jkwilliams Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Could be. No one thought of that. Mormon intellectuals read it. but not a secret room. I'm usually all for satire, but please, not on this thread.
jkwilliams Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 7 hours ago, Calm said: Cleaning gum off the seats at the Varsity Theater and the candy off the floor of the candy counter back in 1980 is still very fresh in my mind. Hated the hour but the quiet was quite restful at times and excruciatingly boring at others. If I had to clean or otherwise care for a weird bedroom next to the Varsity Theater, boy, would I have remembered that. I was actually thinking there might be a chance that some former student employed to clean the MTC might speak up about it since my mind immediately went to my experience as a cleaner and going into the storage rooms, but I thought it was so disgusting to suggest they would have had to care for the bed and clean up what might have been a sex room and surely he would have been intelligent enough to keep the room off limits, I didn't say anything. I wonder if one of the reasons her bishop didn't believe her is that the description of a special room in the basement of the MTC sounded made up. Is it wrong that my first thought was of the bed they kept in the FLDS temple? I'm reminded of when I worked at Novell in the 90s. Each building had a "recovery" room with a bed in it, which was for use when someone wasn't feeling well or needed to sleep (engineers work odd hours). One of the IT guys apparently used it for frequent trysts in an adulterous affair. So, I thought the suggestion of special room in the MTC sounded very strange but not impossible. This whole story is so revolting on many levels. 2
Calm Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I'm usually all for satire, but please, not on this thread. Is it new form of poetry, do you think? Haiku, the extended version?
jkwilliams Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 Just now, Calm said: Is it new form of poetry, do you think? Haiku, the extended version? Maybe, only Haiku is more interesting. The best satire, of course, is the kind that you're never totally sure is satire. By the way, it's really nice to interact with you again. I hope all is well with you these days. We are in the midst of a very busy year: a college graduation coming up, 2 new grandsons on the way, and a wedding. Life is good.
Gray Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 9 hours ago, Calm said: The man admitted under a controlled interrogation by BYU detectives...so not exactly hostile enforcers...that he asked her to expose herself. He also went on an on about how his wives were so messed up, the first preventing him from having a normal relationship because it was a sexless marriage and the second one, who had divorced him six months previously and was claimed to be remarrying him shortly (got to wonder about that) was according to him screwed up from the beginning of their marriage....and this was even before he was challenged about molesting, it was in a casual interview that was supposed to be about his spirituality, etc. and instead he rants about his exwife. He has provided a ton of evidence to condemn himself. Ignore all the "yeses" to her comments, I am. Just go with what he volunteered...excessively and articulately. The more he talked the deeper he dug the pit. Anyone can read the transcript and see the evidence for themselves. Read the police report. Not to mention his former colleague at Weber, who described him as a liar and a manipulator.
The Nehor Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Mormon intellectuals read it. How do you know that? Have you ever met one?
Popular Post The Nehor Posted March 23, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Storm Rider said: LOL, you are such a hypocrite. You make me laugh. Put down that smug self-righteousness and remember what God has told us about judging one another. On the other hand, have at it. That standard you seek to judge others will be the standard you are judged by. Judge away, great one. I avoid defending sexual predators and am comfortable if God wants to judge me harshly if I were to choose to do so. That you see that bar as a high standard that is difficult to achieve and that one should worry about being held to that standard via judgement is more than a little disturbing. If this missionary were your daughter would you still defend her assaulter with calls not to judge lest you be judged by the same standard? Edited March 23, 2018 by The Nehor 6
Popular Post churchistrue Posted March 23, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2018 9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: So far you have rumor and hearsay. I want names, dates, records, and prosecution. I want facts, not wild speculation. I have no doubt that local leaders have made mistakes, and I can cite specific examples with hard data, but SLC HQ does not take such matters lightly when they are informed. Unfortunately, the facts don't always get back to the Brethren in a timely manner. They and law enforcement should be informed immediately, not decades later. You need to realize, Tacenda, that the actual evidence has largely disappeared when decades have gone by. Even civil suits become very difficult. Does she seem like she's lying to you? Fact after fact has been corroborated. Even that she's naming Asay I think tells something. He's the one that would have been assigned to her, based on his personal knowledge of Bishop and the situation at the MTC. And he's the one that she's claiming to have met with. Also, the Church's answer was not that they were never told, only that "no record exists". Carefully worded. I think there's very, very solid reason to believe she talked to Asay. 11
