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

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Is spousal abuse grounds for excommunication without a criminal conviction? In the old days, they used to announce excommunications in church meetings. When I was a freshman at BYU in 1983, a young woman in our ward (who I knew well) became sexually involved with a young man. She was definitely vulnerable, and IMO, he was a predator who took advantage of that vulnerability. She confessed to the bishop, and he announced in a church meeting (I'm pretty sure it was priesthood meeting) that she had been excommunicated. These days, it seems the only way you find out that someone has been disciplined is that they share it themselves.

I know the Church in the 1940's used to publish excommunications, like "Sister Larue Moojalski, of the Helaman 87th ward, North Ogden South Stake, excommunicated for stealing 1000lbs of red Licorice and dealing in black market red licorice".

 

I think for me it gets back to this thing about the Church doesn't have the "investigative tools" that the police have, which is true in the sense of fingerprints, DNA testing and stuff like that but if someone confesses or not, but they can't convict, or they don''t go to the police, due to clergy privilege or whatever, but they could still discipline. It seems like the Church leaves this stuff to the legal authorities, which is good but if they can't convict then the Church just leaves is alone. If it's true then the abuse or whatever can continue. That happened to a Branch Pres. I had, long story short, he was molesting his daughter, wife complained to the Stake, he denied everything, and it got worse and he eventually got into a Temple Presidency. He's dead now, but as I say the mills of the Gods grind exceedingly slow but exceedingly fine

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I know the Church in the 1940's used to publish excommunications, like "Sister Larue Moojalski, of the Helaman 87th ward, North Ogden South Stake, excommunicated for stealing 1000lbs of red Licorice and dealing in black market red licorice".

I think for me it gets back to this thing about the Church doesn't have the "investigative tools" that the police have, which is true in the sense of fingerprints, DNA testing and stuff like that but if someone confesses or not, but they can't convict, or they don''t go to the police, due to clergy privilege or whatever, but they could still discipline. It seems like the Church leaves this stuff to the legal authorities, which is good but if they can't convict then the Church just leaves is alone. If it's true then the abuse or whatever can continue. That happened to a Branch Pres. I had, long story short, he was molesting his daughter, wife complained to the Stake, he denied everything, and it got worse and he eventually got into a Temple Presidency. He's dead now, but as I say the mills of the Gods grind exceedingly slow but exceedingly fine

I understand they aren't in the business of investigating, but I am rather surprised that the only thing the church reported to the police was the death threats from the victim. That just seems very strange to me. In the case you mention, was the branch president reported to the police? I would hope so.

[JulieM]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Simply a point of fact that I found interesting. 

You can’t be serious.  Out of everything in the interview, you zero in on her calling a VCR player a DVD player and then quickly correcting herself as a “point of fact” you “found interesting”?

How interesting did you find the sexual assault information?

Edited March 22, 2018 by JulieM

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I know the Church in the 1940's used to publish excommunications, like "Sister Larue Moojalski, of the Helaman 87th ward, North Ogden South Stake, excommunicated for stealing 1000lbs of red Licorice and dealing in black market red licorice".

good money can be made in red market black licorice. Commies can't get enough of it!

[CV75]

Just now, JulieM said:

You can’t be serious.  Out of everything in the interview, you zero in on her calling a VCR player and DVD player and then quickly correcting herself as a “point of fact” you “found interesting”?

How interesting did you find the sexual assault information?

I think you need to read the rest of my post. enjoy!

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I know the Church in the 1940's used to publish excommunications, like "Sister Larue Moojalski, of the Helaman 87th ward, North Ogden South Stake, excommunicated for stealing 1000lbs of red Licorice and dealing in black market red licorice".

These days the Church does not publish notice of excommunications unless there are special circumstances that warrant such notice.

I think that's the correct way to go.  Publish shaming doesn't really help anyone, even when the general public is baying for a pound of flesh from a demonstrably bad person.

