Woman Accusing Joseph Bishop to File Suit (Against Bishop & LDS Church)

[Tacenda]

Interview with the lds singles bishop, wow is all I've got to say and then some. 

http://kutv.com/news/local/woman-who-accused-mtc-president-of-sexual-assault-has-been-telling-her-story-for-3-decades

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

It was a he said, she said, she said. Is this how things go down regularly? A woman makes an accusation, he denies it to church leaders and that is the end of it? That doesn’t give me confidence that the flock is being well protected from the wolves. And, his position could have intimidated local priesthood leaders.

You would suggest excommunication on the honor system of the accuser? The best way to protect the flock from wolves is imprisonment and if the Church had this power we would use it if we discovered people such as this. For better or worse we do not.

[why me]

4 hours ago, omni said:

 

In other words, the Church appears to have been handling abuse just like most other large institutions were at the time.

 

 

That was my point with the time frame. What happened was wrong. But how the lds church reacted seems to put it in that time frame of action.

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Lemuel said:

Your GlaDOS reference is both acknowledged and appreciated.

Any excuse I can find to use one.  

[why me]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

We are having two different conversations, then.

I don't think so. I was referring to how all this was handled and when it was handled. Now people are much more sensitive to such accusations and they are generally accepted without evidence or proof. Local church leaders seemed to acted in disbelief. Now it would be different. Now a person who is accused would be assumed guilty unless proven otherwise.

The era of Don Rickles seems to be over too.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Of course she will go after the church. There is a long enough list of blabbers to media to provide anything necessary to prove negligence. Start with the bishop who is still casually explaining that he didn't want to ruin this monster abuser's reputation and didn't report him. Add the next victim to that.

I agree Bishop was an abuser but legally....what? Negligence requires that the negligent party allow something to happen. Unless she was assaulted again OR the timeline lines up that her reporting could have prevented another crime she has no cage for negligence. Now it is possible that a later abuse case could sue for negligence but it would have to pass the "reasonable person" standard and is still dubious because you would have to prove that that negligence directly led to the later abuse. Pulling someone out of a church position would not necessarily qualify. I just do not see it.

That being said I hope Bishop is sued into abject poverty. I just do not think it will happen.  

[why me]

5 hours ago, gopher said:

Didn't the woman say she didn't authorize him to release the recording?  If so, Ryan is a dope.  It should have been her decision to release it, not his.  It's just a matter of time now before her identity will be known.  I don't think it's fair to assume all victims want their story to known to the world.  Maybe she is ok with it, but now that it's a national story, there's not much that can be done to keep it private now.

 

My point also. He released the information. Why? If the victim did not want it released, why would he release it? What impact did he think that such information would have? Would it elevate his mormonleaks site? I think that he knew what he was doing. And if he didn't have permission from the victim, would she have a lawsuite against mormonleaks?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

No, but there is enough church rhetoric that leaders are to be supported, called from God, they know best, should be followed even if we disagree, etc. that there is certainly an institutional endorsement of them. The church put a snake on the sidewalk and didn't remove it even when it was given notice. If this guy lives in Arizona, no jury is going to give a church a pass. 

Dubious notice. A reportedly inconsistent story years after the reported incident when the bishop had no access to witnesses or corroborating and did not even have ecclesiastical authority over the area where it occurred.

Again, I am not defending him or accusing her because she waited to report but what is this bishop supposed to have done? I believe he should have passed it up the chain and did not but even if he had could the Seventy or whoever have investigated it  and corroborated the story back then? I doubt it. I wouldn't convict in a disciplinary council based on one person's testimony years after the fact.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

On a much, much smaller scale, I recently had a female employee make a complaint about a male coworker making a sexually inappropriate comment to her.  The first thing I did was privately talk to all the other female employees on that shift and ask them if they had anything they needed to share about anyone making inappropriate comments.  Turns out, several did and they hadn't reported it because they just brushed it off. 

So one thing the Church could do is contact (phone or email) every woman who was at the MTC in the early 1980s and say "Hey, we've had some complaints about one of the leaders at the MTC.  If you experienced anything unusual during your time there that you would like to share, please contact this person at Kirton and McConkie..."  That wouldn't be the end of the investigation, but it would be a good start.

