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

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Quote

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-official-admits-to-police-he-asked-missionary-to-expose-breasts-in-private-mtc-room

According to a police report from Dec. 2017, as part of an investigation of the alleged rape, Joseph told detectives that he went with the woman to a small "preparation room" in the cafeteria area of the MTC "and while talking with her, asked her to show him her breasts, which she did."

Maybe this guy shouldn't be so vigorously defended?

Indeed.  I think a police report is far more reliable evidence than the "interview."

If true, it was horrible to prey upon a vulnerable and disturbed young woman like that.  And barring some sort of claim of mental infirmity (which I assume the police would have noted), this point seems to be true.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I agree with you about ML. People are saying he has dementia so I was going on what they are saying , if he doesn't have dementia and this interview is reliable and confessed to all this stuff then he should be exed.

KUTV's report is pretty damning.

I'll not weigh in on whether he should be excommunicated, though.  I'll leave that to those with stewardship.

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I was told on here that the we shouldn't rely on the Holy Ghost and church leaders don't seek God's guidance in church matters or at least this matter, so if that's true what they are saying, what point is there for investigating? 

D&C 9 comes to mind.

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

If they've come this far and come up with nothing then what would it hurt if they relied on the Holy Ghost which promises truth? Can we rely on the Holy Ghost to help in real world matters or can't we?

Yes, we can.  Not exclusively, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So you are accusing her of lying?  On what basis?

And yet she has stated that she didn't authorize WikiLeaks to publish her "interview."  Why should we trust your sheer speculation over her plain statement?

Depends.  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  But in the present case, this woman stands to be "punished" in the court of public opinion due to things she said and did in the "interview" but did not authorize to be published.

I'm not sure what sort of "punishment" you mean here.

MormonLeaks published sensitive private information about a woman who, it seems, is a very troubled soul.  And it did so without her permission.

And you . . . are okay with this?

I'll be interested in seeing your response if ever sensitive and embarrassing details of your life are published to the world without your consent.

I doubt you'd be so cavalier about unauthorized publication of private information when your proverbial ox is being gored.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

She spoke about going public in the recording and wanted the sort of retribution the recording of Mr. Bishop has brought. The KUTV article vindicates her so I have to agree with JKWilliams that her reputation won't suffer like you claim.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Indeed.  I think a police report is far more reliable evidence than the "interview."

If true, it was horrible to prey upon a vulnerable and disturbed young woman like that.  And barring some sort of claim of mental infirmity (which I assume the police would have noted), this point seems to be true.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would say she was vulnerable as a young missionary, but on what basis are you calling her disturbed? From what I read, like many abuse survivors she struggled with self-worth and depression, but that hardly makes her disturbed. 

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Indeed.  I think a police report is far more reliable evidence than the "interview."

If true, it was horrible to prey upon a vulnerable and disturbed young woman like that.  And barring some sort of claim of mental infirmity (which I assume the police would have noted), this point seems to be true.

Thanks,

-Smac

Right. Do you think Bishop would have been exposed without mormonleaks? Or do you think he shouldn't have been exposed?

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I am sure you will be front and center in destroying her reputation,

I am on record as hoping that this does not happen.

Your accusation is false.

11 minutes ago, Exiled said:

because one must defend the faith, even if a lech gets caught. 

Malarky.  I've said nothing like this.  Your accusation is false.

11 minutes ago, Exiled said:

But of course mormonleaks made you do it?

Did you see the KUTV article JK just posted?

Yep.  Damning, isn't it?  Much more competent and probative than the "interview" we've been discussing for 20+ pages.

I am disgusted with the behavior he admitted to.  But my disgust is based on evidence which I think is considerably more competent and probative than the "interview" which has been under discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Given that he admitted to the police asking her to expose her breasts, I don’t think her reputation is an issue. 

Do you think she wants it publicly known that she complied with this request?  Or that she has threatened to murder him in the past?

Perhaps it's not as much of a "reputation" issue as a simply "privacy" issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think she wants it publicly known that she complied with this request?  Or that she has threatened to murder him in the past?

Perhaps it's not as much of a "reputation" issue as a simply "privacy" issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t know. I don’t mind people knowing that I once told a pedophile that if he ever touched my kids, I would kill him. Maybe I’m disturbed, too. 

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am on record as hoping that this does not happen.

Your accusation is false.

Malarky.  I've said nothing like this.  Your accusation is false.

Yep.  Damning, isn't it?  Much more competent and probative than the "interview" we've been discussing for 20+ pages.

I am disgusted with the behavior he admitted to.  But my disgust is based on evidence which I think is considerably more competent and probative than the "interview" which has been under discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course. Defend the lech and attack the messenger until the messenger is vindicated by our boys in blue. Of course we wouldn't have known any of this without mormonleaks forcing the faithful to come to grips with the fact that they are just like any other group, no better or no worse.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Right. Do you think Bishop would have been exposed without mormonleaks?

