juliann Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 From the Trib, Quote But the bishop, who asked not to be named, said in an interview with The Tribune that he didn’t believe her, nor did he tell any superiors. ”I felt the allegations were groundless,” he recalled this week. “They were so farfetched and not internally logical.” It takes a lot of vetting for a man to be approved for a position like MTC president, the Mormon lay leader said, “which made her story very hard to believe.” This is ground zero. Everything else can disappear because we have all the information we need with this. I do not blame this bishop, especially because of the time this occurred in which the mindset displayed by some in this thread was the norm. This is where the church can make change and be the better for it. Just because men are reaching these levels of authority does not mean they have been thoroughly vetted. Abusers don't advertise and tend to be exceptionally charming. They are con men. We need to be aware, is all. We need to listen rather than assume. And, yes, men need to now live under the same caution women always have when it comes to protecting themselves. That is just a fact of life that half the population takes for granted. Now the other half needs to do the same. 2
Calm Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 3 hours 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. 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. He did say he thought her story was incoherent (or some similar word). I have no doubt the position of the accused played a huge part in the decision and very well could have been sufficient to cause him to neglect reporting, but it is best to be accurate. That it was mentioned at all though as a deciding factor is problematic, though not surprising to me given I remember the culture both in and out of the Church. There was a big push for "stranger danger" (can't remember if they were using the term at the time, but remember the finger/footprinting and other child ID programs that were a big thing, my first was born in 82, my boss's kid was actually kidnapped by a sexual predator in 81 and was found after 6 weeks and two kidnappings were reported in UV malls around the same time, so I was hyperaware of safety programs), not so much for abuse in families. There was unfortunately in our greater culture a lot of the same sort of thing even for fathers...no one wanted to think a father would do that to his child. I would not be surprised if it is even harder for LDS to face gritty reality because of our core belief in eternal families creates a desire to idealize relationship. So we have a triple whammy of an emotional obstacle to overcome of ideal family man, spiritual authority being equated with spiritual giant, and a belief that leaders vet with care and spiritual discernment in callings. In some cases, these beliefs may even be true helping to solidify them. I think it should be recognized that much of the problem rests on something good, we have a healthy desire for our children and others to have happy, safe lives. That we might want it so much we can't or won't recognize when it is not happening is another example of how righteous desires can be twisted into unhealthy paths. I don't actually remember when more talk about parents being the more likely abuser started taking place because I was already well aware of it due to my psych classes. I do remember being surprised when a brother-in-law banned all sleepovers for his kids even with his own brothers and sisters. He was a therapist and knew of way too many stories of abuse that happened at those times, that was probably in the late 80s. There were no exceptions even when the parents were certain it was safe, because they knew certainty was no guarantee (and it turned out a beloved great uncle was abusing his kids, no satisfaction in being proved right in these cases though). I do think there will always be leaders who are just so certain the ideal person they know must be as ideal as they believe them that even with the mandate to report every accusation of abuse, that there will still be some that won't even if the majority will. What I would like to see is a hotline for members as well as for bishops in reporting abuse...and if it is found a bishop neglected to report because he found the accusation unbelievable, he be released immediately to help convince all bishops the Church means what they said. You can scold all you want to get certain behaviours, but if there are no significant consequences, learning/acting will often not take place or be halfhearted. The Church needs to make it as difficult as possible for a leader to think " well, this is a special case so I will handle it myself". 3
juliann Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: The angst about "justice" for this woman is attributable, to some extent, to her not reporting it to law enforcement. Ever more creative in the victim blaming.....no matter that she did and it still didn't matter. Quote The Church provides training to bishops Publicly condemns abuse on a regular basis. Maintains a helpline staffed by attorneys to help bishops sort out legal issues. Disciplines members. And on and on. Not back then. 2
Calm Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: Also, I know this isn't related to your post here, but I don't believe she willingly pulled her shirt up. He admits to asking her during a controlled interrogation. He knew she had been raped in the past, had a child iirc. Who cares if at the time she was willing because she saw him as someone safe or not. This was criminal. Edited March 22, 2018 by Calm 4
