Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted March 20, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) This just in... The church makes a statement https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018 Does this seem like the church is throwing a little shade the accuser's direction? As if we shouldn't consider this information from a "former" member who "served briefly"? Asking for a friend Quote 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, Edited March 20, 2018 by HappyJackWagon 5
why me Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 21 hours ago, drums12 said: Reading the transcript just makes me ill. If it turns out this was known by the 12/FP and swept under the rug I fear I'll have no faith left in Church leadership...none. The Spirit of discernment is apparently a myth. If General Authorities such as Elder Asay didn't report this to the twelve they are no better than the people at Penn State who knew for decades what was going on and did nothing. People are not perfect. And they do make mistakes. This should have nothing to do with if one stays in the church. A testimony should not depend on the actions of others.
why me Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 17 hours ago, Duncan said: the thing is when this happens again and again and agian, you lose trust and confidence in leaders and you adopt a "you do you and i'll do me" approach, i'll listen to what you have to say but i'll make up my own mind and i'll follow the spirit and if church leaders get bent out of shape about it then let them I don't think that a person's faith should depend on the action of others. That intends to put a huge burden on the other people to be perfect. We also need to remember the power of repentance for one's sins. And the power of forgiveness. If people's faith depended on the action of other people, no religion would exist today. 1
Teancum Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This just in... The church makes a statement https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018 Does this seem like the church is throwing a little shade the accuser's direction? As if we shouldn't consider this information from a "former" member who "served briefly"? Asking for a friend Ummm Yes. Deflection and passive aggressive disparaging.
Teancum Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, why me said: People are not perfect. And they do make mistakes. This should have nothing to do with if one stays in the church. A testimony should not depend on the actions of others. Ahh so nice to know you are still true to form Why me.
JAHS Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The whole idea that there is some kind of scale that weighs right actions we do against wrong actions is a problem in and of itself. That we should ignore the wrong and just move full steam ahead pursuing the right is a problem. There are much more healthy ways to deal with mistakes, and the gospel even teaches these principles. Its almost as if these very corrosive ideals have crept into Mormon culture and they have no support in the wisdom of reason or tradition, yet are pursued with vigor by those who would promote them as pseudo religious ideals. Mormonism seems especially vulnerable to this kind of thinking because all it takes is one authority figure promoting an idea, without any supporting evidence and because of deference to authority people accept these ideas uncritically. I see how that can happen in some instances with some types of people to one charismatic type of church leader promoting an idea, but generally the total LDS Church government has too many checks and balances to allow any real false doctrine to enter in and destroy the whole church. What people need to remember is that there should be no deference to authority (singular) to one man, but to have deference to authorities of all the authorities combined, meaning the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Compare what the one man does and says to what the head church leadership does and says together.
rockpond Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: His books on Deseret were already getting reviews with things like 'sexual predator' written in them, so i'm not at all surprised that his stuff has been pulled before the church made any public comment. I'm guessing they'll say something eventually. I'm struggling to fully believe that he was confessing these sins with no consequences, all the while being given more and more authority, mostly because i've known other examples of confessions of wrong doing and they have always been taken seriously and repentance was always required. The idea that this kind of stuff is systematic in the church to the point that a leader could do it over and over while being known and nothing done doesn't match the personal evidence that I have. That's why I'm waiting to see what else comes out before forming any real opinions about how it was handled. Have you listened to the audio recording? Having listened to Sam Young, I am not sure that this isn't a systemic issue within the church. I don't think it is tremendously common but there are some processes and policies that make it easier for Bishop to do what he did. I think those ought to be addressed. I believe that is what Sam Young is encouraging with his petition, compilation of accounts of abuse, and march on General Conference weekend. Glad to see the church respond and I think their published statement is good. I think we should also hear from the Prophet on this. Hopefully he will speak to it as well. 1
why me Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This just in... The church makes a statement https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018 Does this seem like the church is throwing a little shade the accuser's direction? As if we shouldn't consider this information from a "former" member who "served briefly"? Asking for a friend It seems that the church acted properly by notifying the police. And no action was taken by the police. And it seemed that it was all settled. It then resurfaced and it now seems to be a stalemate. Who is telling the truth? Who should be beiieved? Why didn't the police take action? I see no wrong doing by the lds church. The man is now 85 years old and he is still denying it. 1
rockpond Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This just in... The church makes a statement https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018 Does this seem like the church is throwing a little shade the accuser's direction? As if we shouldn't consider this information from a "former" member who "served briefly"? Asking for a friend Former is an accurate descriptor. Served briefly is unnecessary. 2
why me Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Teancum said: Ahh so nice to know you are still true to form Why me. I hope so.