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think for me it gets back to this thing about the Church doesn't have the "investigative tools" that the police have

Nor the investigative mandate that police have.  The Church is an ecclesiastical organization, not law enforcement.

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

, which is true in the sense of fingerprints, DNA testing and stuff like that but if someone confesses or not, but they can't convict, or they don''t go to the police, due to clergy privilege or whatever, but they could still discipline.

Yes.  Per D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

The limitation on the Church's authority is, I think, a good thing.

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

It seems like the Church leaves this stuff to the legal authorities, which is good but if they can't convict then the Church just leaves is alone.

Well, no.  The Church does not rely on convictions or exonerations in criminal court.  It takes such things into account, though.

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If it's true then the abuse or whatever can continue.

I'm not sure what this means.  If an ecclesiastical leader is accused of serious misconduct, then he may very well be released from his position, as a precaution.

But again, the Church's function in society is not law enforcement.  It's authority over the lives and conduct of its members is limited.  If a member of the Church is accused of using his ecclesiastical position to faciitate abuse or misconduct, then the Church can (and, as I understand it, generally does) take precautionary steps to prevent such a thing, or the risk of such a thing.  The Church also reports misconduct to law enforcement in accordance with the laws of the land.

That said, saying "then the abuse or whatever can continue" sort of sounds like you expect the Church to fulfill some sort out law enforcement role in society that exceeds these parameters.  I'm not sure that's a good idea.

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

That happened to a Branch Pres. I had, long story short, he was molesting his daughter, wife complained to the Stake, he denied everything, and it got worse and he eventually got into a Temple Presidency. He's dead now, but as I say the mills of the Gods grind exceedingly slow but exceedingly fine

We can't really speak to anecdotes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think you need to read the rest of my post. enjoy!

You mean that there are more points that are just as interesting as her calling the VHS player a DVD player “that should be investigated if this is to be taken seriously”?

What other points are you referring to?

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Often, things are swept under the rug not because the people involved condone what happened but because they want to "protect" the institution (and I'm not singling out the church here). A lot of the issues in the Catholic Church stem from leaders wanting to protect the church from bad publicity, so abusive priests were quietly reassigned in the hopes it would all just go away.

Yes - and I would like to think the LDS church is above those motives, but the only way to eliminate a problem is to face it straight on if it exists, and to try and be better as an institution than we were in the past.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Maestrophil said:

Yes - and I would like to think the LDS church is above those motives, but the only way to eliminate a problem is to face it straight on if it exists, and to try and be better as an institution than we were in the past.  

Again, the church is run by humans (whether you believe inspired or not), and humans are not above those motives. It seems to me that allegations of abuse ought to at least be reported to line priesthood authority, whether or not the local leader thinks it's credible. At least that leaves a paper trail that shows something was done. But it seems grossly negligent to ignore allegations because a person in such a high position would not do something like that.

[pogi]

People might find this interesting.  A BYU police report corroborates information in the woman's recording.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013586/police-report-sheds-more-light-on-accusations-against-former-mtc-president.html

Edited March 22, 2018 by pogi

[Duncan]

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I understand they aren't in the business of investigating, but I am rather surprised that the only thing the church reported to the police was the death threats from the victim. That just seems very strange to me. In the case you mention, was the branch president reported to the police? I would hope so.

Not that I am aware of, but it happened prior to him being called to be the BP and the I suspect the counselour that heard the wife was changed out prior to him being issued the call and yeah, he ended up being in the Temple Pres. but he's dead now so, God can take care of whatever

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Not that I am aware of, but it happened prior to him being called to be the BP and the I suspect the counselour that heard the wife was changed out prior to him being issued the call and yeah, he ended up being in the Temple Pres. but he's dead now so, God can take care of whatever

