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

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

A criminal history of a witness would be admissible in court to impeach a witness if it was a felony or crime of moral turpitude if the conviction has happened in the last 10 years

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_609

That may be true, but that doesn't speak to motive. On top of that, we have no clue what her criminal history is, or if it is even remotely related to this case.  

Criminal history can damage credibility in certain cases, but it says nothing of motive. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, with emphasis: "Other than the statements from the (anonymous) woman, do we have any competent, probative evidence to support her claim?"

"Bishop's admissions of guilt on tape" are, I think, neither competent nor probative (nor, I think, admissible).

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I think you've laid out your outline for his defense, with all kinds of theories as to how he might be exonerated.

The fact remains though that he admitted to multiple crimes against women on tape. That combined with a troubling description of Bishop's character from a former colleague at Weber, it certainly appears that Bishop is guilty. It also appears that he confessed to a general authority, and nothing was done about it.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Gray

[Danzo]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

That may be true, but that doesn't speak to motive. On top of that, we have no clue what her criminal history is, or if it is even remotely related to this case.  

Criminal history can damage credibility in certain cases, but it says nothing of motive. 

But isn't speculation fun?

That is all anyone is doing her in this thread.

[Calm]

Someone mentioned he was possibly getting married...I haven't seen that addressed, here is that section.  The "yes, we are" sounds like he is admitting infidelity and this is early in the interview before she has told him who she is.

Oh, I will read the book, I promise you. Wow. Okay, alright, so, who's your wife now? I am divorced, but we're getting remarried. Okay, that's a [crosstalk 00:08:22] She was the one I was gonna bring here. Oh, I would have loved to have met her. She would have loved to have met you. I married her because I went to the temple with her Long story short, had an experience in the temple that I was to marry her. I knew she was struggling. She's had all kinds of problems, wayward husband [crosstalk 00 08 43] Like a cheating husband kind? I had one of those. Oh dear. [crosstalk 00:08:46] They're everywhere. Yes we are. So, there was a divorce. She divorced me about six months ago. She ended up here, she has a large family here. I ended up here, different reasons, and we've since gotten together and are planning to get married. When are you getting married. We haven't set a date yet. Within the next ... I don't want all that in there. No, no, that's okay. [crosstalk 00:09:17] What a wonderful story. So who was your first wife?

Edited March 21, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, I think you've laid out your outline for his defense, with all kinds of theories as to how he might be exonerated.

Nope.  I am not defending Bro. Bishop.  I am explaining why I am declining to condemn him.

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

The fact remains though that he admitted to multiple crimes against women on tape.

Unless, of course, he was coerced.  Or his mental faculties were impaired.  Then it's not much of a "fact."

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

That combined with a troubling description of Bishop's character from a former colleague at Weber,

"Troubling description" from one person in 1980.  Allegations that he was a jerk in the 70s is not really evidence of an attempted rape in 1984.

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

it certainly appears that Bishop is guilty.

On balance, you are probably right to some extent.  Where there's smoke and all that.

But guilty of what?

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

It also appears that he confessed to a general authority, and nothing was done about it.

Confessed to what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

"So anyway so he was finally able to cut out the cartilage and put another stent in and broaden pushing the other stent that was already there up and out to get it flowing.

Nice.

That was two days ago"

[Danzo]

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, I think you've laid out your outline for his defense, with all kinds of theories as to how he might be exonerated.

The fact remains though that he admitted to multiple crimes against women on tape. That combined with a troubling description of Bishop's character from a former colleague at Weber, it certainly appears that Bishop is guilty. It also appears that he confessed to a general authority, and nothing was done about it.

reminds me of a jury I served on.  During deliberations,  we all agreed that this guy was probably guilty of something, he was a shady character after all.

Unfortunately there wasn't very much linking him to the specific charge he was tried on.  We figured we had to acquit.

Maybe you would have convicted him? He was obviously guilty of something.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Danzo

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I need to go back and reread this section again, but my impression was he didn't know someone with biker friends but makes a jump from intending to kill him to her having biker friends that will do the killing for her (he may not be able to imagine the woman as being able to do it, so he tries to imagine how it might happen and goes to biker gang).  It is a really random comment.  Iirc, it is "did you have biker friends?"  To me he is not asking if she was the one with biker friends, but exactly what he said...did she have biker friends (that she could use to attempt to kill him).

