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

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

We were in a large room, but there were rooms off to the side. The floor was concrete. 

[smac97]

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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?

I think there was some misconduct, but the the scope and breadth is unknown and, I think, unknowable.  There were only two percipient witnesses, one which has very poor credibility (the accuser), and one who is 85 years old, possibly with some dementia, was possibly under medication at the time of the "confession," and was lured into an interview by an ax-grinding interviewer who apparently has a history of using sex assault allegations as a shakedown technique (ten other men), and who used false pretenses and loaded / leading / accusatory questioning techniques.

Imagine a situation where a middle-aged man used false pretenses to lure an 85-year old woman into an "interview," began the interview as all sweetness and light, and then shifted gears and used pressure tactics and accusatory questioning techniques to manipulate the woman into giving him the answers he wanted.  And imagine it later came out that this woman was in some stage of dementia, and had been under medication during the "interview."  And now imagine that the woman, during the interview, made some inculpatory remarks about her behavior in years past.  Would we all be rushing to judgment here?  Would we be condemning this woman based on her essentially coerced "confession?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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?

I don't know if I believe or not that he doesn't remember it. But clearly he's aware that he's abused multiple women before, to the point where he has to sort one which particular abuse victim is being talked about - there appear to have been multiple victims

Edited March 21, 2018 by Gray

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

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

 

I agree that a determined predator isn't going to be worried about policies and procedures (the the church's prohibitions against inappropriate behavior).

What I am referring to is the policies and the procedures that allow predators access to their victims and permit grooming.

Have you listened to the entire audio recording? Your posts do not give that impression.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I think there was some misconduct, but the the scope and breadth is unknown and, I think, unknowable.  There were only two percipient witnesses, one which has very poor credibility (the accuser), and one who is 85 years old, possibly with some dementia, was possibly under medication at the time of the "confession," and was lured into an interview by an ax-grinding interviewer who apparently has a history of using sex assault allegations as a shakedown technique (ten other men), and who used false pretenses and loaded / leading / accusatory questioning techniques.

Imagine a situation where a middle-aged man used false pretenses to lure an 85-year old woman into an "interview," began the interview as all sweetness and light, and then shifted gears and used pressure tactics and accusatory questioning techniques to manipulate the woman into giving him the answers he wanted.  And imagine it later came out that this woman was in some stage of dementia, and had been under medication during the "interview."  And now imagine that the woman, during the interview, made some inculpatory remarks about her behavior in years past.  Would we all be rushing to judgment here?  Would we be condemning this woman based on her essentially coerced "confession?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Has the "ten other men" claim been verified?

 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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?

I am in my ward's bishopric.  I was once having a conversation with a sister in my ward who said she felt out of place.  I encouraged her to give our ward a try because we seem to be genuinely open and accepting to people in all sorts of circumstances.  I noted that we have married couples, divorced individuals, single-parent families, older couples, widows and widowers, and so on.  We also have an interesting mix in terms of races (mostly white, but also plenty of hispanics, Asians, African-Americans, etc.).  We also are all . . . shall we say, socioeconomically modest, so there's not much in the way of Keeping-Up-With-The-Joneses.  I also noted that we even have some members who have served time in prison.  I said that all of these people are attending church and feeling welcomed and valued.

The sister paused for a moment, then said "So your comparing me to a felon?  Really?"  After that it went downhill very quickly.  I tried to clarify my point (which was that our ward is welcoming to all sorts of people), but she would have none of it.  So . . . I apologized.  I apologized for having given offense, even though in my mind what I had said was not at all offensive.

An apology is sometimes more about attempts at reconciliation than about allocation of fault.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

We were in a large room, but there were rooms off to the side. The floor was concrete. 

Wasn't the laundry in the basement? I always remembered it there, but I fully admit my memory can be bad.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Rain

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Has the "ten other men" claim been verified?

No.  But then, neither has the woman's accusations.  So they are on equal footing at present.

The problem may be that Bro. Bishop's son, an attorney, may feel constrained against providing "verification" to the public.  Such verification would consist of names.  Court cases.  In other words, he would need to "out" the woman's identity in order to provide "verification."  He may not want to do that, both for her sake and because MormonLeaks, not the woman, is responsible for having taken this matter public.  This woman's general reputation is now at risk, thanks to MormonLeaks.