smac97 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: This is the part of the conversation where we ask you, Smac97, if you want to change or take back anything you've said so far in this conversation? Which part? I'm certainly open to reconsidering any errors. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: Or are you going to double down and say that you're more concerned about whether or not the room had a VCR in it? I've said nothing about this, except that I thought it irrelevant, that the woman obviously misspoke in referencing a DVD player because she corrected herself immediately, and that we should not make her an "offender for a word." 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: There has been a lot of discussion of how old Brother Bishop is. Yes, that's relevant. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: How crazy and non-Mormon the accuser is. I have repeatedly and emphatically emphasized that I am not faulting her for any mental health problems she may have (by her own reckoning). I do fault her, however, for threatening to murder Bro. Bishop. I also have concerns about her luring him into a room alone under false pretenses (as I would if a middle-aged man used false pretenses to lure an elderly woman into a room alone). 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: All the reasons we should doubt what happened. Not "doubt." Withhold judgment when all we've got is crappy evidence, and otherwise proceed oin a generalized innocent-until-proven-guilty kind of way. Now that more competent and probative evidence has come out, I've changed my position and condemned Bro. Bishop's behavior. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: But you seem to accept that Brother Bishop did, in fact, ask a missionary under his authority at the MTC to expose herself to him and that she did, There's not "seem to" about it. I accept it. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: and yet your defense of him and this situation doesn't seem to have changed course. Not true. I am now treating his misconduct as generally (but not specifically) established, whereas previously I was not due to the crappy evidence in view at the time. Now that better evidence has come forth, I've changed my position. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: This is the part where a rational person would say "Hey, it looks like I may have been wrong about this. It appears Brother Bishop was a sick, sexual predator who abused at least one young woman under his care, and while we may never know the extent of what he did, it's obvious the Church totally screwed up in allowing him the authority and access that those positions gave him." Yes, I have done this. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: This is the part where those who are going down with the ship will say "The church is perfect but the sexually molesting Presidents of the MTC that are called by the First Presidency aren't." "Staying in the boat" is great, but if the boat is taking on water, you need to help bail out that water to stay afloat. I've not said this. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: Maybe it would be easier to understand if we set aside Brother Joseph's age. Maybe you should pay more attention. You are not accurately characterizing my position in this thread. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: What if a currently serving Sister Missionary said that her mission president or the MTC president told her to expose her breasts to him, and she did out of fear? Then that would be irredeemably wrong and inexcusable. Likely an excommunicable offense. A gross violation of the woman's (and the Church's) trust. A gross violation of the Church's teachings and guidelines. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: Would you be making the same arguments and defenses? If she waited 25+ years before saying anything? If she lured him - now as a very old man recovering from a heart attack - into a private, one-on-one "interview" under false pretenses? If she used profanity and anger and reminders that she had previously threatened to murder him, and that she now wants him to admit to the misconduct and apologize for it? Yes, I would be making the same arguments and defenses. You are taking the validity of the accusation as a given, based solely on the accusation. I'm not. I would want the police involved. I would want the Church to investigate the matter immediately and as thoroughly as possible. I would also want the Church to err on the side of caution to the fullest extent possible. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: Or was it just okay back in the 1980s and because the accuser suffered such terrific mental damage that her current instability makes her unsympathetic and unreliable? You are bearing false witness, and I don't appreciate it. I have never excused or justified Bro. Bishop's conduct. I have, instead, condemned it (once more competent and probative evidence came out). Repeatedly. Without reservation. I do so again now. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: If a 21 year-old single woman said that her Bishop told her to expose herself to him in an interview and she did, would we be saying "well, you also said he tried to rape you, and you got the color of the carpet wrong when you said it was maroon but it's really more of a reddish-brown, so I'm afraid it's no big deal"? No, I wouldn't say that. I haven't said that here, either. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: If we're all willing to accept that, at the very least, Brother Joseph asked at least one Sister Missionary to take off her top, and she did, Yes, I'm willing to accept that. Based on evidence I find to be competent and probative. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: and there are still two sides to the discussion going forward, I don't know what this means. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: then the divide in the Church is greater than I thought and I now predict this situation will have a bigger effect on the future of the Church than I originally thought. I don't know what this means, either. 18 minutes ago, cinepro said: Because as everyone knows (especially the lawyers), it's not the mistake that gets you, it's the cover up. Nobody is calling for a "cover up." Where are you getting this nonsense? -Smac 4