The breast augmentation comment seems similar to me.  She makes mention early she had very small breasts,  he can see what she looks like now, and it contradicts that so he assumes she has had breast augmentation.

It doesn't seem to me he is talking about other people, but 'reasoning' from her comments, trying to make it coherent for himself because he isn't really following the whole thing very well as she jumps around, gets really intense, etc.

You ought to listen to the recording. Bishop doesn't sound afraid and sounds quite lucid. He also clearly says, uncoerced and not under duress, that he molested someone. I don't know how that one can be spun other than saying he suffers from dementia or was coerced. Listening to the recording, instead of merely reading the transcript will show that he didn't have either of those.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Exiled

[Calm]

I have read up to page 36.  When he is responding to her, there are a lot of red flags imo about his mental state.  When he is simply talking, it is much more coherent.

If he was on medication at the time---heart surgery two days ago is mentioned prior to any accusation being made so there is no reason for him to be using that as a defense, this could explain why he had a harder time following her.

The detail when he is discussing the issues of having troubled/suicidal sisters is, imo, at a different level than when he is describing molesting the one woman or even the back rubbing.  That is primarily just agreement and given he has been having problems at time following her, I don't trust that as an admission.  The telling about the issues of being overwhelmed at the MTC is not 'old guy' said a hundred times before stories like he was prior to this with his time in the Air Force and such (it really doesn't help that she can't keep track and is constantly interrupting him for clarification, why didn't she at least look up his life on the wiki if she was going to pretend to be a historian or journalist).  He is so present in the moment when he is describing his angst over being unqualified to help the traumatized sisters.  And then he goes off track and relatively vague, short or oversimplified answers again in content and explaining how he was feeling.

The backrubbing incident...it could be a creation/fantasy, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was real due to the context.  The only reason imo that it might be a created fantasy is that

[jkwilliams]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

"So anyway so he was finally able to cut out the cartilage and put another stent in and broaden pushing the other stent that was already there up and out to get it flowing.

Nice.

That was two days ago"

My dad, who is 83, had the same procedure. It was outpatient, and he was lucid the next day. So, medication may or may not be a factor. 

In the end, we don’t have anything to go on other than the recording, the church statement, and what the son has said. 

[Calm]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/crime/article/Former-Mormon-mission-president-accused-of-sexual-12771646.php

"Greg Bishop said there was no sexual assault and that the woman exposed her breasts to his father, unsolicited, during the encounter in the office in 1984. He said his father was apologizing in the recorded conversation for anything he did to make her feel like she could do that."

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/crime/article/Former-Mormon-mission-president-accused-of-sexual-12771646.php

"Greg Bishop said there was no sexual assault and that the woman exposed her breasts to his father, unsolicited, during the encounter in the office in 1984. He said his father was apologizing in the recorded conversation for anything he did to make her feel like she could do that."

Is it just me, or does such a scenario sound very implausible? When I was in the MTC, when Bishop was President, there was a constant refrain that we needed to keep our temple covenants to have the spirit and be effective missionaries. The idea that a sister missionary would go into the president’s office and, out of the blue, expose her breasts seems wildly implausible, to put it mildly. 

It seems a variation on the “she was asking for it” defense. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Is it just me, or does such a scenario sound very implausible? When I was in the MTC, when Bishop was President, there was a constant refrain that we needed to keep our temple covenants to have the spirit and be effective missionaries. The idea that a sister missionary would go into the president’s office and, out of the blue, expose her breasts seems wildly implausible, to put it mildly. 

It seems a variation on the “she was asking for it” defense. 

I am wondering if he (either the dad or the son) went there because of the conversation of Bishop's first wife doing that at the dinner table for him (I find it unbelievable I even wrote that...this whole story is so bizarre).

The woman states she was abused (as a child I believe since she calls him a pedophile, but lots of people misuse that and she may have been a minor) and that they had counseling sessions.  Unfortunately what I have heard of behaviour in therapy makes this not implausible to me (clinical psychology was a fascinating but not particularly comfortable degree)....either the claim she exposed herself or the reverse claim that a counselor took sexual advantage with someone under his care.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My dad, who is 83, had the same procedure. It was outpatient, and he was lucid the next day. So, medication may or may not be a factor. 