They might but you are talking about a lot of people and your risk breaking some degree of confidentiality and risk having rumors running rampant about who the person was. And unless you identified them by name I doubt you would get a response from anyone about something that was 'a little weird' because they might be afraid of suggesting something about someone they are not even sure is being investigated. Would it be worth it? I don't know.

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

If she loses this case, it will be far worse for the church...there will not be a female in any ward that will sit down and talk to anybody.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. Even though I no longer believe, in my opinion the great majority of male leaders are trying to do what they believe is right, and it seems to me that most women trust those leaders. That said I hope that the search for the truth of what happened is unbiased. I also hope that the church and the police have learned from this and will thoroughly investigate accusations in the future.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, why me said:

I don't think so. I was referring to how all this was handled and when it was handled. Now people are much more sensitive to such accusations and they are generally accepted without evidence or proof. Local church leaders seemed to acted in disbelief. Now it would be different. Now a person who is accused would be assumed guilty unless proven otherwise.

The era of Don Rickles seems to be over too.

You are talking about the social implications and not the legal one. Legally, the presumption of innocence still holds. The disdain of society is another matter.

[why me]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are talking about the social implications and not the legal one. Legally, the presumption of innocence still holds. The disdain of society is another matter.

However, one can lose one's job, be held under suspicion. And even if one denies the charges, still be found guilty in public opinion before one can offer a defense. We have seen false claims recently that have created havoc in the accused lives before the truth came out.

Edited March 24, 2018 by why me

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, why me said:

However, one can lose one's job, be held under suspicion. And even if one denies the charges, still be found guilty in public opinion before one can offer a defense. we have seen false claims recently that have created havoc in the accused lives before the truth came out.

Yes, do you have a solution?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I am going to counter that. If we don't for the first time start admitting where the problem is, there will never be change. In fact, it will get worse. That is why we have women's movements like MeToo. We are done with being "nice."  I listened to a leadership training video that is only open to church people. In it, the head of church HR said exactly what I am saying after he used the term "gender bias." He held his hand in front of his face and said with no equivocation, men need to look in the mirror and ask themselves, "Lord, is it I." Nothing will change until men are willing to face the truth of that. And if you can say, no....more power to you. But that does not excuse anyone from the obligation when it comes to how women are treated. It also is a directive to get educated as to what gender bias is and how it manifests itself before answering the question honestly..........................

I guess you misunderstood me, juliann.  The blame-game is no substitute for programmatic changes in the ways things are done, and the methods of complaint which are available.  Pointing fingers changes nothing, whereas providing safe modes of reporting of abuse will make a huge difference.

Male chauvinist pigs are just not going to change unless they feel endangered by their own predilections or ignorance.  I once worked for an agency which simply would not promote qualified women into supervisory positions in adequate numbers.  It required a Federal lawsuit and a consent decree to get a program in place to change that.  And then it had to be closely monitored.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, why me said:

That was my point with the time frame. What happened was wrong. But how the lds church reacted seems to put it in that time frame of action.

 

If your explanation or defense of the Church is that it was just acting like all the other false religions, then you're effectively saying that in this regard, the Church wasn't "true."  So while it may stop the discussion with those who would argue that the Church isn't true, it's only because there's nothing left to discuss, since you're agreeing with them.

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by cinepro

[jpv]

8 hours ago, why me said:

Consig was famous for his bullseye posts. However, now, he has changed to the other side. No more bullseye posts. Amazingly, for all the bullsye posts, a person can go over to the other side. But he still seems like a nice guy.

Amazing. I can sympathize with his feeling disillusioned due to the general decrease of charismata in the modern Church compared to the one he grew up loving.

I'd be curious what those like JLFPROF who also have a deep appreciation for "the good old days" think about his current work, etc. He recently did a podcast on his studies of evidences of Hebrew Numerology in the BoM.

[jpv]

On 3/22/2018 at 7:18 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I know of no evidence that the Brethren ignore these matters.

Elders Wells and Asay sure did. 

Go ahead and deny Asay as outlandish just like Bishop's sex dungeon, etc. that keep being vindicated.

Can't do that for Wells, Bishop admits it several times he confessed to him, without bring led by the victim.

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, do you have a solution?

Forgiveness?

