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

[smac97]

19 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. 

Yeah, this is a confusing point.  The woman would have every incentive in the world to coax a confession out of Bro. Bishop relating to him taking her to a room by the cafeteria and asking her to "flash" him.  And the BYU Police report appears to attribute the cafeterial incident to the woman in the recording.  And yet, she makes no mention of this incident.  Instead, she references an attempted rape in a basement room, which he denies. 

So was there another victim?  Or is this possibly some sort of confabulation?  From p. 31 of the transcript:

Quote

INTERVIEWER: I believe that you were grooming me, is what you were doing. And there was another girl, we'll talk about her in a minute. Um, you told me that you liked it when you and your wife, _________, apparently, had dinner alone. Candlelit dinner. And she had this ...

JB: We would take...

INTERVIEWER: Yes, and she was, you liked it when she pulled it down over her breasts and exposed her breasts at dinner.

JB: Yes.

INTERVIEWER: Okay. But, okay, so, your addiction was the problem. I understand that. 

By the way, this behavior, in and of itself, does not seem problematic.  A married couple . . . in their own home, whatever.  But is it possible that Bro. Bishop conflated the above incident with what he confessed to the police?  I'm skeptical of that, but this is such a weird set of facts . . .

In any event, the fact that Bro. Bishop told such sensitive things to a young sister missionary (she knew about them, and he apparently admits to them), well, that's repulsive and wrong (and a betrayal of his wife's trust), and does indicate that he was capable of transgressing clear boundaries.

Is the BYU police report evidence of the attempted rape?  Frankly, no.  It's evidence of some sort of sexual misconduct, to be sure, but not the attempted rape as alleged by the woman in the recording.

A muddled mess.  What a horrible, horrible sequence of events.

I have long theorized that most of the world's problems could be resolved if society adopted and lived in accordance with A) the Law of Chastity, and B) the Word of Wisdom.  This sordid story seems to corroborate that theory.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

I am fairly certain the law enforcement members are not called as Bishops and Stake Presidents because they would be put in circumstances where as a police officer they would have to report something they learned as clergy. So that indicates that not all confessions of crime to Mormon clergy have to be reported, though I believe there are some (child abuse) that automatically require informing police.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am fairly certain the law enforcement members are not called as Bishops and Stake Presidents because they would be put in circumstances where as a police officer they would have to report something they learned as clergy. So that indicates that not all confessions of crime to Mormon clergy have to be reported, though I believe there are some (child abuse) that automatically require informing police.

I honestly don't know what the requirements are. These are difficult issues, but the bottom line is that a vulnerable young woman was abused by someone whom she trusted, and her attempts to get some kind of justice were largely ignored. 

[provoman]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 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. 

When you reference “the church” who/what are you referring to?

Elder Asay - of which there is no record or contact

The bishop that recently was interviewed

Church HQ that learned of the accusation in 2010?

[provoman]

12 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am fairly certain the law enforcement members are not called as Bishops and Stake Presidents because they would be put in circumstances where as a police officer they would have to report something they learned as clergy. So that indicates that not all confessions of crime to Mormon clergy have to be reported, though I believe there are some (child abuse) that automatically require informing police.

I had a Bishopric, within the last few years, and the Counselor was a LEO

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

I had a Bishopric, within the last few years, and the Counselor was a LEO

Yeah, our current first counsellor is a police detective that works in domestic violence.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, provoman said:

When you reference “the church” who/what are you referring to?

Elder Asay - of which there is no record or contact

The bishop that recently was interviewed

Church HQ that learned of the accusation in 2010?

I mentioned "the church" twice in my post: the first to state the obvious, that I'm uninterested in beating up the church as an institution or faith. The second was in reference to the church's newsroom statement, which said, "They [local church leaders] listened carefully to the claims being made and then this was immediately reported to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the police interviewed her at that time." That statement is untrue. According to the police, what was reported (it's passive voice, but one assumes it was the local leaders) was the death threat, not "the claims being made." 