cinepro Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, why me said: I don't think that a person's faith should depend on the action of others. That intends to put a huge burden on the other people to be perfect. We also need to remember the power of repentance for one's sins. And the power of forgiveness. If people's faith depended on the action of other people, no religion would exist today. "By their fruits ye shall know them..." Quote The fruits of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ are the real test of Joseph and his work. "Judge the Church by its fruits. But ignore the bad fruits and only look at the good fruits." 2
bluebell Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 52 minutes ago, Teancum said: I guess it is an individual thing. For me it was hard to ask such questions or think like this for a long time. Then when I started asking and coming to possible conclusions that were not what I really wanted but felt I had to face it was incredibly painful. There were days I wanted to die in the early part of this process. So no it was not the easier option. I certainly was not looking for an an easy way to not believe. I don't doubt that at all (and I'm not trying to discount your experiences in any way). Like I said, there are aspects of it that would be very painful and difficult. I think the aspects that are easier are those aspects that have to do with living the gospel, especially living it while having doubts that are causing stress. In a lot of measurable ways life would be easier without worrrying about what God thought of our decisions, or worrying about making the right decisions or understanding personal revelation correctly. The gospel can create a lot of stress and anxiety even for people that don't have doubts. I've heard people talk about the pain of coming to a difficult decision and how much they did not want that to be the best option, but once it was made and they embraced it they were so much happier because the stress and anxiety they were dealing with before was gone. 1
why me Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Have you listened to the audio recording? Having listened to Sam Young, I am not sure that this isn't a systemic issue within the church. I don't think it is tremendously common but there are some processes and policies that make it easier for Bishop to do what he did. I think those ought to be addressed. I believe that is what Sam Young is encouraging with his petition, compilation of accounts of abuse, and march on General Conference weekend. Glad to see the church respond and I think their published statement is good. I think we should also hear from the Prophet on this. Hopefully he will speak to it as well. These days, everyone seems to be marching for something. However, if this march is taking place on conference weekend, to disrupt a general conference as the Kate Kelly demonstrations did, well, what to do? It seems that the lds church has a policy in place. But if local church leaders do not follow it, what to do? People are such imperfect beings that I can never expect things to always go the right way.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: Former is an accurate descriptor. Served briefly is unnecessary. Should we view it any differently if she was still a member? If not, what is the value of the descriptor. They could have mentioned that she was Caucasian, or blonde, or tall, which may all be "accurate", but also have no bearing on the accusation. Quote Why Me: It seems that the church acted properly by notifying the police. And no action was taken by the police. And it seemed that it was all settled. It then resurfaced and it now seems to be a stalemate. Who is telling the truth? Who should be beiieved? Why didn't the police take action? I see no wrong doing by the lds church. The man is now 85 years old and he is still denying it. They called the police. Great. I think she'd already covered that. Judging only by her persistence in bringing this issue forward multiple times, I would suggest that all was NOT settled. The church could not verify the guilt of Bishop so no ecclesiastical discipline was taken. Does God only inspire the Judges in Israel to know the truth of the matter if Bishop (or others like him) confess, or can they discern the truth via revelation/inspiration? I'm sorry that my comment comes across snarky but the dismissal of this seems very callous to me. 3
bluebell Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This just in... The church makes a statement https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018 Does this seem like the church is throwing a little shade the accuser's direction? As if we shouldn't consider this information from a "former" member who "served briefly"? Asking for a friend Just seems like they are giving some details. 1
why me Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, cinepro said: "By their fruits ye shall know them..." "Judge the Church by its fruits. But ignore the bad fruits and only look at the good fruits." Every organization will have bad fruit. Just look at the Oxfam scandal in the UK. Bad fruit there too. The point is: many more fruit will become rotten. Such is the time we are living in.
Jeanne Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 14 minutes ago, why me said: I don't think that a person's faith should depend on the action of others. That intends to put a huge burden on the other people to be perfect. We also need to remember the power of repentance for one's sins. And the power of forgiveness. If people's faith depended on the action of other people, no religion would exist today. No one needs to be perfect!!! But they need to not use their power to use the very tool that mormonism says is next to murder!