I think everyone who has ever been a member of the church has known a situation where someone in a leadership position has either abused their position or has hidden some grievous sin. Again, that just makes leaders human, as we all are. The key for me is that all organizations need to have procedures in place to minimize possibilities for abuse. I know the church has such procedures, but as President Kimball once said, the biggest room in the world is the room for improvement.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

That happened to a Branch Pres. I had, long story short, he was molesting his daughter, wife complained to the Stake, he denied everything, and it got worse and he eventually got into a Temple Presidency. He's dead now, but as I say the mills of the Gods grind exceedingly slow but exceedingly fine

I understand they aren't in the business of investigating, but I am rather surprised that the only thing the church reported to the police was the death threats from the victim. That just seems very strange to me. In the case you mention, was the branch president reported to the police? I would hope so.

A few factors to consider here, I think.  

First, "a branch president ... was molesting his daughter."  Really?  How did we reach such a conclusory statement?  Did he admit it?  Was he convicted of it?  Or was he only accused of it?

Again, we can't really speak to anecdotes, but I would think that an allegation this serious would likely result in the man being released, as a precaution and against the appearance of impropriety (but not, I think, as a form of discipline for presumed-and-unproven misconduct).  This happens fairly regularly, I think.

Second, is there any part to be played in the Church's inner workings for some approximation of "due process" and a presumption of innocence?  Or is an accusation alone sufficient to expect/require the Church to reflexively presume guilt and mete out discipline accordingly? 

By way of example: I have a friend, a bishop, who had a sister in his ward who complained to the stake president that he (the bishop) had "threatened" her.  The bishop denied doing any such thing.  The stake president made some inquiries of the sister, who it turns out based her claim of "threats" on the bishop . . . being "mean" when he dropped of a rent check to the sister (as in the bishop had authorized payment of the sister's rent, and dropped off the check at her house).  The sister said that the bishop "thrust" the envelope with the check in it toward her in a "threatening" manner.

So in the end my friend was not released from his calling, nor was he disciplined.  But the sister in the ward nevertheless had a story to tell about how her bishop "threatened" her and "the Church" let him get away with it.

Third, there seems to be some incompatible expectations being thrown at the Church. 

Such as "BYU Police used their law enforcement authority to investigate students, then turned their findings over to the Honor Code Office, which then meted out quasi-ecclesiastical discipline.  This is wrong.  The Church shouldn't be able to use access to civil law enforcement authority to obtain information used for ecclesiastical purposes.  So let's insist that this practice end now."  This is the gist of what happened not too long ago with alleged rape victims at BYU.  I actually agree with this sentiment.  I had some reservations about the LDS Church having "inside" access to actual law enforcement authority and tools.  I also came to appreciate the need for rape victims to be able to report the crime without fear of being kicked out of BYU.

But there now seems to be a growing call for the Church to develop some sort of quasi-law enforcement capacity.  That is to say, the Church is apparently being expected to "investigate" allegations of abuse in ways similar to law enforcement.  And if it doesn't do this, it will be accused of - as JK put it - "just leav{ing} {it} alone" and letting "the abuse or whatever ... continue."

I get that the Church could (and, in many cases, should) take precautionary steps like releasing a person from a calling when he/she has been credibly accused of serious misconduct.  But expecting the Church to "investigate" things like sexual abuse in a quasi-law enforcement kind of way seems a bridge too far.  Reporting allegations of abuse to law enforcement is also a difficult area, as the Church will generally be operating on second-hand information.  Do we really want members to potentially "weaponize" the Church by insisting that it (rather than the member) report any and all allegations of abuse, and that it presume the validity of all such reports?  Even when the Church has no direct knowledge of such things?  Civil law mandates reporting for some things (such as disclosures from a child that he/she has been abused), and I think the policy behind such laws is generally good and sensible.  However, expanding the role of the Church to some sort of watchdog / advocacy / quasi-law enforcement entity seems quite troubling.   I can envision that easily getting out of hand.

