to grind and criminal history that apparently includes shakedown attempts against ten other men.

An interview full to overflowing with accusatory, loaded, leading questions, foul language, anger expressed at the interviewee by the interviewer, etc.

An interview where the interviewee is 85 years old, possibly in some stage of dementia and/or under the influence of medication, to the extent he did recollect his own name.

Clearly he did some things that contravene the teachings of the Church.  Perhaps some serious things.  Perhaps some very serious things.  But the interview is tainted.  It is not a reliable narrative of what happened.

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Do we write those off as due to dementia and/or medication?

I think the interview is a muddled mess.  I don't think we can rely on it much.

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

A determined predator is not going to be worried about "policies and procedures," though.

Moreover, it is unnecessary and inflammatory to characterize the LDS Church's "policies and procedures" as "tend{ing} toward protecting predators over victims."  The Church prohibits inappropriate behavior such as what has been alleged here.  It is excommunicable conduct.  The Church also mandates that a priesthood leader be "chaperoned" when meeting with a youth or a woman.  The allegation here is that this mandatory policy was not followed (as evidenced by the accusation that Bro. Bishop took the woman into the basement and attempted to rape her).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I read the entire transcript. It appears something from his past is deeply troubling him. Whether he is competent or guilty should be determined by experts, not the media or gossip-mongers.The woman seems genuinely conflicted. Her pain appears to be genuine. Her anger certainly is. Her competence and veracity should also be examined by experts.

I know from personal and close family and friend experiences that false accusations are real, potent, damaging, and difficult to disprove. Innocent people indeed can be railroaded. I also know from experience that accusations like hers can be true. I am a firm believer in due process. He is innocent until proven guilty, but she is entitled to have her day in court. 

Well, not really.  Her right to a "day in court" ended about 4 years after the incident.  We have statutes of limitation that, by design, require an accuser like this woman to bring charges (criminal or civil) near enough in time for evidence to be extant and findable, for recollections to be sufficiently fresh and retained, for witnesses to be around, and so on.  Making accusations decades after the fact means that we have to rely pretty much solely on A) the credibility of a woman with a record of making sexual assault allegations in shakedown efforts (against ten other men, it seems), and/or B) the kinda/sorta coerced "confessions" of an 85-year old man who may have some degree of dementia, who may be on medication, who was lured into an interview under false pretenses and conducted by his ax-grinding accuser using loaded and accusatory and leading questions, and who has denied the allegations both before and after the "gotcha" interview.

The accuser's credibility is, it seems, very poor.  And the accused's mental state when he made a "confession" is very much in doubt.  And the "confession" was procured through highly questionable means (false pretenses to lull the interviewee, no due process, manipulative questioning from a biased party, etc.).

I think the reasonable reaction to all this is . . . to withhold judgment.  It's a muddled mess.  We really have no way to reach an informed and fair and reasoned conclusion about the facts.  That leaves us with . . . a presumption of innocence.  That's a hard thing to do in our current #MeToo, guilty-until-proven-innocent-and-perhaps-not-even-then climate, but it's the right thing to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 21, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Does the MTC have such a "basement storage room?"  

It has a basement. Our group going to Germany in 1994 had massive plane trouble, and after waiting the entire day at the Salt Lake Airport, we were taken back to the MTC. Of course, the next wave of missionaries had arrived that day, and there were no available rooms or beds. We were put on cots in the basement. There were cots in the basement for us. We then flew out a day later than our itinerary. 

ETA: Reminds me of "there is no basement in the Alamo" in Pee Wee's Big Adventure . . . 

Edited March 21, 2018 by rongo

[provoman]

smac ... additionally, I believe the recording was in 2017, in the recording the accuser states several times that she knows the statute if limitations has not tolled. Whereas in the Deseret News article the Limitation is 4 years.

[Duncan]

It's interesting the Church knew about this since 2010 but only yestarday or monday DB pulled his stuff from their shelves. I remember another case where an LDS author who still sells stuff there was charged and convicted on a domestic charge, but it's still there-I hope that guy has turned his life around and figured things out

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Given this was recorded in 1980 when he would have been well aware of it (or else he was an idiot for not keeping track of what a person who was suing him was saying about him) and he could have sued her for defamation, this is very problematic for him.  

I don't understand.  How is a lawsuit, the mere filing of it, "problematic for him?"  How is settling out of court "problematic for him?"  There was no findings of fact against him.  No adjudication of evidence.  Nothing.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

That Taylor was hired by BYU after she made the accusations helps her credibility,

Why is that?  How is BYU hiring her a boost to her credibility?

13 hours ago, Calm said:

but leaves me mystified as to how he got the calling for MTC.  

Again, I don't understand.  What is it about being sued and settling out of court in a civil matter that automatically and necessarily disqualifies a person from receiving a calling in the Church?

13 hours ago, Calm said:

After a while the lawsuit would fade since it was settled, so if he was a good conman in a church position where it appears from Taylor's remarks he would feel quite at home...well, maybe he learned from Weber not to be so open about his personal hangups and dislikes and so the later stuff I can imagine happening if he controlled his less appealing qualities.

"It appears from Taylor's remarks" being the operative phrase here.  All we have are unsubstantiated criticisms and allegations.  From a single source.  And the associated litigation was settled, so there was not formal testing of probative, competent evidence against Bro. Bishop.

I am concerned at the rush to judgment here.  I have seen all sorts of lawsuits that are substantively filed in good faith and based on competent, probative evidence.  I have also seen all sorts of lawsuits that are full of baloney, subjectivity, and/or outright fabrications.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

But I find it likely if he was into investigating people and blacklists, we will hear of more such problems.  That type of personality in a position of power...not good.

