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

[rpn]

16 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.

For me, it is fully enough to excommunicate a MP who admits to asking one of his charges to show him their breasts.   (And he not just did this in her interview of him, but also to the BYU police days later.)  And it would be enough that he took in a women he knew to have been so ill mentally that her mission assignment had to be changed when she tried to commit suicide to his HOME where he gave her a back rub in which he acknowledged inappropriate behavior (unspecified, but "a little frisky).   That is the evilest sort of wickedness and abuse of power, whether or not he considers it not rape because he couldn't get himself in her because he admittedly had an ED problem (and it is more likely to me that she called it attempted rape at first because she thought the crime required full penatration which he wasn't then able to do).

All this parsing everyone is doing suggesting that only the authorities can determine whether or not this is bad stuff or who is truthful, belies the fact that he admits to having a second "office" in the basement.  For what purpose if not for his bad behaviors.   

The Brethren do not have to and shouldn't insist on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt --- it is always hard to understand and believe how a seemingly standup person, vouched for in this case by a lifetime friend in Elder Robert Wells, and a long time friend in Carlos Asay, could be so evil.   And that is how for so many years so much wickedness has gone on without challenge.   But we have an opportunity in this moment of change to say NEVER AGAIN.   We are NOT going to accept excuses that minimize the very really awfulness of abuse of power.  

The church standard is proven by two witnesses, in this case this woman, and for fundamental awfulness Bishop himself.   It's out there, and Bishop's family and church leaders do Bishop no favors in failing to hold him fully accountable in excommunication so he can get to the other side of the repentance process before he dies.   I can't see Jesus saying, he's a good guy and this lady should have reported it early and gotten over it by now.

(I get why the church has pulled back on the settlement discussions: I would have done that too given what was likely a blindsided release, and because no payment can make this woman whole:  I suspect that the Church has little legal risk for what happened originally or in all the failure to do things in the past.   But I also think that their response of we don't know because they say different things won't overcome a defamation claim, probably not even in a believing community.   If I were advising the church, I would have sent President Nelson and the RSP to this woman (and the other woman from the MTC, and the one in Florida mentioned in the transcript) to apologize and offer whatever the women needed, and Bishop would be excommunicated forthwith, and anyone who knew about her claims and did nothing would be released forthwith.   All of which would be publically announced so that everyone knew that the Church organization means what it says about not putting up with abuse.)

I also get how those without personal experience in the weeds of survivors and perps can want to believe the best and might even read that transcript without seeing so clearly between the lines that there is no doubt that he knew he was wrong ---- he was very worried about his family finding out, and the church being hurt: he never once said she was accusing him falsely.   But this isn't just sound and fury from survivors.  It is the hell that many survivors have endured in the past that we need to STOP and never accept ever again.

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by rpn

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Calling 911 is best. Sure. But missionaries aren't allowed to use the telephone without permission. So how does a trainee at the MTC go about getting permission from their priesthood authority figures to call 911 and report that the president of the MTC attempted to rape you? Or do you make the call without permission? If so, how to you get access to a phone?

In principle, a missionary should simply exert his free agency and act like a free-thinking adult and demand to use the phone. But is it really that simple? It reminds me of Bill Shunn's memoir, The Accidental Terrorist: Confessions of a Reluctant Missionary. The book is about a couple of missionaries who wanted to do what probably most missionaries want to do at one point or another--exercise your free agency and simply quit. However, as the book illustrates the system and its culture make doing this extremely difficult. Just as it is nearly impossible to quit a mission, it would be nearly impossible to gain access to a telephone in the MTC so you could call 911.

If members are supposed to act like adults living in the real world, this should be taught to them and they should be treated that way. But they aren't.

Excellent points all, Analytics, and it is asking a lot of young people to act like adults in such controlled circumstances.  However, it is actually quite easy for a missionary trainee at MTC to simply walk off campus and use any available phone.  Dialing 911 is free and immediate. One would only do that in extreme circumstances anyhow.  Disobeying the rules seems irrelevant in such cases.

I recall the tight restrictions in Marine Corps boot camp.  Even with that, however, we had young men who wrote a letter to their congressman and got immediate results.  Where there's a will, there's a way, we used to say.  We also had the absolute right to "request mast," which was the power to immediately see the commanding officer (usually the Captain) to complain about anything. We were young and stupid, but we all knew not to use such power for small matters.  Too bad that Mormon parents don't each their children to exhibit some backbone and independence.

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Calling 911 is best. Sure. But missionaries aren't allowed to use the telephone without permission. So how does a trainee at the MTC go about getting permission from their priesthood authority figures to call 911 and report that the president of the MTC attempted to rape you? Or do you make the call without permission? If so, how to you get access to a phone?