In the end, we don’t have anything to go on other than the recording, the church statement, and what the son has said. 

Good to know.  My father-in-law had open heart surgery decades ago, he was out of it forever but totally different procedure so I was thinking maybe go to a quarter of his state, but it sounds like it is possible it is pretty easy procedure...kind of shocking.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

I am wondering if he (either the dad or the son) went there because of the conversation of Bishop's first wife doing that at the dinner table for him (I find it unbelievable I even wrote that...this whole story is so bizarre).

The woman states she was abused (as a child I believe since she calls him a pedophile, but lots of people misuse that and she may have been a minor) and that they had counseling sessions.  Unfortunately what I have heard of behaviour in therapy makes this not implausible to me....either the claim she exposed herself or the reverse claim that a counselor took sexual advantage with someone under his care.

I’m just wondering why the MTC President was counseling missionaries one on one. There were something like 2000 missionaries there at a time. Most counseling took place with branch presidents. No one I knew ever met with President Bishop, not even the guy I knew who had to meet with an apostle. 

I have no idea what happened, but the son’s story doesn’t ring true to me. 

[Duncan]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/crime/article/Former-Mormon-mission-president-accused-of-sexual-12771646.php

"Greg Bishop said there was no sexual assault and that the woman exposed her breasts to his father, unsolicited, during the encounter in the office in 1984. He said his father was apologizing in the recorded conversation for anything he did to make her feel like she could do that."

if he has dementia how trustworthy is that? unless there is other sources of information, but if that's true then why isn't the Church doing anything with that, other than "we don't know" approach?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Good to know.  My father-in-law had open heart surgery decades ago, he was out of it forever but totally different procedure so I was thinking maybe go to a quarter of his state, but it sounds like it is possible it is pretty easy procedure...kind of shocking.  

I was shocked that it was outpatient. My dad was pretty out of it the day of the procedure, but the next day he was fine, though tired. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m just wondering why the MTC President was counseling missionaries one on one. There were something like 2000 missionaries there at a time. Most counseling took place with branch presidents. No one I knew ever met with President Bishop, not even the guy I knew who had to meet with an apostle. 

I have no idea what happened, but the son’s story doesn’t ring true to me. 

He said there were 180 missionaries at a time, but wasn't sure about his math iirc.  Maybe he was talking about how many came in each week.

How do you come up with 2000?  There are 3700 there now with 19 buildings.  I was there in Wymount until 85 and it seems it wasn't close to half as big back then (it opened in 78).

add-on:  your memory is definitely better than mine, must have gone way back in...but I generally only saw them in small groups waiting for the light to change from the temple so I have an excuse.

"The first missionaries enter the new Language Training Mission as Phase I is completed. As designed, it is to contain 37 offices, 22 chapels, 290 classrooms, 12 observation rooms and enough housing for 2,974 missionaries. Also included is a multipurpose room, cafeteria, kitchen, learning recourse center, teacher's lounge, bookstore and health center — all part of the new complex's total 605,707 square feet."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/700120184/The-Missionary-Training-Center-a-timeline.html

Edited March 22, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if he has dementia how trustworthy is that? unless there is other sources of information, but if that's true then why isn't the Church doing anything with that, other than "we don't know" approach?

Seriously?  You want them to be blabbing about how Bishop claims a disturbed missionary exposed herself?  When it was only the two of them in the office and no proof either way?

They said there is an ongoing investigation.  This has to mean imo either they are keeping it open just to be able to say that (which I hope is unlikely) or they are trying to track down people that can collaborate either story, such as others who served at the time at the MTC, other sister missionaries.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Is it just me, or does such a scenario sound very implausible? When I was in the MTC, when Bishop was President, there was a constant refrain that we needed to keep our temple covenants to have the spirit and be effective missionaries. The idea that a sister missionary would go into the president’s office and, out of the blue, expose her breasts seems wildly implausible, to put it mildly. 

It seems a variation on the “she was asking for it” defense. 

Mentally ill people can do all sorts of implausible things.  For example, there's this woman who used false pretenses to lure an 85-year old man into a private, one-on-one "interview," which she secretly recorded, and in which she repeatedly told him that she had previously threatened to murder him, and that she wanted an apology from him.

That sounds "implausible" too, does it not?