Popular Post hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, churchistrue said: Does she seem like she's lying to you? Fact after fact has been corroborated. Even that she's naming Asay I think tells something. He's the one that would have been assigned to her, based on his personal knowledge of Bishop and the situation at the MTC. And he's the one that she's claiming to have met with. Also, the Church's answer was not that they were never told, only that "no record exists". Carefully worded. I think there's very, very solid reason to believe she talked to Asay. I agree, and this leads me to wonder if a record did exist at one point in time, but that it no longer does. Of course this is just pure speculation on my part, but I bring it up as a possibility because it would align closely with the church's interests. The church's primary concerns I believe are liability and public relations more than they are concerned about getting to the bottom of the problem or helping the victim. 5
Popular Post jkwilliams Posted March 23, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2018 18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I agree, and this leads me to wonder if a record did exist at one point in time, but that it no longer does. Of course this is just pure speculation on my part, but I bring it up as a possibility because it would align closely with the church's interests. The church's primary concerns I believe are liability and public relations more than they are concerned about getting to the bottom of the problem or helping the victim. That's one of the biggest problems with sexual assault: physical evidence must be gathered almost immediately after the assault, or it becomes the victim's word against the abuser's. If Monica Lewinsky hadn't saved that blue dress, there would not have been an impeachment. But there are so many reasons victims don't report immediately, if ever. Did I do something to cause the abuse? Was it really assault, or did I consent in some way? Will people think I'm damaged goods? Will anyone believe me? Am I physically and emotionally well enough to go through an invasive examination and investigation? And look what happens when someone like this comes forward. It's not like she never said anything to anyone until now. She reported it to her bishop over 30 years ago, and she's been trying to get someone to believe her since then. I doubt many of us would have the strength to persist with this for so long. 7
blueglass Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, churchistrue said: Does she seem like she's lying to you? Fact after fact has been corroborated. Even that she's naming Asay I think tells something. He's the one that would have been assigned to her, based on his personal knowledge of Bishop and the situation at the MTC. And he's the one that she's claiming to have met with. Also, the Church's answer was not that they were never told, only that "no record exists". Carefully worded. I think there's very, very solid reason to believe she talked to Asay. Does this sound familiar? "The rumors prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials" Edited March 23, 2018 by blueglass 4
Popular Post Abulafia Posted March 23, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2018 So it seems to me that the Mickelson, Robison and Bishop cases indicate that there is a failure in the system at the highest levels of leadership to protect the abused. What can be done to change the system and make it more robust? Is patriarchy at fault here? Bias towards rewarding loyalty to the church in high leadership over individual ethics? Inappropriate trust? Naivety? Lack of training? A culture of obedience? What can truly and realistically be changed? 6
Popular Post Analytics Posted March 23, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2018 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: So far you have rumor and hearsay. I want names, dates, records, and prosecution. I want facts, not wild speculation. I have no doubt that local leaders have made mistakes, and I can cite specific examples with hard data, but SLC HQ does not take such matters lightly when they are informed. Unfortunately, the facts don't always get back to the Brethren in a timely manner. They and law enforcement should be informed immediately, not decades later. You need to realize, Tacenda, that the actual evidence has largely disappeared when decades have gone by. Even civil suits become very difficult. In theory, sure--they should have been informed immediately. But I'm trying to imagine exactly how that would work. The CEO of Federal Express famously gives his home phone number to all employees, and they are instructed to call him if there is a problem that needs to immediately be escalated that high. But in the mission structure, the rule book is clear--all problems go to the mission president. Missionaries should never contact general authorities--not to question your mission president's judgment. Not to report a problem. Not even to report a rape. These days, most college campuses have lighted emergency phones so that if you are attacked in the middle of the night you can call the cops for help. Do they have those installed in the MTC? Of course not. So what do you do? At a secular college, at orientation you are instructed on what to do if you are the victim of a crime. But in the mission, you aren't instructed on what to do, other than talk to your priesthood leaders, who all report to the guy you are alleging violated you. In this case the victim did tell her bishop what happened soon after her mission, and he didn't believe her. If her own bishop didn't believe her, why would the Provo police department? The only reason anybody believes her now is she secretly taped a conversation. 9
Duncan Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, Abulafia said: So it seems to me that the Mickelson, Robison and Bishop cases indicate that there is a failure in the system at the highest levels of leadership to protect the abused. What can be done to change the system and make it more robust? Is patriarchy at fault here? Bias towards rewarding loyalty to the church in high leadership over individual ethics? Inappropriate trust? Naivety? Lack of training? A culture of obedience? What can truly and realistically be changed? what is the Robison case? or the Mickelsen one as well?!
hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That's one of the biggest problems with sexual assault: physical evidence must be gathered almost immediately after the assault, or it becomes the victim's word against the abuser's. If Monica Lewinsky hadn't saved that blue dress, there would not have been an impeachment. But there are so many reasons victims don't report immediately, if ever. Did I do something to cause the abuse? Was it really assault, or did I consent in some way? Will people think I'm damaged goods? Will anyone believe me? Am I physically and emotionally well enough to go through an invasive examination and investigation? And look what happens when someone like this comes forward. It's not like she never said anything to anyone until now. She reported it to her bishop over 30 years ago, and she's been trying to get someone to believe her since then. I doubt many of us would have the strength to persist with this for so long. And this is the conundrum because most abuse victims aren't psychologically functioning in a capacity to be gathering evidence after they have been abused. This is why we need to put as many protections in place as possible, and I think its clear that the church was negligent on multiple levels. 2
Amulek Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 11 hours ago, Calm said: Anyone can read the transcript and see the evidence for themselves. Read the police report. Has the police report been posted somewhere? I haven't seen it yet. All I've seen have been articles that quote from it. If you've got a link, could you post it please?
drums12 Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 1 hour ago, churchistrue said: Does she seem like she's lying to you? Fact after fact has been corroborated. Even that she's naming Asay I think tells something. He's the one that would have been assigned to her, based on his personal knowledge of Bishop and the situation at the MTC. And he's the one that she's claiming to have met with. Also, the Church's answer was not that they were never told, only that "no record exists". Carefully worded. I think there's very, very solid reason to believe she talked to Asay. Did you read carefully what Robert was saying? He wasn't talking about this case specifically, but rather Tacenda's accusation of systemic cover ups? 1
blueglass Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 27 minutes ago, Abulafia said: So it seems to me that the Mickelson, Robison and Bishop cases indicate that there is a failure in the system at the highest levels of leadership to protect the abused. Woah. I never heard of this one. Richard G Scott was involved as well? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A97odud60o How were Karren's accusations vetted?
Popular Post Marginal Gains Posted March 23, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Got to love these stories that go back decades. Barely remember what I was doing in 1984. It was my freshman year in high school and listened to Van Halen "1984" album. It is always amazing to find how suing for some money this many years later eases the pain. Must be getting close to retirement age and needs enough to make it through ok. And nobody say it is not about the money because in almost every case none of the people who make money off these lawsuits donate the proceeds to charity. She reported it in 1987 - no actionShe reported it in 2010 - no actionShe reported it in 2016 - no actionA lawyer reported it, along with a tape recording, in January 2018 - the Church tries to pay her off in a hush hush settlementIt hits the press in March 2018 - the only action the Church takes is to remove his books from sale The allegations and circumstances have been corroborated by the perpetrator himself, and now by an independent witness. The Church had the confession and had been trying to settle in silence for 3 months when it went out with a statement this week that started "If the allegations are true" trying to suggest she might be making it up. They already knew she wasn't. But hey, don't let the inconvenient facts get in the way of your victim blaming. And for the record, the perpetrator is still a member in good standing. Edited March 23, 2018 by Marginal Gains 8
Nofear Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, Abulafia said: So it seems to me that the Mickelson, Robison and Bishop cases indicate that there is a failure in the system at the highest levels of leadership to protect the abused. The ethics of how to respond to abuse is something I considered with this event. So let's make a short hypothetical where there is a he said / she said scenario with an accusation of rape. For the purposes of the hypothetical no other evidence is available. There are two basic scenarios where the accounts disagree. False Denial -- rape did occur but was denied by the perpetrator False Accusation -- rape did not occur In the false denial situation if the perpetrator is believed the victim receives non-trivial emotional and social harm from the failure to be believed. The harm of the rape is exacerbated. In the false accusation scenario, the life of the accused is potentially ruined with very possible outcomes of loss of employment, imprisonment, family disruption, etc. From a strictly utilitarian view, the harm/damage created by a false accusation is new, significant, and very damaging. The harm from the false denial is certainly not to be discounted but I see it as less than the harm of most false accusation scenarios. Given that ethical calculus, it is better