In principle, a missionary should simply exert his free agency and act like a free-thinking adult and demand to use the phone. But is it really that simple? It reminds me of Bill Shunn's memoir, The Accidental Terrorist: Confessions of a Reluctant Missionary. The book is about a couple of missionaries who wanted to do what probably most missionaries want to do at one point or another--exercise your free agency and simply quit. However, as the book illustrates the system and its culture make doing this extremely difficult. Just as it is nearly impossible to quit a mission, it would be nearly impossible to gain access to a telephone in the MTC so you could call 911.

If members are supposed to act like adults living in the real world, this should be taught to them and they should be treated that way. But they aren't.

Perhaps impossible in the 80’s; in the 90s there were BLUE emergency phones throughtout the MTC grounds.

[Nofear]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is another factor...if true accusations are not believed, the predator is not prevented from abusing others.

I quite agree. Part of the reason I used the phrase "not punishing an accusation" as opposed to "not believing the accuser". I personally would take precautions in allowing my children to have interactions with somebody who was accused but for which there was insufficient evidence to ethically create an actionable response. Just because somebody can't reasonably prove an accusation doesn't been they shouldn't be believed.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Excellent points all, Analytics, and it is asking a lot of young people to act like adults in such controlled circumstances.  However, it is actually quite easy for a missionary trainee at MTC to simply walk off campus and use any available phone.  Dialing 911 is free and immediate. One would only do that in extreme circumstances anyhow.  Disobeying the rules seems irrelevant in such cases.

I recall the tight restrictions in Marine Corps boot camp.  Even with that, however, we had young men who wrote a letter to their congressman and got immediate results.  Where there's a will, there's a way, we used to say.  We also had the absolute right to "request mast," which was the power to immediately see the commanding officer (usually the Captain) to complain about anything. We were young and stupid, but we all knew not to use such power for small matters.  Too bad that Mormon parents don't each their children to exhibit some backbone and independence.

There are always examples of people who are able to get change in spite of the system. Predators like Bishop, however, don't go after the strong. They prey on the vulnerable. I work for a large corporation. There is regular training provided where we are instructed on how to call an ombudsman and in what scenarios we are to do so. Those high up in the company want to know if anything outside of company polices is going on at middle levels of management. They encourage reporting and provide the means to do so. In contrast, everything about the MTC experience encourages the opposite. I have never sat through a church lesson in my life that tells me what to do when the person I'm supposed to trust is actually the abuser. Missionaries are taught obedience from day one. They are cut off from the outside world by design. The brethren actively discourage the membership from coming to them.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, rpn said:

For me, it is fully enough to excommunicate a MP who admits to asking one of his charges to show him their breasts.   (And he not just did this in her interview of him, but also to the BYU police days later.)  And it would be enough that he took in a women he knew to have been so ill mentally that her mission assignment had to be changed when she tried to commit suicide to his HOME where he gave her a back rub in which he acknowledged inappropriate behavior (unspecified, but "a little frisky).   That is the evilest sort of wickedness and abuse of power, whether or not he considers it not rape because he couldn't get himself in her because he admittedly had an ED problem (and it is more likely to me that she called it attempted rape at first because she thought the crime required full penatration which he wasn't then able to do).

All this parsing everyone is doing suggesting that only the authorities can determine whether or not this is bad stuff or who is truthful, belies the fact that he admits to having a second "office" in the basement.  For what purpose if not for his bad behaviors.   

The Brethren do not have to and shouldn't insist on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt --- it is always hard to understand and believe how a seemingly standup person, vouched for in this case by a lifetime friend in Elder Robert Wells, and a long time friend in Carlos Asay, could be so evil.   And that is how for so many years so much wickedness has gone on without challenge.   But we have an opportunity in this moment of change to say NEVER AGAIN.   We are NOT going to accept excuses that minimize the very really awfulness of abuse of power.  

The church standard is proven by two witnesses, in this case this woman, and for fundamental awfulness Bishop himself.   It's out there, and Bishop's family and church leaders to Bishop no favors in failing to hold him fully accountable in excommunication so he can get to the other side of the repentance process before he dies.   I can't see Jesus saying, he's a good guy and this lady should have reported it early and gotten over it by now.

(I get why the church has pulled back on the settlement discussions: I would have done that too given what was likely a blindsided release, and because no payment can make this woman whole:  I suspect that the Church has little legal risk for what happened originally or in all the failure to do things in the past.   But I also think that their response of we don't know because they say different things won't overcome a defamation claim, probably not even in a believing community.   If I were advising the church, I would have sent President Nelson and the RSP to this woman (and the other woman from the MTC, and the one in Florida mentioned in the transcript) to apologize and offer whatever the women needed, and Bishop would be excommunicated forthwith, and anyone who knew about her claims and did nothing would be released forthwith.   All of which would be publically announced so that everyone knew that the Church organization means what it says about not putting up with abuse.)