Thanks,

-Smax

Edited March 21, 2018 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

I don’t believe a DC would have gone on without a witness.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

Want the laundry in the basement? I always remembered it there, but I fully admit my memory can be bad.

 

When i was there in 1998 it wasn't in the basement.  Maybe it had been at one time though?

[Danzo]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know if I believe or not that he doesn't remember it. But clearly he's aware that he's abused multiple women before, to the point where he has to sort one which particular abuse victim is being talked about - there appear to have been multiple victims

you certainly read more into that exchange than I did.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Danzo

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree that a determined predator isn't going to be worried about policies and procedures (the the church's prohibitions against inappropriate behavior).

What I am referring to is the policies and the procedures that allow predators access to their victims and permit grooming.

I still don't get it.  What "policies and procedures" do you have in mind?

And why are you referring to "policies and procedures" that you agree will be ignored by "a determined predator?"

Say that the Church implements some changes (windows in bishops' office doors, security cameras in bishops' offices, bishops being chaperoned by someone else in the room, etc.), my thought is . . . so what?  "A determined predator" will likely just circumvent these "policies and procedures."  We agree on this, so what is your point?

I am asking this sincerely, not to be combative.  I want to understand your position.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Have you listened to the entire audio recording? Your posts do not give that impression.

Nope.  I've read through much (but not all) of the transcript.

I agree with you that the transcript doesn't given the whole story.  But then, neither does an audio recording. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Imagine a situation where a middle-aged man used false pretenses to lure an 85-year old woman into an "interview," began the interview as all sweetness and light, and then shifted gears and used pressure tactics and accusatory questioning techniques to manipulate the woman into giving him the answers he wanted.  And imagine it later came out that this woman was in some stage of dementia, and had been under medication during the "interview."  And now imagine that the woman, during the interview, made some inculpatory remarks about her behavior in years past.  Would we all be rushing to judgment here?  Would we be condemning this woman based on her essentially coerced "confession?"

Separate thought about the current climate:

You linked earlier to the current case with Stephen Fuller, an LDS judge in Pinal County, Arizona (my county). A 25 year-old woman accused him of molesting her 13 years ago, and he has been going through the usual and customary rounds of administrative leave, investigation, etc. He has a completely clean record previously, and recently, passed a polygraph test with flying colors and published the results. The woman and her attorney are now complaining that he wouldn't allow a polygraph test in his own court room (inadmissible), but that misses the point that ground zero with this is the court of public opinion --- not the legal system. The statute of limitations has passed, and there is no evidence other than her claim and his categorical denial (she called him to confront him, recorded the call, and he hung up on her after she started accusing him. I would have done the same).

I don't know whether or not the alleged abuse actually happened or not, but we have to go off of evidence, and if the only evidence is a claim where nothing was done for 13 years, then he should be fully exonerated. But there is the lingering doubt and cloud from this, and it's unfortunate. It is frightening to me how people can create a nightmare even for innocent men in the current climate simply by making an unsubstantiated allegation. 

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  But then, neither has the woman's accusations.  So they are on equal footing at present.

The problem may be that Bro. Bishop's son, an attorney, may feel constrained against providing "verification" to the public.  Such verification would consist of names.  Court cases.  In other words, he would need to "out" the woman's identity in order to provide "verification."  He may not want to do that, both for her sake and because MormonLeaks, not the woman, is responsible for having taken this matter public.  This woman's general reputation is now at risk, thanks to MormonLeaks.

Thanks,

-Smax

I think she lives in Utah County?  Certainly, there could be a backlash against the woman for complaining about a Mormon leader, especially in Utah County.

[CA Steve]

We need to keep in mind Bishop's age here, he is, after all,  just a few months shy of 86.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

 I prefer reading to listening because I can easily reread for correct understanding and quickly make jumps back and forth to compare statements. I don’t have time to do both. I can better focus on both their statements by reading and re-reading them. Listening doesn’t facilitate that level of scrutiny.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Joe]

After reading the transcript I was convinced that this guy was indeed a sex addict. I then listened to the audio and am convinced that he was mentally present for this conversation. He was sharp for an 85 year old and didn't have a problem recalling many things from his past. 