Fourth, I think the Church is anxious to generally not "take sides" in things like domestic disputes or ongoing criminal charges.  If a couple is getting a divorce, and if one spouse accuses the other of abuse or misconduct, then what should the Church do?  Automatically accept at face value any such accusations and mete out discipline accordingly?  That becomes a problem pretty quickly.  Members of the Church could well end up "weaponizing" Church discipline. 

Should it instead investigate the accusations?  Perhaps, but to a fairly limited extent.  Otherwise, we're turning the Church into some sort of law enforcement or investigative agency.  That is not its mandate.  But the limited scope of the investigation will still leave the Church open to criticisms of - as JK put it - "just leav{ing} {it} alone" and letting "the abuse or whatever ... continue."

Often, the Church . . . waits.  Ongoing concerns about safety or well-being aside, if a person is charged by a law enforcement agency, the local church authorities hold off on formal discipline until and unless the charges are prosecuted.  Parallel "prosecutions" (civil law enforcement on the one hand, and the Church's ecclesiastical discipline on the other) can create some problems.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 22, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few factors to consider here, I think.  

First, "a branch president ... was molesting his daughter."  Really?  How did we reach such a conclusory statement?  Did he admit it?  Was he convicted of it?  Or was he only accused of it?

Again, we can't really speak to anecdotes, but I would think that an allegation this serious would likely result in the man being released, as a precaution and against the appearance of impropriety (but not, I think, as a form of discipline for presumed-and-unproven misconduct).  This happens fairly regularly, I think.

Second, is there any part to be played in the Church's inner workings for some approximation of "due process" and a presumption of innocence?  Or is an accusation alone sufficient to expect/require the Church to reflexively presume guilt and mete out discipline accordingly? 

By way of example: I have a friend, a bishop, who had a sister in his ward who complained to the stake president that he (the bishop) had "threatened" her.  The bishop denied doing any such thing.  The stake president made some inquiries of the sister, who it turns out based her claim of "threats" on the bishop . . . being "mean" when he dropped of a rent check to the sister (as in the bishop had authorized payment of the sister's rent, and dropped off the check at her house).  The sister said that the bishop "thrust" the envelope with the check in it toward her in a "threatening" manner.

So in the end my friend was not released from his calling, nor was he disciplined.  But the sister in the ward nevertheless had a story to tell about how her bishop "threatened" her and "the Church" let him get away with it.

Third, there seems to be some incompatible expectations being thrown at the Church. 

Such as "BYU Police used their law enforcement authority to investigate students, then turned their findings over to the Honor Code Office, which then meted out quasi-ecclesiastical discipline.  This is wrong.  The Church shouldn't be able to use access to civil law enforcement authority to obtain information used for ecclesiastical purposes.  So let's insist that this practice end now."  This is the gist of what happened not too long ago with alleged rape victims at BYU.  I actually agree with this sentiment.  I had some reservations about the LDS Church having "inside" access to actual law enforcement authority and tools.  I also came to appreciate the need for rape victims to be able to report the crime without fear of being kicked out of BYU.

But there now seems to be a growing call for the Church to develop some sort of quasi-law enforcement capacity.  That is to say, the Church is apparently being expected to "investigate" allegations of abuse in ways similar to law enforcement.  And if it doesn't do this, it will be accused of - as JK put it - "just leav{ing} {it} alone" and letting "the abuse or whatever ... continue."

I get that the Church could (and, in many cases, should) take precautionary steps like releasing a person from a calling when he/she has been credibly accused of serious misconduct.  But expecting the Church to "investigate" thinks like sexual abuse seems a bridge too far.  Reporting allegations of abuse to law enforcement is also a difficult area, as the Church will generally be operating on second-hand information.  Do we really want members to "weaponize" the Church by insisting that it (rather than the member) report any and all allegations of abuse?  Even when the Church has no direct knowledge of such things?  Civil law mandates reporting for some things (such as disclosures from a child that he/she has been abused), and I think the policy behind such laws is generally good and sensible.  However, expanding the role of the Church to some sort of watchdog / advocacy / quasi-law enforcement entity seems quite troubling.   I can envision that easily getting out of hand.