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

I had a Bishopric, within the last few years, and the Counselor was a LEO

Not the same thing. Counselors  do not hear people confessing so they are not in danger of being put in a situation where their duties as a bishop would conflict those of a sworn LEO.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm all for judgment calls, but I'm also in favor of definite procedures.

But we already have that.  "Definite procedures" for a limited set of circumstances (compliance with "mandatory reporting" laws, adherence to priest/penitent privilege), and "judgment calls" for the rest.

The problem with judgment calls is that . . . sometimes those calls will yield mistakes.  And we'll just have to lump it, because the alternative is an unending cycle of more rules and regulations.

Quote

It should go without saying that an allegation shouldn't be dismissed out of hand simple because one chooses not to believe it. 

Agreed.

Quote

I know, you think all of this is just about beating up on the church,

Well, no.  Some have chosen to take things that way.  But there have been some entirely legitimate points made as well.

Quote

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.

I'm not sure that's correct.  The key point is whether the woman met with Elder Asay.  If she did, and if he did nothing about it, then that is indeed a serious mistake.  But he died in 1999, and the woman's credibility is . . . not good.  So we cannot definitively say things like "{the misconduct} was reported to various priesthood leaders over many years," at least as far as Elder Asay.

As for the other disclosures, we have this summary:

Quote

The LDS Church responded to allegations made by the accused and "MormonLeaks" in a statement on Tuesday:

"These allegations are very serious and deeply disturbing. If the allegations of sexual assault are true, it would be a tragic betrayal of our standards and would result in action by the Church to formally discipline any member who was guilty of such behavior, especially someone in a position of trust.

This matter was brought to the attention of the Church in 2010, when this former Church member, who served briefly as a missionary in 1984, told leaders of the Pleasant Grove Utah West Stake that she had been sexually assaulted by the president of the Provo Missionary Training Center, Joseph Bishop, 25 years earlier. They listened carefully to the claims being made and then this was immediately reported to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the police interviewed her at that time. The Church does not know what she said in that interview, but the Church received no further communication from the police concerning the matter.

So the local church leaders listened to this woman and reported her claims to law enforcement.  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

Quote

At the same time, the Church referred these allegations to the local ecclesiastical leaders of Joseph Bishop. Those leaders met with Mr. Bishop, who denied the allegations. Unable to verify the allegations, they did not impose any formal Church discipline on Mr. Bishop at that time.

The Church also had local leaders address this issue with Bro. Bishop.  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

The local leaders then questioned Bro. Bishop and investigated the matter to some extent (constrained, as it is, by the limitations of D&C 134:10 and other scriptural guidelines, as well as the practical problems of the claims being 25 years old at the time).  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

Quote

The matter resurfaced in 2016 when the same individual contacted a stake president in Pueblo, Colorado,

It is possible that the stake president in Pueblo did not take substantive action.  Perhaps he should have.  Or perhaps he did and found that the allegations had been previously addressed in 2010, so there wasn't much that he could do (particularly since he is in Colorado and the wrongdoer was in Utah or Arizona or wherever).

Quote

and then again a few weeks ago in January 2018, when the Church was contacted by a lawyer representing her. He provided a copy of a recording that she had made of a conversation between her and 85-year-old Joseph Bishop in December 2017. Since that time, the Church has engaged in an investigation of this individual’s allegations. In the course of that investigation, both she and Mr. Bishop have been interviewed by outside legal counsel. Not surprisingly, the stories, timelines and recollections of those involved are dramatically different. This woman reaffirmed her allegations, and Mr. Bishop has again denied them. 

So the Church has been investigating this matter since new information has come to light.  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

Quote

We have no record of an interview between Elder Carlos E. Asay (1926-1999) and this individual.

The Church has apparently reviewed its records and not found any reference to an interview with Elder Asay.  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

Quote

The Church, as a religious organization, does not have the investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies. Nor can the Church substitute for the courts in adjudicating legal claims. The Church has great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims. Nevertheless, the Church takes seriously its responsibility to hold its members accountable for their conduct with respect of the laws of God and man. To that end, the Church is continuing its investigation of this individual's claims and will act consistent with its long-standing policy of no tolerance for abuse."