smac97 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, juliann said: Quote The angst about "justice" for this woman is attributable, to some extent, to her not reporting it to law enforcement. Ever more creative in the victim blaming..... What a load of crapola. I do not blame the woman for what Bro. Bishop did to her. At all. In any way. Her status as a "victim" is attributable to Bro. Bishop, and to him alone. Full stop. The absence of "justice" in this matter, however, is a different story (and unrelated to her being a "victim"). "Justice" is meted out by civil authorities. Civil authorities are constrained by the laws of the land. The laws of the land include statutes of limitation. The statute of limitations in this case was four years. The victim did not report this matter to law enforcement within the statute of limitations. That failure precluded civil authorities from pursuing criminal charges against Bro. Bishop (which charges, it seems, would have been wholly justified). Quote no matter that she did and it still didn't matter. The woman is clearly a victim. Bro. Bishop was clearly the perpetrator of abuse. I'm not sure as to the specific nature of the misconduct (she didn't accuse him of the conduct he admits to (the "flashing" incident), and he denies the conduct she does accuse him of (attempted rape)), but broadly speaking, there was plainly a horrific and inexcusable violation by Bro. Bishop against this woman (unless the woman in the BYU police report is not the same person as the woman in the recording). I condemn this. Unequivocally. Full stop. I do not attribute any fault to the woman for this misconduct. At all. Full stop. Grow up, Juliann. This is a difficult and sensitive topic. Throwing out false accusations against people you personally dislike is not helpful. -Smac Edited March 22, 2018 by smac97 4
Calm Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I don't blame her for not reporting it. Her bishop didn't believe her, so why would anyone else? So you believe that Elder Asay was not involved as she claims? I am not challenging anyone's opinion on this, just curious about what people are thinking. I don't see any likely way to determine the truth of this outside someone confessing they lied or finding some hidden record. Edited March 22, 2018 by Calm
juliann Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 28 minutes ago, smac97 said: The woman is clearly a victim. Bro. Bishop was clearly the perpetrator of abuse. I'm not sure as to the specific nature of the misconduct (she didn't accuse him of the conduct he admits to (the "flashing" incident), and he denies the conduct she does accuse him of (attempted rape)), but broadly speaking, there was plainly a horrific and inexcusable violation by Bro. Bishop against this woman (unless the woman in the BYU police report is not the same person as the woman in the recording). I condemn this. Unequivocally. Full stop. I do not attribute any fault to the woman for this misconduct. At all. Full stop. Grow up, Juliann. This is a difficult and sensitive topic. Throwing out false accusations against people you personally dislike is not helpful. -Smac Grow up says the guy who thinks it is cute to describe being asked to show your breasts by a man with authority over you as "flashing." That is a new one. Out of all of the endless stuff I have read online, not once have I seen what she felt she had to do as flashing. It is disrespectful and demeaning. You just don't stop, you only claim innocence.
smac97 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, juliann said: Grow up says the guy who thinks it is cute to describe being asked to show your breasts by a man with authority over you as "flashing." I don't think it is "cute" at all. I just thought it a bit more circumspect that "exposed her breasts." 2 minutes ago, juliann said: Out of all of the endless stuff I have read online, not once have I seen what she felt she had to do as flashing. It is disrespectful and demeaning. You just don't stop, you only claim innocence. Okay. I stand corrected. -Smac
juliann Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: This is a difficult and sensitive topic. "the "flashing" incident" Quote Throwing out false accusations against people you personally dislike is not helpful. Such clever wordplay in such a difficult and serious topic. Bravo. If only you could pass this off as personal dislike rather than horror over your nonstop victim blaming and trivialization of a difficult and sensitive topic.
Popular Post smac97 Posted March 22, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, juliann said: "the "flashing" incident" Again, I stand corrected. Quote Such clever wordplay in such a difficult and serious topic. Bravo. "Wordplay?" What are you talking about? Quote If only you could pass this off as personal dislike rather than horror over your nonstop victim blaming and trivialization of a difficult and sensitive topic. More false accusations. I have not, and do not, blame the victim here. I do not trivialize what happened to her. Quit personalizing this thread. Quit board nannying. Grow up. -Smac Edited March 22, 2018 by smac97 5
provoman Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 the gross mischaracterization of Smacs REPEATED statements says more about the bias of the accusers. The attacks against smac were old and borish from the start. 3
ttribe Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quit personalizing this thread. Quit board nannying. Grow up. You keep hiding behind these words, Spencer. It's embarrassing. You don't want something personalized? Stop talking down to people like they are idiots. Stop acting like yours is the only valid opinion. You don't want to be on the receiving end of "board nannying"? Stop your incessant habit of assuming ill intent by anyone who doesn't agree with you. Grow up? How about you stop conducting yourself, in every thread, like the Church can't ever do anything wrong? Grown ups get that it can, Spencer, and it's the beginning point of coming up with solutions that stop people from being victimized by other people put into positions of trust and responsibility within an organization with poor internal controls on such things. You have a huge blindspot when it comes to accepting responsibility for the impressions you create with your own words. Edited March 22, 2018 by ttribe 3