Fourth, I think the Church is anxious to generally not "take sides" in things like domestic disputes or ongoing criminal charges.  If a couple is getting a divorce, and if one spouse accuses the other of abuse or misconduct, then what should the Church do?  Automatically accept at face value any such accusations and mete out discipline accordingly?  That becomes a problem pretty quickly.  Members of the Church could well end up "weaponizing" Church discipline. 

Should it instead investigate the accusations?  Perhaps, but to a fairly limited extent.  Otherwise, we're turning the Church into some sort of law enforcement or investigative agency.  That is not its mandate.  But the limited scope of the investigation will still leave the Church open to criticisms of - as JK put it - "just leav{ing} {it} alone" and letting "the abuse or whatever ... continue."

Often, the Church . . . waits.  Ongoing concerns about safety or well-being aside, if a person is charged by a law enforcement agency, the local authorities hold off on formal discipline until and unless the charges are prosecuted.  Parallel "prosecutions" (civil law enforcement on the one hand, and the Church's ecclesiastical discipline on the other) can create some problems.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nope, I'm not asking that police share information with the church, but the reverse of that. I don't think I've been unclear about that. I also think church members should take criminal matters to the police and not just to their church leaders. 

Also, I did not say it was the church's job to investigate such accusations, as clearly they aren't equipped for that. What I find troubling here is that the bishop dismissed the allegations out of hand because he didn't think someone vetted for a high church position would do that. And it's troubling that the only thing that was reported to the police was the death threat, not the abuse allegations. That's unconscionable.

[pogi]

There is now little room to doubt at least some wrong doing...

Quote

In an interview with BYU University Police three months ago, Joseph L. Bishop, 85, said he asked a missionary to expose her breasts to him in a room at the MTC in 1984, which she did, but he denied her allegation that he raped her.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70328-mormonleaks-former-mormon-mission-president-admitting-to-inappropriate-interactions-with-women/?page=31

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Nope, I'm not asking that police share information with the church,

Okay.  Good to know.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

but the reverse of that.

The Church already does share information with law enforcement in accordance with the laws of the land.  So you are expecting . . . more?  You want private religious organizations, with their unique and specialized access to information about the lives of their members, to become extensions of law enforcement agencies?  

Can you give some examples of when you want the Church to "share information" with law enforcement in ways that it presently does not?

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I also think church members should take criminal matters to the police and not just to their church leaders. 

Agreed.  But I'm not sure the Church should mandate such a thing (taking a complaint of misconduct to the policy).  Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Church should generally let its members make such decisions for themselves.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Also, I did not say it was the church's job to investigate such accusations, as clearly they aren't equipped for that. What I find troubling here is that the bishop dismissed the allegations out of hand because he didn't think someone vetted for a high church position would do that.

I agree.  As a hypothetical, an out-of-hand dismissal under such circumstances would indeed be troubling.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And it's troubling that the only thing that was reported to the police was the death threat, not the abuse allegations. That's unconscionable.

I can see your concern, but not reporting a claim that on its face is 33 years old is not per se unreasonable.  The police wouldn't, couldn't, do anything with it, anyway.

I know of a situation where an ecclesiastical leader became aware of highly problematic conduct by a member of the Church 50+ years prior.  The leader did not report that misconduct to law enforcement (it wasn't a violent crime, but serious misconduct nonetheless).  Is that "unconscionable" in your view?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, the church is run by humans (whether you believe inspired or not), and humans are not above those motives. It seems to me that allegations of abuse ought to at least be reported to line priesthood authority, whether or not the local leader thinks it's credible.

Agreed.  Compliance with civil law reporting requirements is also important.

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

At least that leaves a paper trail that shows something was done.