I am a sex addict in long term recovery myself and my reaction to this recording was sadness, but also happiness that healing would occur for him and this lady.  I thought this lady just did this guy a huge favor by shining a light in the dark places of his life. I will be disappointed if he attempts to cover it up and deny.

His dementia will be a convenient cover for him and his family to hide behind, and I hope he and his family don't play that card. It is nothing but a blessing when darkness is brought to light. These things die in the light. Healing is found in the light. 

Also, if this woman's claims are accurate, then there were certainly other victims and they will come forward. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

 

Indeed. We have moved way past any such reasoned responses to this stuff. Hang ‘em high first, try them later. I don’t know how that can ever be walked back.

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am in my ward's bishopric.  I was once having a conversation with a sister in my ward who said she felt out of place.  I encouraged her to give our ward a try because we seem to be genuinely open and accepting to people in all sorts of circumstances.  I noted that we have married couples, divorced individuals, single-parent families, older couples, widows and widowers, and so on.  We also have an interesting mix in terms of races (mostly white, but also plenty of hispanics, Asians, African-Americans, etc.).  We also are all . . . shall we say, socioeconomically modest, so there's not much in the way of Keeping-Up-With-The-Joneses.  I also noted that we even have some members who have served time in prison.  I said that all of these people are attending church and feeling welcomed and valued.

The sister paused for a moment, then said "So your comparing me to a felon?  Really?"  After that it went downhill very quickly.  I tried to clarify my point (which was that our ward is welcoming to all sorts of people), but she would have none of it.  So . . . I apologized.  I apologized for having given offense, even though in my mind what I had said was not at all offensive.

An apology is sometimes more about attempts at reconciliation than about allocation of fault.

Thanks,

-Smac

I love how the same people who complain about the supposed snobbish cliques in their ward that will not include them always take offense at being compared or lumped with those sinners beneath them.

It is such a boring cliche but I do not think I have ever met an exception.

Edited March 21, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. We have moved way past any such reasoned responses to this stuff. Hang ‘em high first, try them later. I don’t know how that can ever be walked back.

To be fair this board’s conclusions do not matter.

[Duncan]

On the other hand, the Church has seen men in top positions abuse their office, people still today think Joseph has handy pandy with young women and they present evidence for it to say nothing about John C. Bennett, Richard R. Lyman, John Q. Cannon and George P. Lee. Guys who abuse and cheat will lie to their mother about it. Sometimes these guys get caught (literally, like that lawyer Stake President Poelman who bought a hooker or the Montana Stake Pres. who was soliciting girls online and got busted by the FBI) sometimes they don't but the mills of the Gods grind exceedingly slow but exceedingly fine. Joseph Smith was right when he said that as seen as men get a little authority as they suppose will immediately exercise unrighteous dominion. In saying there is no problem means that you don't want to deal with the problem or can't mentally go there that a guy in a church position could do horrible things

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

you certainly read more into that exchange than I did.

I didn't read anything into it. He admits to abusing multiple women, to the point where he can't keep track of which victim the interviewer is.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, why me said:

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?

When I listened to the tape he said he doesn't remember trying to rape her in the basement but he doesn't deny it. And doesn't deny molesting a girl or girls. It's all so sad that this happens and that people can't control themselves. You gotta wonder if he himself was abused too. Not giving him an excuse at all though.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Tacenda

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I didn't read anything into it. He admits to abusing multiple women, to the point where he can't keep track of which victim the interviewer is.

Was that in a different section than the one you quoted?

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I prefer reading to listening because I can easily reread for correct understanding and quickly make jumps back and forth to compare statements. I don’t have time to do both. I can better focus on both their statements by reading and reading them. Listening doesn’t facilitate that level of scrutiny.

Listening though, does facilitate a huge level of scrutiny. It explains so much, it explains a pause here and there and you hear expressions. So much that those who don't listen will miss. And when I read it on the transcript, sure it seems like he might have dementia occasionally, until I listen. He talks better than most in fact.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Tacenda