The 1980 interview only proves that one woman did not like one man.  That's all.  The allegations of a "blacklist" are troubling, but also hearsay.  I don't think that's enough to characterize Bro. Bishop as a "conman" (though "he seems to have been something of a jerk" as a private assessment is probably inbounds).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

It has a basement. Our group going to Germany in 1994 had massive plane trouble, and after waiting the entire day at the Salt Lake Airport, we were taken back to the MTC. Of course, the next wave of missionaries had arrived that day, and there were no available rooms or beds. We were put on cots in the basement. There were cots in the basement for us. We then flew out a day later than our itinerary. 

ETA: Reminds me of "there is no basement in the Alamo" in Pee Wee's Big Adventure . . . 

Interesting.  I wonder how many rooms are in the basement.  

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, provoman said:

smac ... additionally, I believe the recording was in 2017, in the recording the accuser states several times that she knows the statute if limitations has not tolled. Whereas in the Deseret News article the Limitation is 4 years.

I think she is in error here.  The statute of limitations is four years.  The the alleged crime took place in 1984.  There is an "equitable tolling" provision that can apply in some circumstances where the existence of the crime is not discovered until much later.  For example: a woman is drugged and sexually assaulted, wakes up with no particular recollection of the event, but then finds out five years later that the perp recorded the assault and has it on DVD and has shown it to a mutual acquaintance.  

However, the woman here claims that she was fully aware of the alleged assault, so the four-year limit would seem to be firm.  (I am not a criminal defense lawyer, though, so I am open to correction on this point.)

The woman does indeed repeatedly claim that the limitations period has not run, and also that she has been told by the police that it has not run, and also that her "attorneys" have said tshe could bring a civil suit (as late as 2017).  I find these claims quite suspect.  As an attorney who works exclusively in civil litigation in Utah, the 33-year gap between the alleged assault and filing suit would be hugely problematic.  I can barely envision taking this case at all, let alone giving the prospective client assurances that a civil lawsuit on a 33-year old claim is a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Interesting.  I wonder how many rooms are in the basement.  

INTERVIEWER: … you helped me understand that it wasn’t my fault, which was really amazing. But you also kind of groomed me, a little bit, and you took me down into the basement, it wasn’t really a basement, but it was downstairs, a little storage room.

BISHOP: Mm-hmm.

INTERVIEWER: I’m not angry with you, because I think …

BISHOP: You ought to be …

INTERVIEWER: Well maybe, but I’m not. I’m over a lot of things that have happened to me. But you hurt me. And I need an apology.

BISHOP: Well I apologize, from the depths of my heart, I can’t remember what it was but I’m …

INTERVIEWER: Okay, let’s go back a little bit, and I’ll tell you, because …

 

He is apologizing for something he can't remember happening?

[Bernard Gui]

14 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. 

All parties deserve due process.

I was falsely accused of racism by the parents of a former student. With my permission they recorded our lengthy heated conversation in my school office (heated on their part, incredulous on mine because their child was one of my daughter’s best friends and one of my best students). They claimed I disciplined their daughter for an unexcused absence from a concert and refused to let her be concert master because of her race. They said I had told her that people of her race had no business playing the violin. I denied all that because it was a lie. That all was quoted in the newspaper, but my name was not given, just my school. It was curious that in the class action lawsuit they and others were bringing against our school district (I was their stepping stone into the treasury), I was the one who noted that a recording had been made of the conversation. In the deposition, that tape recording conveniently disappeared. It would not have helped their cause. I also had called a student teacher into the meeting with them to be a witness when things got hot and I realized what they were doing . She was never deposed. I was the only teacher identified in the news stories. In the end, they won their suit, along with several other families, and got a huge pile of cash. With their booty they built a big box Christian church just off a freeway in Tacoma (the husband and wife are prominent ministers). I proudly call it “The Church That Gui Built, ,” but I don’t think I have a memorial donor plaque on the wall.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Some thoughts, based on the above article:

Does the MTC have such a "basement storage room?"  

First, it is interesting that MormonLeaks released this without the permission of the woman.  Perhaps she sent it to them, but did so with provisos which they ignored.  Or perhaps the woman shared the recording with a friend, who in turn forwarded it to MormonLeaks.  Or perhaps the woman did give permission, then had a change of heart and denied giving it.  Her credibility is . . . not very good.

Second, I am glad that the D News did not release her name.  However, I think it's just a matter of time before her identity comes out.  If she really has a criminal history, then someone interested enough in digging things up will be able to figure out who she is.  And if and when that happens, her reputation - the criminal history, the shakedowns ("10 other men," according to the D News article), the murder threats, everything - will become public knowledge.  Courtesy of WikiLeaks.

Third, the circumstances under which the woman procured the "confession" are looking worse and worse as time goes on.  The man is 85.  His mental state seems very much in question (evidenced at several points in the recording, such as when he forgets his own name).  She lured him into a interview under false pretenses.  She asked a bunch of loaded and leading questions.  Bro. Bishop apparently did not recognize the woman, and yet within an hour he is confessing sexual transgressions to her, and largely in response to leading questions?  Doesn't that seem a bit odd?

Fourth, is anyone else having recollections of another instance of a woman using false pretenses to lure an elderly man with potential diminished mental capacity into a private discussion, and then bombarding him with leading questions and pressure tactics so as to extract a "confession" from him, and secretly recording the whole thing?  Martha Beck, call your office.

Thanks,

-Smac

Bishop did not forget his name.  You should listen to the recording.

And it was also clarified in the course of the recording that the storage room was not really in a "basement".

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours 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. 

In the recording he does refer to recent open heart surgery.