Not really.  It's not like that paper trail will be open to public scrutiny.

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But it seems grossly negligent to ignore allegations because a person in such a high position would not do something like that.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Good to know.

The Church already does share information with law enforcement in accordance with the laws of the land.  So you are expecting . . . more?  You want private religious organizations, with their unique and specialized access to information about the lives of their members, to become extensions of law enforcement agencies?  

I expect church leaders to notify the police when they become aware of criminal activity, just as I would expect any private citizen to do so. I don't think you mean to suggest that reporting crimes is akin to invading the privacy of individuals and makes the church an extension of law enforcement.

Quote

Can you give some examples of when you want the Church to "share information" with law enforcement in ways that it presently does not?

The example I cited was the selective reporting done to the Pleasant Grove police. They should have reported the abuse, not just the death threat.

Quote

Agreed.  But I'm not sure the Church should mandate such a thing (taking a complaint of misconduct to the policy).  Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Church should generally let its members make such decisions for themselves.

I'm not saying they should mandate it, either. Just saying members should be clear that if they suspect criminal activity, they should report it to police, not just to priesthood leaders. That just seems like common sense.

Quote

I agree.  As a hypothetical, an out-of-hand dismissal under such circumstances would indeed be troubling.

In this case, it doesn't seem to be hypothetical. It was 3 years later, and the bishop in question dismissed the allegations essentially because of the perpetrator's church status.

Quote

I can see your concern, but not reporting a claim that on its face is 33 years old is not per se unreasonable.  The police wouldn't, couldn't, do anything with it, anyway.

That's true, but it might have put her "murder threat" in context. Again, it's problematic that the church statement says they reported the allegations of abuse at that time, yet they didn't.

Quote

I know of a situation where an ecclesiastical leader became aware of highly problematic conduct by a member of the Church 50+ years prior.  The leader did not report that misconduct to law enforcement (it wasn't a violent crime, but serious misconduct nonetheless).  Is that "unconscionable" in your view?

If the person who engaged in the problematic conduct was likely to have continued engaging in it, perhaps to the present, yes, it would be unconscionable. I am unfortunately all too familiar with a pedophile who continued to prey on children for years because he convinced people that it was all in the past. He even secured a volunteer position "helping" with disabled elementary school students. It wasn't until someone finally opened their mouth that many others came forward, telling of years of abuse after the "all in the past" incident.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

BYU police learned about it this past year, right?  He wasn't in a position of real authority, was he, last year? 

I am not saying this justifies not telling them, but it makes it understandable.

What about all the calls she made to the church office building for years before? And what about Bro. Wells sitting on it and not doing anything after Bishop confessed? And when she called the church and threatened to kill Bishop, to me it looks like she tried that out of desperation to get them to listen. 

Also, I wonder if it's true that the church was going to settle, meaning pay her, until now with the leaks and that's why she's not too happy about the early leak. Or it's all conjecture on my part.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What about all the calls she made to the church office building for years before? And what about Bro. Wells sitting on it and not doing anything after Bishop confessed? And when she called the church and threatened to kill Bishop, to me it looks like she tried that out of desperation to get them to listen. 

Also, I wonder if it's true that the church was going to settle, meaning pay her, until now with the leaks and that's why she's not too happy about the early leak. Or it's all conjecture on my part.

Who knows. The whole sordid story is depressing.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I happened to have the recording playing in my car yesterday evening — I went back to listening to it after reading the claims of dementia and medication.  But Bishop is very coherent in that interview.  He speaks clearly, at the end he is talking about his testimony, he refers back to comments me had had made 2.5 hours earlier in the interview and how they relate to what had transpired in the interview since that point. 

The evidence was good. 

But some don't care to listen to the recording before they make the comment that the transcript shows some dementia. Also, I know this isn't related to your post here, but I don't believe she willingly pulled her shirt up. I think he made that up totally, or he's misremembering who showed him their breasts because in the tape he mentions to her about her breast enhancement and she said not that wasn't her. And I vaguely remember him agreeing or something that it could be someone else. 