The Church is presently continuing its investigation of thi smatter.  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

Quote

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.

Bro. Bishop was interviewed in 2010, and again earlier this year, and the Church's investigation is "ongoing."

"Apparently wasn't done?"  "A failure of the system?"  Where are you getting this stuff?

Quote

And the church should not have said they reported the allegations to the police, as they clearly did not. 

From the Herald (emphases added):

Quote

According to the statement, the matter was first brought to the attention of the church in 2010, approximately 26 years after the alleged assault. The woman, who served briefly as a missionary in 1984, told leaders of the Pleasant Grove Utah West Stake that she had been sexually assaulted by Joseph Bishop, then- president of the Provo Missionary Training Center.

“They listened carefully to the claims being made and then this was immediately reported to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the police interviewed her at that time,” the church statement said. “The church does not know what she said in that interview, but the church received no further communication from the police concerning the matter.”

Captain Michael Robertson of the Pleasant Grove Police Department acknowledged on Tuesday the department was aware of the allegations, but said Pleasant Grove’s involvement was not about the allegations.

“The woman contacted the church leaders. She made threats she could possibly hurt someone,” Robertson said. “We went out to her home to visit her and make sure she was OK. We never investigated the alleged abuse.”

Perhaps you should re-consider your position on this point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 22, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

But we already have that.  "Definite procedures" for a limited set of circumstances (compliance with "mandatory reporting" laws, adherence to priest/penitent privilege), and "judgment calls" for the rest.

The problem with judgment calls is that . . . sometimes those calls will yield mistakes.  And we'll just have to lump it, because the alternative is an unending cycle of more rules and regulations.

Agreed.

Well, no.  Some have chosed to take things that way.  But there have been some entirely legitimate points made as well.

I'm not sure that's correct.  The key point is whether the woman met with Elder Asay.  If she did, and if he did nothing about it, then that is indeed a serious mistake.  But he died in 1999, and the woman's credibility is . . . not good.  So we cannot definitively say things like "{the misconduct} was reported to various priesthood leaders over many years," at least as far as Elder Asay.

As for the other disclosures, we have this summary:

So the local church leaders listened to this woman and reported her claims to law enforcement.  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

The Church also had local leaders address this issue with Bro. Bishop.  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

The local leaders then questioned Bro. Bishop and investigated the matter to some extent (constrained, as it is, by the limitations of D&C 134:10 and other scriptural guidelines, as well as the practical problems of the claims being 25 years old at the time).  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

It is possible that the stake president in Pueblo did not take substantive action.  Perhaps he should have.  Or perhaps he did and found that the allegations had been previously addressed in 2010, so there wasn't much that he could do (particularly since he is in Colorado and the wrongdoer was in Utah or Arizona or wherever).

So the Church has been investigating this matter since new information has come to light.  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

The Church has apparently reviewed its records and not found any reference to an interview with Elder Asay.  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

The Church is presently continuing its investigation of thi smatter.  And yet you say "nothing was done?"

What are you talking about?  Bro. Bishop was interviewed in 2010, and again earlier this year, and the Church's investigation is "ongoing."

"Apparently wasn't done?"  "A failure of the system?"  Where are you getting this stuff?

From the Herald (emphases added):

Perhaps you should re-consider your position on this point.

Thanks,

-Smac

I give up, Spencer. If you can't see that this could have been handled better, with far less pain to the victim, I don't know what to say. I get the impression no investigation would have been ongoing had she not repeatedly brought it up to get some kind of justice. That shouldn't have to happen. 

[provoman]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I mentioned "the church" twice in my post: the first to state the obvious, that I'm uninterested in beating up the church as an institution or faith. The second was in reference to the church's newsroom statement, which said, "They [local church leaders] listened carefully to the claims being made and then this was immediately reported to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the police interviewed her at that time." That statement is untrue. According to the police, what was reported (it's passive voice, but one assumes it was the local leaders) was the death threat, not "the claims being made." 

Can you prove the statement untrue?

[provoman]

removed for clarification

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Can you prove the statement untrue?