Calm Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, bluebell said: 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. The release of the reports to the press was surprising to me, does it fall under the Freedom of Information process? Smac: Quote The point seems equivalent to saying "Raping a child is not a good thing." It's axiomatic. So axiomatic, in fact, that soberly stating it comes across as sarcastic. And yet "consensual" has used to describe at least some of the interaction from what I remember, i.e. the backrubbing of the sister missionary where he claims she asked him to do it and it got frisky. I am curious if you would call it consensual if she did actually ask him to rub her back. I am assuming you would not but I can see why some do...is there such a thing as coerced consent? Can you understand why some might not view it as "axiomatic" if words such as "consensual" are used to describe a "frisky" backrubbing of a sister missionary that is being described by a man explaining how he molested women? In regard to institutional responsibility for a MTC President's actions that were contrary to his instructions as well as the Church's teachings... Quote How is the "institution" culpable for Bro. Bishop's misconduct? He violated the Church's trust. He violated the Law of Chastity. He preyed on a vulnerable young woman. How is the Church at fault for any of this? It seems like "institutional accountability" is being used as a sort of code for "collective guilt." I'm not buying into that. The Church has never taught or condoned the behavior attributed to Bro. Bishop, and instead deems it an excommunicable offense. A company is generally held legally responsible at least in part if a person acting as their agent commits a crime through his authority as there agent....say a cable installer gaining entry and raping the resident because the resident purchased from the company...or am I wrong about the law? I personally believe there is an institutional responsibility if the individual gains access to the victim through his duties and during his work time. I am more iffy if a person uses his acquaintance with someone through work during off hours and outside the work environment. In this case Bishop was in his role as an agent for the Church, on Church property, interacting with someone else who was an agent of the Church under his authority...similar to an employee relationship. Why wouldn't this therefore be a case of legal institutional responsibility even if against the organization's policy? Edited March 22, 2018 by Calm 3
smac97 Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ttribe said: Quote Quit personalizing this thread. Quit board nannying. Grow up. You keep hiding behind these words, Spencer. It's embarrassing. I'm not hiding. Quote You don't want something personalized? Correct. Quote Stop talking down to people like they are idiots. I'm not doing that. Quote Stop acting like yours is the only valid opinion. I'm not doing that, either. Quote You don't want to be on the receiving end of "board nannying"? Stop your incessant habit of assuming ill intent by anyone who doesn't agree with you. I'm not doing that, either. Quote Grow up? How about you stop conducting yourself, in every thread, like the Church can't ever do anything wrong? I'm not. I readily acknowledge that the "Church" can and does make mistakes. It is possible that this woman met with Elder Asay, and that he did nothing to investigate her claims. If so, that was clearly a very serious wrong. I concede that. What I don't concede, however, is that the meeting between this woman and Elder Asay is an established fact. We just don't know. Saying this is not a declaration that the Church is infallible. Saying this is . . . a reasoned assessment of the evidence at hand. Funny, though, how critics can take pretty much anything and convert it into a criticism of the LDS Church. The Church did not teach or encourage Bro. Bishop to victimize the woman. To the contrary, Bro. Bishop violated the Church's teachings and the Church's trust. Quote Grown ups get that it can, Spencer, As someone just said: "Stop talking down to people like they are idiots."' Quote and it's the beginning point of coming up with solutions that stop people from being victimized by other people put into positions of trust and responsibility within an organization with poor internal controls on such things. Okay, I'll bite. How do you think the Church's "internal controls" in place in 2018 are demonstrated to be flawed by gross misconduct by Joseph Bishop in 1985? What changes to "internal controls" do you propose? Quote You have a huge blindspot when it comes to accepting responsibility for the impressions you create with your own words. Okay. I'll think on that. Thanks, -Smac Edited March 22, 2018 by smac97 1
juliann Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, Calm said: The release of the reports to the press was surprising to me, does it fall under the Freedom of Information process? Smac: And yet "consensual" has used to describe at least some of the interaction from what I remember, i.e. the backrubbing of the sister missionary where he claims she asked him to do it and it got frisky. I am curious if you would call it consensual if she did actually ask him to rub her back. Can you understand why some might not view it as "axiomatic" if words such as "consensual" are used to describe a "frisky" backrubbing of a sister missionary that is being described by a man explaining how he molested women? Can you understand how some would find the use of the word "flashing" which is used for consensual self exposure as challenging the idea that it is aximatic that and sexual contact between a sister missionary and the MTC Pres is never consensual? As a sidenote, I find the idea that a missionary would ask a him for a back rub absurd. The only reason he would bring that up is to deflect blame for what he did. There is no reason to assume it was any different than his deflection of blaming his request for her to expose herself on her without mentioning he asked. All of this is such textbook grooming it will make a good case study for the church to use for preventative education. 2
Recommended Posts