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But some don't care to listen to the recording before they make the comment that the transcript shows some dementia. Also, I know this isn't related to your post here, but I don't believe she willingly pulled her shirt up. I think he made that up totally, or he's misremembering who showed him their breasts because in the tape he mentions to her about her breast enhancement and she said not that wasn't her. And I vaguely remember him agreeing or something that it could be someone else. 

Not to be crude, but think of how sister missionaries dress and how many layers it would involve to expose one's breasts. It's not like one of those "Girls with Low Self-Esteem" videos. 

[Maestrophil]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What about all the calls she made to the church office building for years before? And what about Bro. Wells sitting on it and not doing anything after Bishop confessed? And when she called the church and threatened to kill Bishop, to me it looks like she tried that out of desperation to get them to listen. 

Also, I wonder if it's true that the church was going to settle, meaning pay her, until now with the leaks and that's why she's not too happy about the early leak. Or it's all conjecture on my part.

The only hard part I see is that even if leaders were informed - and it seems on some level they were - if Pres Bishop denied the charges each time, how can you discipline without absolute proof?  Seems like responsibility is squarely on Bishop  at this point.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I expect church leaders to notify the police when they become aware of criminal activity,

Really?  In all circumstances?

What about a person who confesses to committing a crime?  Are you proposing we toss the priest/penitent privilege out the window?  And how long will it take for people who have committed crimes to realize that confessing to a bishop (who can offer counseling and encouragement to make things right, such as turning himself into the police) is a surefire way to get arrested?  I think such confessions would dry up pretty quick.  Moreover, the Church becomes an extension of law enforcement (since it encourages its members to confess to bishops, who then turn around and turn confessors into the police).

What about someone who confesses to smoking marijuana, or a teenager who confesses to consuming alcohol?  Do you think bishops should turn in these folks as well?

Bishops as across-the-board ecclesiastical extensions of law enforcement is not a good idea, IMO.

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think you mean to suggest that reporting crimes is akin to invading the privacy of individuals and makes the church an extension of law enforcement.

Yes, that is what I am suggesting.  The Church's doctrines encourage/mandate members, as a point of religious practice and observance, to confess serious misconduct to priesthood authorities.  You are proposing that these priesthood authorities necessarily notify law enforcement any time "criminal activity" is confessed to them.  Can you see the problem with that?

Yes, your proposal is an invasion of privacy.  Bishops have special access to the lives of those within their stewardship.  So do spouses.  So do doctors.  So do lawyers.  Are you likewise proposing that a spouse should always and necessarily notify law enforcement if he/she becomes aware of his/her spouse possibly being involved in criminal activity?  Do you have any idea how many problems such a mandate could create?  

What about doctors?  Do you want them to be compelled to report on their patients?  

What about lawyers?  Do you want them to be compelled to report on their clients?

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The example I cited was the selective reporting done to the Pleasant Grove police. They should have reported the abuse, not just the death threat.

"Should have?"  How do you figure?  Is it a no-brainer, or a judgment call?

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not saying they should mandate it, either.

No mandate?  So we're left with . . . judgment calls in most (but not all) circumstances?  Isn't that pretty much the status quo?

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Just saying members should be clear that if they suspect criminal activity, they should report it to police, not just to priesthood leaders. That just seems like common sense.

Sure.  But isn't that the status quo?  Aren't members already at liberty to do just that?

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

I can see your concern, but not reporting a claim that on its face is 33 years old is not per se unreasonable.  The police wouldn't, couldn't, do anything with it, anyway.

That's true, but it might have put her "murder threat" in context. 

Perhaps  But since the woman was not prosecuted for her "murder threat," this seems rather academic.  It's not like a 33-year old claim of misconduct is a legal justification for threatening to murder someone.