Given Spencer's clarification, I retract that statement. It isn't clear at all that the church informed the police about the abuse allegations, but the original wording in the Tribune made it appear that they hadn't. 

[provoman]

24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I mentioned "the church" twice in my post: the first to state the obvious, that I'm uninterested in beating up the church as an institution or faith. The second was in reference to the church's newsroom statement, which said, "They [local church leaders] listened carefully to the claims being made and then this was immediately reported to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the police interviewed her at that time." That statement is untrue. According to the police, what was reported (it's passive voice, but one assumes it was the local leaders) was the death threat, not "the claims being made." 

So it appears the Church did report the allegations in 2010 but tge police did not investigate that aspect of the report.

[provoman]

removed

[jkwilliams]

Just now, provoman said:

So it appears the Church did report the allegations in 2010 but tge police did not investigate that aspect of the report.

That appears to be the case, at least according to the Herald. The Tribune made it seem otherwise.

[MorningStar]

I think the big problem is when a man knows another man well and thinks the world of him and a woman he doesn't know well reports something horrifying, it's hard for him to believe, which is why I would never report to a church leader, but the police. And then it still comes down to he said/she said. I haven't read this in depth yet or listened to the recording because I am recovering from dealing with a pervert situation for the past two months, which was the most aggravating thing I have ever been through.

Anyway, any sort of service positions are a great cover for perverts and we can never assume, "So and so would never do that." 

[Amulek]

45 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am fairly certain the law enforcement members are not called as Bishops and Stake Presidents because they would be put in circumstances where as a police officer they would have to report something they learned as clergy

I've had a police captain for a bishop, here within the last five years. I'm sure there might have been the potential for conflicting obligations, but it wasn't anything that prevented him from being called and serving faithfully. 

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I give up, Spencer. If you can't see that this could have been handled better, with far less pain to the victim, I don't know what to say.

I have little interest in armchair quarterbacking, navel-gazing, woulda-coulda-shoulda speculation, etc., if that is what you mean.

You are accusing the Church of not paying attention to this issue.  But it did.  Repeatedly.  

You are apparently expecting the Church to be some sort of extension of law enforcement, or else to develop its own investigative tools and resources that are quasi-law enforcement in nature.  I find that deeply problematic.

There is an allegation that this issue was reported to Elder Asay around 1985 or so.  Perhaps it was, and if so it is deeply troubling that nothing was done about it.  Or perhaps it was not reported.  We really have no way to know.  Elder Asay died in 1999, the Church has no record of such a meeting, and the woman's credibility is . . . not good.

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I get the impression no investigation would have been ongoing had she not repeatedly brought it up to get some kind of justice. That shouldn't have to happen. 

So you want the LDS Church to develop its own investigative tools and resources that are quasi-law enforcement in nature?

You want the Church to disregard the constraints imposed upon it per D&C 134:10?

While we still don't know the particulars, it seems safe at this point to say that Bro. Bishop did something awful happened to this woman.  Awful.  Evil.  I acknowledge that.

But the Church has no record of a meeting with Elder Asay in 1985.  And the next time it was brought up (2010), the Church took what action it could.  The 2016 report to the stake president in 2016 is, I think, inconclusive, since the Church had already investigated the matter in 2010 and had no new evidence to consider.  The 2017 disclosure of the recording changed that, and the Church has an ongoing investigation in this this matter.

Yes, this would should "get some kind of justice."  But that is a matter for civil authorities, not the LDS Church.  See D&C 134:10.

The woman did not report the matter to law enforcement within the four-year statute of limitations.  That is very unfortunate. 

Thanks,

-SMac

[hope_for_things]

I found this post very interesting, here is a snippet of the content with some really good points.  

https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/03/22/some-thoughts-about-joseph-l-bishop/

Quote

Some questions and observations:

• Sexual relations between an MTC president and a missionary can never be consensual.
• A victim’s status as a member or nonmember is utterly irrelevant.
• The church has taken some great steps in recent years towards eliminating the stigma against missionaries who come home early. Then it cut those efforts off at the knees in a single swipe in its press release.
• Our church talks the talk of accountability and stewardship, but it is all personal. There is no such thing as institutional accountability in our culture.
• Why did it take a leak, against the woman’s wishes and by those who hate the church, to have this discussion?
• Why does justice come at the expense of victims, as it has here?
• What does it mean to “believe women”?
• Who failed to believe the woman here, and who is continuing to fail?
• How can we bear each other’s burdens if we don’t believe them?