"Exposed" in what sense?  BYU Police have known about this since December.  I suspect that the criminal investigation did not really proceed given that the allegations pertained to conduct 33 years ago.

Would BYU Police have reported this to the Church for ecclesiastical discipline?  Hard to say, but perhaps not.  The Church, I think, does not want to use BYU Police resources to investigate ecclesiastical matters (remember the hullabaloo about BYU Police reporting rape victims to the Honor Code Office?).

Of course, the woman had the option of publishing her audio file.  Maybe she planned to do so.  Hard to say at this point.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Or do you think he shouldn't have been exposed?

That's a fair question.  He should certainly be held to account for his behavior, but publicly "exposed?"  I'm not sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Maybe this guy shouldn't be so vigorously defended?

This is what happens when people immediately turn to victim blaming rather than applying the same scrutiny to the perp, as we have seen here. I was unsure for a little after the claim she had done this to ten other men. But then the information on HIM started to drip, drip, drip. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would say she was vulnerable as a young missionary, but on what basis are you calling her disturbed?

She threatened to murder anther person.  She seems to characterize herself and her life and pretty messed up.

I'm not faulting her for her trauma.  Just acknowledging that it appears to be extant.

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

From what I read, like many abuse survivors she struggled with self-worth and depression, but that hardly makes her disturbed. 

I'm not sure of the difference between "struggled with self-worth and depression" and "disturbed."  There seems to be some overlap there.

I did not intend to use the term in a pejorative sense.  I apologize if I gave that impression.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

"Exposed" in what sense?  BYU Police have known about this since December.  I suspect that the criminal investigation did not really proceed given that the allegations pertained to conduct 33 years ago.

Would BYU Police have reported this to the Church for ecclesiastical discipline?  Hard to say, but perhaps not.  The Church, I think, does not want to use BYU Police resources to investigate ecclesiastical matters (remember the hullabaloo about BYU Police reporting rape victims to the Honor Code Office?).

Of course, the woman had the option of publishing her audio file.  Maybe she planned to do so.  Hard to say at this point.

That's a fair question.  He should certainly be held to account for his behavior, but publicly "exposed?"  I'm not sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m glad he’s been exposed, as these kinds of cases make it easier for other victims to speak up. Kudos to my cousin. 

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

That's a fair question.  He should certainly be held to account for his behavior, but publicly "exposed?"  I'm not sure.

 

Of course you are not sure. Sexual predators should be allowed to retire in peace, never accountable. The Church should never be given a chance to correct situations like this where predators are simply moved from job to job. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

She spoke about going public in the recording

And yet . . . she didn't.

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

and wanted the sort of retribution the recording of Mr. Bishop has brought.

Perhaps.  

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The KUTV article vindicates her

Sort of.

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

so I have to agree with JKWilliams that her reputation won't suffer like you claim.

Again, perhaps the issue is not so much "reputation" as "publication of sensitive personal information."

She doesn't seem to be endorsing MormonLeaks.  Does that indicate anything to you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

She threatened to murder anther person.  She seems to characterize herself and her life and pretty messed up.

I'm not faulting her for her trauma.  Just acknowledging that it appears to be extant.

I'm not sure of the difference between "struggled with self-worth and depression" and "disturbed."  There seems to be some overlap there.

I did not intend to use the term in a pejorative sense.  I apologize if I gave that impression.

Thanks,

-Smac

My issue is that you said he preyed on a disturbed young woman. By my reading, if she’s disturbed in any way, it’s as a result of this assault and how it crushed her soul. 

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Exposed" in what sense?  BYU Police have known about this since December.  I suspect that the criminal investigation did not really proceed given that the allegations pertained to conduct 33 years ago.

Would BYU Police have reported this to the Church for ecclesiastical discipline?  Hard to say, but perhaps not.  The Church, I think, does not want to use BYU Police resources to investigate ecclesiastical matters (remember the hullabaloo about BYU Police reporting rape victims to the Honor Code Office?).

Of course, the woman had the option of publishing her audio file.  Maybe she planned to do so.  Hard to say at this point.

That's a fair question.  He should certainly be held to account for his behavior, but publicly "exposed?"  I'm not sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

He was exposed by the mormonleaks publication. I don't think the closed case or the substance of the police investigation would have been publicized without mormonleaks. 

My opinion on disclosure of these misdeeds is that it should happen. Potential or past offenders should be on notice that criminal actions should be in their future or at the least, damage to their reputation.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Of course you are not sure.

Quit personalizing this thread, or I'll report you.

Yeah, like that would work.

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Sexual predators should be allowed to retire in peace, never accountable.

What a load of crap.  Of course he should be held accountable for his actions.

1 minute ago, juliann said:

The Church should never be given a chance to correct situations like this where predators are simply moved from job to job. 

I had some thoughts on this, but I'll refrain.  Your tendency to personalize and "genderize" . . . well, pretty much everything I say is exasperating.