Calm Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 "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. We have no record of an interview between Elder Carlos E. Asay (1926-1999) and this individual. 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." Unless other women are out there and speak up, it doesn't appear this can be resolved. Is there any reason that an interview between Elder Asay and the woman have been on record? I don't know the process. Since Elder Asay was dead by the time the woman came forward with the accusation, there is likely no way to check the validity of her claim. 3
CA Steve Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) By the way, his last name is going to confuse a lot of non members reading this story. "When Bishop was serving as a bishop...." I had a similar problem on my mission with a companion whose last name was Elder. "This is my companion Elder Elder..... Edited March 20, 2018 by CA Steve 1
why me Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Should we view it any differently if she was still a member? If not, what is the value of the descriptor. They could have mentioned that she was Caucasian, or blonde, or tall, which may all be "accurate", but also have no bearing on the accusation. They called the police. Great. I think she'd already covered that. Judging only by her persistence in bringing this issue forward multiple times, I would suggest that all was NOT settled. The church could not verify the guilt of Bishop so no ecclesiastical discipline was taken. Does God only inspire the Judges in Israel to know the truth of the matter if Bishop (or others like him) confess, or can they discern the truth via revelation/inspiration? I'm sorry that my comment comes across snarky but the dismissal of this seems very callous to me. Inspiration does not help when it comes to the law. The police could not verify her story. That is what matters. Even if the church had inspiration, what could they do with it? Bring the inspiration to the police? Find him guilty because of inspiration? Even when he is still denying it? Frnakly I would never want to be bishop or any leader of the church. And if I was...the door would always be open when speaking with someone, even about the most personal of problems. And maybe I would have someone else in the room. A woman for example, if I were speaking with another woman. If an accusation is made, a church leader would be found guilty by the exmos and their name posted all over the internet. What then? Their life would be ruined. Edited March 20, 2018 by why me
Exiled Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This just in... The church makes a statement https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018 Does this seem like the church is throwing a little shade the accuser's direction? As if we shouldn't consider this information from a "former" member who "served briefly"? Asking for a friend A little spin mixed in. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Your thinking is backwards. SSM supporters are in favor of freedom, religions that opposed it are against freedom on that issue. Dictating morals has been the purview of religious traditions everywhere and the mechanism by which they police behavior. I'm in favor of rational arguments to support morality positions, and I'm against appeals to authority and tradition without reason. Your side point about Luther is just another appeal to an authority figure, which I don't find persuasive. It is not clear to me from this that you support religious freedom at all, but rather that you are very judgmental and narrow in your purview. You are either in favor of free agency or you are not. So far, you have opposed freedom to practice polygyny, and appear to take the opposite position on SSM. That is hypocrisy. We need to be tolerant of non-traditional marriage practices. 29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm sure you are aware of the complexities on this issue, yet you pick and choose select facts to try and promote a very one sided perspective. Many evils have been perpetuated against blacks by the Mormon tradition, this is a reality that I've read by multiple reputable Mormon historians. We have much to do to atone for the evils of the past and to correct the current inequities in our contemporary culture with respect to blacks. Comparing our mistakes to the mistakes of others that might have been more egregious strikes me as not very Christian. You seem dedicated to the false notion that Mormons have done exactly the same things to Black people that your White southern "Christians" have done. You seem to want a moral equivalency where there is none. It is not the Mormons who had segregated churches. It is not the Mormons who regularly murdered Black people. It is not very Christian to make such false statements. Just more lies about those horrible Mormons. 29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: If Mormonism wants to call itself a Christian church, then it can't pretend that it hasn't been built upon the foundation of evils that have been perpetuated by that same Christian tradition. You can't have it both ways. The Mormon Church is a restoration of the primitive Christian Church, not a continuation of apostate "Christianity." Mormonism represents the only authentic Church of Jesus Christ. Traditional "Christianity" is an imposter. 29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm quite surprised by the tone you've taken in this thread, almost as if you have an axe to grind against critiques of Mormonism. If you aren't willing to look at our mistakes in the past with an honest appraisal, then how can you possibly hope to make positive changes in the present. What positive changes do you suggest we make?