 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

So it appears the Church did report the allegations in 2010 but tge police did not investigate that aspect of the report.

That appears to be the case, at least according to the Herald. The Tribune made it seem otherwise.

I don't fault the police for not investigating a decades-old claim of abuse that took place outside their jurisdiction.  It would be a waste of police resources.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have little interest in armchair quarterbacking, navel-gazing, woulda-coulda-shoulda speculation, etc., if that is what you mean.

You are accusing the Church of not paying attention to this issue.  But it did.  Repeatedly.  

You are apparently expecting the Church to be some sort of extension of law enforcement, or else to develop its own investigative tools and resources that are quasi-law enforcement in nature.  I find that deeply problematic.

There is an allegation that this issue was reported to Elder Asay around 1985 or so.  Perhaps it was, and if so it is deeply troubling that nothing was done about it.  Or perhaps it was not reported.  We really have no way to know.  Elder Asay died in 1999, the Church has no record of such a meeting, and the woman's credibility is . . . not good.

So you want the LDS Church to develop its own investigative tools and resources that are quasi-law enforcement in nature?

You want the Church to disregard the constraints imposed upon it per D&C 134:10?

While we still don't know the particulars, it seems safe at this point to say that Bro. Bishop did something awful happened to this woman.  Awful.  Evil.  I acknowledge that.

But the Church has no record of a meeting with Elder Asay in 1985.  And the next time it was brought up (2010), the Church took what action it could.  The 2016 report to the stake president in 2016 is, I think, inconclusive, since the Church had already investigated the matter in 2010 and had no new evidence to consider.  The 2017 disclosure of the recording changed that, and the Church has an ongoing investigation in this this matter.

Yes, this would should "get some kind of justice."  But that is a matter for civil authorities, not the LDS Church.  See D&C 134:10.

The woman did not report the matter to law enforcement within the four-year statute of limitations.  That is very unfortunate. 

Thanks,

-SMac

I don't blame her for not reporting it. Her bishop didn't believe her, so why would anyone else? I know from personal experience how it feels to be deliberately hurt by church leaders and have no redress. But I give her a lot of credit for not letting it go. I too am sorry she didn't go to the police when it happened, but then most victims of sexual abuse don't report it.

If it were up to me, I'd counsel every new bishop that, when something like this comes up in an interview, they should stop and say, "Maybe this is a matter for the police." 

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't fault the police for not investigating a decades-old claim of abuse that took place outside their jurisdiction.  It would be a waste of police resources.

Thanks,

-Smac

The BYU police seem to have had no problem looking into it. 

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

This is the most disturbing thing about this whole incident.  To let this man continue in his positions of power is inexcusable.  i love how there is an honor code at BYU where students are required to report bad conduct from other students.  Are we now to believe that BYU police are not required to report bad conduct concerning a man in this kind of position in the church to the owners of the University? If the incident that WAS confirmed is not important enough to inform church leaders, then what exactly is important enough to get them involved.  Honestly it is very hard to believe that church leaders did not know about what happened other than the fact that knowing and not doing anything is such an egregious misuse of trust it undermines everything we are suppose to believe about church leaders.  I admit, I personally lost that trust years ago.

And the fact that BYU police tried to redact it NOW is even more disturbing.  Thank goodness there are laws that required them to release the full report.  

The interview was three months ago and Bishop does not appear to have been in any position of power for quite a while, which sounds like it's a very good thing.

Beyond that, does anyone know if the police is allowed to share information about suspects (who haven't been charged with anything) without outside individuals?  From my experience, they aren't allowed to do that.  My mother couldn't even get information about my sister from the police without her giving permission, and she actually was charged with something.