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My issue is that you said he preyed on a disturbed young woman.

He was in a position of ecclesiastical authority over her.  They were in a consecrated place.  He asked her to expose her breasts to him.  And she did.  That is patently predatory behavior on his part and perhaps "disturbed" behavior on hers.

I don't get your complaint here.  Are you suggesting that her behavior demonstrates a mentally strong and acute person?

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

By my reading, if she’s disturbed in any way, it’s as a result of this assault and how it crushed her soul. 

She seems to have had a troubled life before the MTC.  And Bro. Bishop made her troubles much worse through his execrable behavior.

I seem to recall someone elsewhere in this thread describing her as a "troubled soul."  I'm not sure how that is materially distinguishable from "disturbed young woman."

I did not mean to demean or disparage her.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Of course. Defend the lech

"Defend the lech" by condemning his behavior?

What you are smoking, dude?

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

and attack the messenger until the messenger is vindicated by our boys in blue.

What about the woman?  What if she objects to the publication of her audio file?  Will you also accuse her of "attack{ing} the messenger?"

Let's keep in mind that my concerns about ML's unauthorized publication pertain to the potential adverse effects on the woman than on Bro. Bishop.

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Of course we wouldn't have known any of this without mormonleaks forcing the faithful to come to grips with the fact that they are just like any other group, no better or no worse.

Weaponizing this horrible story to attack a religion you dislike.  Because a member of that religion grossly violated the tenets of that faith and the trust the Church placed in him.

You just couldn't resist, eh?

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He was in a position of ecclesiastical authority over her.  They were in a consecrated place.  He asked her to expose her breasts to him.  And she did.  That is patently predatory behavior on his part and perhaps "disturbed" behavior on hers.

I don't get your complaint here.  Are you suggesting that her behavior demonstrates a mentally strong and acute person?

She seems to have had a troubled life before the MTC.  And Bro. Bishop made her troubles much worse through his execrable behavior.

I seem to recall someone elsewhere in this thread describing her as a "troubled soul."  I'm not sure how that is materially distinguishable from "disturbed young woman."

I did not mean to demean or disparage her.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you imagine that complying with a sexual predator’s request (particularly an authority figure) is disturbed behavior, I’d say you don’t really understand the dynamics of sexual abuse. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

He was exposed by the mormonleaks publication.

Yes.  And?

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think the closed case or the substance of the police investigation would have been publicized without mormonleaks. 

Yes.  And?

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

My opinion on disclosure of these misdeeds is that it should happen.

I think you'd have a different opinion if your private and sensitive information was published without your consent.

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Potential or past offenders should be on notice that criminal actions should be in their future or at the least, damage to their reputation.

You seem to be a fan of mob rule and the court of public opinion.  I guess we'll have to disagree about the merits of such a thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Now the KUTV report of the police report it up, this is probably unnecessary....I have gotten through 2/3 of the transcript including several areas where he is talking spontaneously in detail about his feelings on past experiences.  I still think he has dementia, but moderate and mostly shows up in his poor following of the conversation.  He has troubling following her logic, but seems to have no issue following his own and it is quite coherent.

Two things that really bothered me....how he completely puts the divorce with his second wife on her, she was screwed up from the beginning of the relationship etc. and now she has straightened herself out, they can get remarried...and it was all meant so he could have surgery from one of the top guys in the country (the last could be a sign of dementia, coincidences assume inordinate importance).

The second is "it's a two way street".  I find that comment in its context fully rational, not filling in a gap or trying to create a story that parallels what she is saying.  And in it, he is claiming pain as equal or more than hers, he makes himself into a victim...and he continues to do this placing the blame on his wife for not having a normal relationship instead of owning it.

"Let me just.. you want an apology. I want to give you an apology. I don't know what I can do about it, because here we are, after all these years, but it just... it just hurts my heart to see you suffering like I suffered. I understand, because it's a two way street. I have suffered"

Anyway...KUTV's report of the police finding more or less ends any interest in him.  I am assuming they would have been cautious about potential dementia at his age.  It is possible they forced a confession, but it seems unlikely especially since the woman apparently has a history that wouldn't lead to them instantly trusting her.

That his son came up with the same accusation that the police report mentioned...got to wonder if he was aware of it.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Wait...the girl who exposed her breasts wasn't the one the who recorded Bishop was it, or who gave a fake interview? Because I'll bet it was the girl he thought had the breast implants. In the audio I remember him asking about her boob job and she said she never had a boob job and that she was flat chested at that age. Not in those words exactly. So wouldn't it have to be another girl?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If you imagine that complying with a sexual predator’s request (particularly an authority figure) is disturbed behavior, I’d say you don’t really understand the dynamics of sexual abuse. 

Well, there's also the murder threat.  And the purported series of assault allegations against other men.

In any event, I did not intend to use "disturbed" to disparage her.  At all.

Why aren't you also carping about the person who called her a "troubled soul?"  Selective in your indignance, much?

-Smac