Calm Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The church could not verify the guilt of Bishop so no ecclesiastical discipline was taken. Does God only inspire the Judges in Israel to know the truth of the matter if Bishop (or others like him) confess, or can they discern the truth via revelation/inspiration? I'm sorry that my comment comes across snarky but the dismissal of this seems very callous to me. Do you consider it possible that the allegations that were at the level to require formal discipline are false? Do you feel comfortable with church leaders using the explanation "I am inspired that you are an apostate even if you say you believe in Christ and sustain the prophets, I know by inspiration you are lying" to excommunicate someone? Edited March 20, 2018 by Calm 4
Storm Rider Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 52 minutes ago, omni said: Where was the power of discernment in this situation? I assume his calling was approved at the highest levels. How many times as an MTC President did me meet with apostles or members of the First Presidency? Where was the Spirit whispering to these men that something was off? We're not talking about a gospel doctrine teacher who got a little frisky with his girlfriend, Bishop was an MTC President who intereacted frequently with the brethren. Were this a one-off issue, you may have a better case, however similar examples have happened many times in the past and this isn't even the most egregious. Either the power of discernment is a myth or its awfully inconsistent. You are making assumptions that I don't. I may not have such lofty expectations of other men, regardless of being called to serve, that you appear to have. I don't assume that even those who are gifted with discernement that such is being used 24 hours a day every day of the year. The power of discernment functions perfectly when it is active - your assumption is that it acts like a mechanical radar and is always on. If that were so, please tell me what the lives of those individuals would be like. Would they ever make any errors? Would they go through life knowing the inner being, all the sins, everything about all they meet? We disagree on a fundamental level about the gift itself and how it functions. I don't think people use it all the time. In fact, I think humans are duped every day regardless of the calling. I believe we can each have remarkable moments of inspiration and we can go years without having it again. I think of St. Theresa who lived almost her entire life serving the poor and yet did not feel God. Was she just stupid? Did she have some evil presence that prevented her from sensing the Spirit? No, not at all. I don't know why it worked that way for her, but I know that she did not fail in her commitment to serving others. She knew her purpose and her calling and she continued on the same path she started without faltering. I don't know the Lord's purposes or why some things happen the way they do. However, that does not stop be from my purpose or my own understanding of God and his love for me and all of his children. There is not a doubt in my mind that every man called to serve as a General Authority of the Church is fully, completely human. He gets up in the morning and puts his pants on just like I do. He sins, he loses his patience, he repents. I have met some that I never felt like they were inspired or at least very little. I had no idea how they were called to serve, but they were and they responded. I wish some of these frail humans would choose not to serve so that several of the more perfect people on this Board could respond affirmatively to the call. Then, we could put them on a pedestal and learn of all their frailties and wonder, "How in the heck was that idiot called to serve!?!" 1
ttribe Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: You are making assumptions that I don't. I may not have such lofty expectations of other men, regardless of being called to serve, that you appear to have. I don't assume that even those who are gifted with discernement that such is being used 24 hours a day every day of the year. The power of discernment functions perfectly when it is active - your assumption is that it acts like a mechanical radar and is always on. If that were so, please tell me what the lives of those individuals would be like. Would they ever make any errors? Would they go through life knowing the inner being, all the sins, everything about all they meet? We disagree on a fundamental level about the gift itself and how it functions. I don't think people use it all the time. In fact, I think humans are duped every day regardless of the calling. I believe we can each have remarkable moments of inspiration and we can go years without having it again. I think of St. Theresa who lived almost her entire life serving the poor and yet did not feel God. Was she just stupid? Did she have some evil presence that prevented her from sensing the Spirit? No, not at all. I don't know why it worked that way for her, but I know that she did not fail in her commitment to serving others. She knew her purpose and her calling and she continued on the same path she started without faltering. I don't know the Lord's purposes or why some things happen the way they do. However, that does not stop be from my purpose or my own understanding of God and his love for me and all of his children. There is not a doubt in my mind that every man called to serve as a General Authority of the Church is fully, completely human. He gets up in the morning and puts his pants on just like I do. He sins, he loses his patience, he repents. I have met some that I never felt like they were inspired or at least very little. I had no idea how they were called to serve, but they were and they responded. I wish some of these frail humans would choose not to serve so that several of the more perfect people on this Board could respond affirmatively to the call. Then, we could put them on a pedestal and learn of all their frailties and wonder, "How in the heck was that idiot called to serve!?!" How many chances did the Spirit have with this man? How many leaders were wrong, how many times? Your angry defense does not serve your purpose well when you ignore the facts. 2
Recommended Posts