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, it's problematic that the church statement says they reported the allegations of abuse at that time, yet they didn't.

Again, I can appreciate your sentiment here, but I'm not sure that failure to report an allegation of a 33-year old crime is per se unreasonable.

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If the person who engaged in the problematic conduct was likely to have continued engaging in it, perhaps to the present, yes, it would be unconscionable.

Nope.  The incident was 50+ years ago.  

And re: Bro. Bishop, the man is 85 years old.  There were no allegations of ongoing misconduct.

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I am unfortunately all too familiar with a pedophile who continued to prey on children for years because he convinced people that it was all in the past. He even secured a volunteer position "helping" with disabled elementary school students. It wasn't until someone finally opened their mouth that many others came forward, telling of years of abuse after the "all in the past" incident.

Pretty awful stuff.  But I'm not sure of its relevance.  The LDS Church became aware of allegations of misconduct from 33 years ago.  Nothing about ongoing misconduct.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Really?  In all circumstances?

What about a person who confesses to committing a crime?  Are you proposing we toss the priest/penitent privilege out the window?  And how long will it take for people who have committed crimes to realize that confessing to a bishop (who can offer counseling and encouragement to make things right, such as turning himself into the police) is a surefire way to get arrested?  I think such confessions would dry up pretty quick.  Moreover, the Church becomes an extension of law enforcement (since it encourages its members to confess to bishops, who then turn around and turn confessors into the police).

What about someone who confesses to smoking marijuana, or a teenager who confesses to consuming alcohol?  Do you think bishops should turn in these folks as well?

Bishops as across-the-board ecclesiastical extensions of law enforcement is not a good idea, IMO.

Yes, that is what I am suggesting.  The Church's doctrines encourage/mandate members, as a point of religious practice and observance, to confess serious misconduct to priesthood authorities.  You are proposing that these priesthood authorities necessarily notify law enforcement any time "criminal activity" is confessed to them.  Can you see the problem with that?

Yes, your proposal is an invasion of privacy.  Bishops have special access to the lives of those within their stewardship.  So do spouses.  So do doctors.  So do lawyers.  Are you likewise proposing that a spouse should always and necessarily notify law enforcement if he/she becomes aware of his/her spouse possibly being involved in criminal activity?  Do you have any idea how many problems such a mandate could create?  

What about doctors?  Do you want them to be compelled to report on their patients?  

What about lawyers?  Do you want them to be compelled to report on their clients?

"Should have?"  How do you figure?  Is it a no-brainer, or a judgment call?

No mandate?  So we're left with . . . judgment calls in most (but not all) circumstances?  Isn't that pretty much the status quo?

Sure.  But isn't that the status quo?  Aren't members already at liberty to do just that?

Perhaps  But since the woman was not prosecuted for her "murder threat," this seems rather academic.  It's not like a 33-year old claim of misconduct is a legal justification for threatening to murder someone.

Again, I can appreciate your sentiment here, but I'm not sure that failure to report an allegation of a 33-year old crime is per se unreasonable.

Nope.  The incident was 50+ years ago.  

And re: Bro. Bishop, the man is 85 years old.  There were no allegations of ongoing misconduct.

Pretty awful stuff.  But I'm not sure of its relevance.  The LDS Church became aware of allegations of misconduct from 33 years ago.  Nothing about ongoing misconduct.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm all for judgment calls, but I'm also in favor of definite procedures. It should go without saying that an allegation shouldn't be dismissed out of hand simple because one chooses not to believe it. 

I know, you think all of this is just about beating up on the church, but some pretty serious misconduct happened here, and evidently, through a long chain of events, it was reported to various priesthood leaders over many years, and nothing was done. And the only way to know whether the problem was ongoing was to confront the abuser, which apparently wasn't done. Surely you can see this as a failure of the system. And the church should not have said they reported the allegations to the police, as they clearly did not. 

Edited March 22, 2018 by jkwilliams