Meanwhile, much of what is being said about Bro. Bishop seems a variation on the "I wouldn't put it past him, he's a man, after all" accusation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

He said there were 180 missionaries at a time, but wasn't sure about his math iirc.  Maybe he was talking about how many came in each week.

From my limited experience, his position was almost entirely administrative, not counseling. Not saying it didn’t happen, but missionaries were there 2 weeks or 2 months, depending on language. How would someone even have time to develop a relationship, counseling or otherwise? 

The other thing I remember is that he really set himself up as someone who had revelations and visions, someone with real authority over us. Given the emphasis on repentance and absolute obedience, which was constant, how does someone turn that into exposing her breasts to the man in charge?

I don’t know the truth, but I can’t wrap my brain around the son’s story. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Mentally ill people can do all sorts of implausible things.  For example, there's this woman who used false pretenses to lure an 85-year old man into a private, one-on-one "interview," which she secretly recorded, and in which she repeatedly told him that she had previously threatened to murder him, and that she wanted an apology from him.

That sounds "implausible" too, does it not?

Meanwhile, much of what is being said about Bro. Bishop seems a variation on the "I wouldn't put it past him, he's a man, after all" accusation.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, a mentally ill sister missionary exposes her breasts to the MTC President, and he not only doesn’t report this, but he sends her out into the mission field?  That makes sense to you? Not to me. 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seriously?  You want them to be blabbing about how Bishop claims a disturbed missionary exposed herself?  When it was only the two of them in the office and no proof either way?

They said there is an ongoing investigation.  This has to mean imo either they are keeping it open just to be able to say that (which I hope is unlikely) or they are trying to track down people that can collaborate either story, such as others who served at the time at the MTC, other sister missionaries.

His son is doing the blabbing sounds like! It seems convenient that he has dementia when he is innocent but he doesn't when he's guilty. I hope they find people that can corroborate either one or whatever and get some closure in it. That would mean finding her MTC companion, anybody else who was in her district, journals, anybody else that was involved with Bishop and that could take time. I hope though that the seriousness of the charge, coming up in 2010, surely it can't take 7, 8 years to find all these people, but who knows what investigating they have done and will continue to do. 

[juliann]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/crime/article/Former-Mormon-mission-president-accused-of-sexual-12771646.php

"Greg Bishop said there was no sexual assault and that the woman exposed her breasts to his father, unsolicited, during the encounter in the office in 1984. He said his father was apologizing in the recorded conversation for anything he did to make her feel like she could do that."

Oh, wow. This is a textbook blame the victim defense. Not to mention absurd. Everything that is popping up about this guy so far is sketchy.

Quote

Greg Bishop said his father's claim of a sexual addiction doesn't refer to a clinical addiction, but rather his father's lifelong battle with "controlling" his "sexual thoughts."

This is supposed to make it better? It is OK that a mission prez for young women only gives brief back rubs and can't control his sexual thoughts as long as he isn't raping them?   Somebody needs to shut this son up.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

From my limited experience, his position was almost entirely administrative, not counseling. Not saying it didn’t happen, but missionaries were there 2 weeks or 2 months, depending on language. How would someone even have time to develop a relationship, counseling or otherwise? 

The other thing I remember is that he really set himself up as someone who had revelations and visions, someone with real authority over us. Given the emphasis on repentance and absolute obedience, which was constant, how does someone turn that into exposing her breasts to the man in charge?

I don’t know the truth, but I can’t wrap my brain around the son’s story. 

I know of a bishop, who once had a person in his ward (who had some emotional health issues) come in to talk with him in his office.  The person said some very odd things, including nonchalantly dropping a few f-bombs.

About 2 years ago I came to church early and found a man waiting to speak with the bishop.  He looked disheveled, and not "all there."  He said he was very hungry.  As I figured the ox was in the mire, I put him in my car and drove him to a nearby Sonic and bought him a breakfast burrito and a drink.  He thanked me, then launched into a long, meandering diatribe about his parents trying to have him kidnapped, government agents, and more.  I managed to get his parents' number.  I called them, and they explained their son was mentally ill and probably not taking his meds.  The man spoke with the bishop briefly, then walked out of the building.

Mental and emotional issues can manifest in all sorts of unexpected/unanticipated ways.

Thanks,

-Smac