to error by not punishing an accusation without non-trivial evidence to change the ethical calculus as it were. One objection to this is the statement that very few false accusations occur, relatively speaking. Suppose that 99% of accusations are true. Does that change the above weighting? What if only 1% of accusations were true? Where do we draw the line? Believing in Blackstone's formulation, I prefer to error on letting the guilty go unpunished than to falsely condemn the innocent. This is, of course, one of the themes of the book To Kill a Mockingbird, where the community erred by believing the false accusation because the woman was white and the accused black. That same line of reasoning occurred de facto in this thread. Many were willing to withhold judgment barring more significant evidence. More significant evidence did come to light and fewer interlocutors here seem to favor the false accusation scenario. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 44 minutes ago, Abulafia said: So it seems to me that the Mickelson, Robison and Bishop cases indicate that there is a failure in the system at the highest levels of leadership to protect the abused. What can be done to change the system and make it more robust? Is patriarchy at fault here? Bias towards rewarding loyalty to the church in high leadership over individual ethics? Inappropriate trust? Naivety? Lack of training? A culture of obedience? What can truly and realistically be changed? Great questions. Obviously, it's important to enact procedures and a culture which supports and assists the survivors of abuse. Culture starts at the top of the organization. This culture could be impacted by top leadership addressing it directly, not through PR statements. Improved culture can be vastly improved for those who have suffered but it can also be improved to provide protections for those who are vulnerable. Everything you mention is part of the problem but the good news is it could all be changed, if there was a desire to change it. Again, this must be done from the top down. We need leadership from our leaders on these issues. For starters, accepting that there may be some problems with existing practices of mandatory one-on-one interviews. Let's have a conversation about this with leadership. Of course that can only happen if leadership chooses to engage in conversation or lead towards change. The patriarchal/hierarchical structure of the church won't allow it to be done in other ways. The ball is in the court of top church leaders. What will they do with it? 2
Exiled Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 19 minutes ago, blueglass said: Woah. I never heard of this one. Richard G Scott was involved as well? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A97odud60o How were Karren's accusations vetted? I think this case was gone over ad-nausea on a prior thread a few years ago. If memory serves, this guy making the accusations had a lot of holes in his story and was doing a lot of the accusing in the context of a custody battle where these types of accusations abound. 1
jkwilliams Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, Exiled said: I think this case was gone over ad-nausea on a prior thread a few years ago. If memory serves, this guy making the accusations had a lot of holes in his story and was doing a lot of the accusing in the context of a custody battle where these types of accusations abound. I remember that one. I wasn't impressed, either.
The Nehor Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: That's one of the biggest problems with sexual assault: physical evidence must be gathered almost immediately after the assault, or it becomes the victim's word against the abuser's. If Monica Lewinsky hadn't saved that blue dress, there would not have been an impeachment. But there are so many reasons victims don't report immediately, if ever. Did I do something to cause the abuse? Was it really assault, or did I consent in some way? Will people think I'm damaged goods? Will anyone believe me? Am I physically and emotionally well enough to go through an invasive examination and investigation? And look what happens when someone like this comes forward. It's not like she never said anything to anyone until now. She reported it to her bishop over 30 years ago, and she's been trying to get someone to believe her since then. I doubt many of us would have the strength to persist with this for so long. Pretty much this. 38 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: And this is the conundrum because most abuse victims aren't psychologically functioning in a capacity to be gathering evidence after they have been abused. This is why we need to put as many protections in place as possible, and I think its clear that the church was negligent on multiple levels. I am not convinced of this.
Jeanne Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 12 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Because fabrications do happen. In a conservative magazine Jason Richwine makes the case that false accusations may be more common than we think https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-common-are-false-rape-charges-really-jason-richwine/ But I am not taking a side. I will let the authorities decide if Bishop is guilty or not. Many reasons https://ocrsm.umd.edu/files/Why-Is-Sexual-Assault-Under-Reported.pdf The church doesn't tolerate sexual abuse It doesn't??? How many times does a woman and/or wife can report abuse before anything is done??? 1
Recommended Posts