[why me]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

If your explanation or defense of the Church is that it was just acting like all the other false religions, then you're effectively saying that in this regard, the Church wasn't "true."  So while it may stop the discussion with those who would argue that the Church isn't true, it's only because there's nothing left to discuss, since you're agreeing with them.

 

Unfortunately, it can be like all the false religions. It is made up of human beings who also learn as they go. And mistakes will be made. And human beings are human beings who need to learn through experience and practice. The trap is when people claim: how can the true church have not known this? How could a true church make such a mistake? Answer: A building is just a building, it is the people who make mistakes. No perfection can be found in this world.

[why me]

1 hour ago, jpv said:

Amazing. I can sympathize with his feeling disillusioned due to the general decrease of charismata in the modern Church compared to the one he grew up loving.

I'd be curious what those like JLFPROF who also have a deep appreciation for "the good old days" think about his current work, etc. He recently did a podcast on his studies of evidences of Hebrew Numerology in the BoM.

I was around when he was here. And I was engaging with him on a different board. I know what I think began it all. But it is not my business.

In general, it is always amazing when members who have had a strong testimony, claim many spiritual experiences and then leave the fold. Such is the nature of the human being. I am sure that some members will begin to doubt the truthfulness of the lds church because of the experience of this woman. Or it will become one more tiny hole in the testimony wall.

[why me]

10 hours ago, rpn said:

Because for more than 20 years, the sister had reported it repeatedly without any sense that anything was done about it.   For two months the Church had the tape and nothing happened.   The BYU police had gotten his testimony and the prosecutor would have prosecuted except it was beyond the statute of limitation.   BUT THE CHURCH had not done anything.     Someone (the survivor says it wasn't her (though it is not clear whether she released the transcript but not the tape, or whether she released neither), and for all we know it could have been someone at church headquarters) decided it ought to be disclosed.

What is the church? It is basically made up of human beings. So, we can say: some members of the church did nothing about it. Is that a reflection on the whole church? No. Here is what should have happened: give the tape to the police and to a good lawyer. Maybe the lawyer who always involves herself in public cases. Gloria something or another usually loves this kind of cases. There are ways to get it known. The whole thing is very unfortunate. But I would not blame the entire church. A smuck is born every minute and we do have some smucks in the lds church.

[Jeanne]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

I have to respectfully disagree with you. Even though I no longer believe, in my opinion the great majority of male leaders are trying to do what they believe is right, and it seems to me that most women trust those leaders. That said I hope that the search for the truth of what happened is unbiased. I also hope that the church and the police have learned from this and will thoroughly investigate accusations in the future.

I will stand corrected then.  You and Bluebell are probably right..thanks for your honesty.  Perhaps the biggest change will be the young women in college or getting ready for missions.

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, juliann said:

I'm pretty sure my experience with leadership is the norm. I have had one, maybe two bishops who didn't help me. I have had more who probably saved me when I was this victim's age. I had at least three extraordinary experiences that I consider truly inspired. 

I share the concern of a growing body of women, however. The church has to, HAS to stop elevating men at the expense of women. They have to stop the modesty nonsense. They have to give women a means of speaking up rather than just telling them they should and they have to stop telling abused women to go talk to a man without further recourse, they do have to adjust with the fact that there will be some Joe Bishops lurking in the corner. And so on. 

But this is quite apart from how inspired and hardworking the vast, vast majority of bishops are. My current bishop is very tuned into this kind of stuff. 

I hear you.  Thank you for bringing more objectivity to my remarks.  I hear you.

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Why? I doubt the sisters of the church are going to assume every authority figure is going to assault her

Actually, I wasn't just talking about assaults..but just getting some help.  From previous posts here, I am understanding that women hold great regards for priesthood holders and I was wrong.

[Guest]

On March 22, 2018 at 8:23 PM, jkwilliams said:

I think that is well beyond creepy. And to think just yesterday people were calling the victim crazy and/or evil for manipulating a helpless old man. 

He was not an "old man" when he did this to her, so the method of getting him on tape..."any means necessary". In politics it is the norm to blame the victim. But this is not politics, this is a Church, and a man in a position of trust, and that trust is violated. The idea that a young woman's first sexual encounter was rape, by someone who is supposed to protect her, makes me sick to my stomach!