I also get how those without personal experience in the weeds of survivors and perps can want to believe the best and might even read that transcript without seeing so clearly between the lines that there is no doubt that he knew he was wrong ---- he was very worried about his family finding out, and the church being hurt: he never once said she was accusing him falsely.   But this isn't just sound and fury from survivors.  It is the hell that many survivors have endured in the past that we need to STOP and never accept ever again.

Except for the notion of "never again," nearly all of what you say is on point.  However, we still need a systematic presentation of the facts, not rumors.  All our actions must be based on well-established facts.  That is a good basis for civil actions, if the statute of limitations has passed on criminal violations.  If we want excommunication, then court action will go far toward achieving that objective.  Mealy-mouthed assertions will not mean much until heavy judgments are levied.  Exposes need to be written by careful journalists.

It is plainly naive to believe that we can ever achieve a "never again" status on such crimes.  We will see more in the future, and must be ready for them.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

All significant events in your life or just the ones you can remember?

For example I can remember pretty well the events of my wedding day but not so much the birth of my first child, both significant events. I can remember my baptism but not my ordination to be a deacon.  There were a lot of significant events in my life some I can remember well, some not so well and some not at all. I also think you would be surprised how crystal clear your memory actually is about those events you do think you remember well. The further back a memory is the more it likely has been unconsciously changed in our  own mind. For example, I have been camping with a certain friend for over 20 years. This guy works in the entertainment industry and has great stories to tell. He once spent five years traveling with Frank Sinatra. The other day when we were out camping he was telling people some of these stories and I asked him to tell the story about asking Sammy Davis Jr for change for a $20.00 bill. (The punch line I clearly remembered was Sammy replying "Babe, $20 is change"). My friend stops and says, "I never worked with Sammy." yet I have this crystal clear memory of my friend telling that story.

I'm not sure why you chose a story that you thought somebody else had told you as your anecdotal example of incorrect memory of a significant event.

When I was high school, one of my classmates was attacked by a non-student who had come onto the campus. After my classmate fought him off the intruder pulled a knife and the two started circling. I witnessed the whole incident. I will never forget the words that were exchanged between the two nor will I forget the teacher who risked his life trying to keep the them apart. The intruder finally left without incident.

I'm confident that what this woman remembers about being abused has a better chance of accurate recollection than a story that you think you heard from a friend.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Too bad that Mormon parents don't each their children to exhibit some backbone and independence.

In this case, the parent had raped his daughter.

Victims of abuse and assault often become victims of abuse and assault because they are already vulnerable.  Predators who have time to choose their prey aren't likely to choose ones who look like they will fight back.  Expecting that behaviour from those who are victims precisely because they have not been taught independence, self worth, etc. is irrational imo.

In an ideal world every one would have backbone and independence.  Predators however operate in the worse of our very unideal world.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There are always examples of people who are able to get change in spite of the system. Predators like Bishop, however, don't go after the strong. They prey on the vulnerable. I work for a large corporation. There is regular training provided where we are instructed on how to call an ombudsman and in what scenarios we are to do so. Those high up in the company want to know if anything outside of company polices is going on at middle levels of management. They encourage reporting and provide the means to do so. In contrast, everything about the MTC experience encourages the opposite. I have never sat through a church lesson in my life that tells me what to do when the person I'm supposed to trust is actually the abuser. Missionaries are taught obedience from day one. They are cut off from the outside world by design. The brethren actively discourage the membership from coming to them.

The most important rule is that "there are no rules."  Does anyone know what that means?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The most important rule is that "there are no rules."  

You must go to a different church than I did.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The most important rule is that "there are no rules."  Does anyone know what that means?

There is no Fight Club?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

In this case, the parent had raped his daughter.

Victims of abuse and assault often become victims of abuse and assault because they are already vulnerable.  Predators who have time to choose their prey aren't likely to choose ones who look like they will fight back.  Expecting that behaviour from those who are victims precisely because they have not been taught independence, self worth, etc. is irrational imo.

In an ideal world every one would have backbone and independence.  Predators however operate in the worse of our very unideal world.

Once again, this always depends on the immediate circumstances. I was speaking to rape by the MTC Pres.  Rape by a parent requires an immediate call to the police (by victim, friend, sibling, or mother) and a rape kit at the hospital.  In such cases, it cannot be consensual by law.  The state will prosecute the rape, and does not even need the testimony of the victim.

A best case scenario? Yes, and you are correct that the victims are unlikely to do or say anything.  They are weak, and have been groomed.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You must go to a different church than I did.

 

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is no Fight Club?

C'mon, guys.  There are always going to be extreme circumstances which leave behind the ordinary, accepted rules.  Why?  Because the ordinary rules are inadequate to deal with extreme circumstances.  All of us are independent, thinking humans, and the LDS Church is not the only consideration which should be brought to bear.  One must be prepared to step outside the system if necessary.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Why not?  Are you saying abuse victims should do a better job of gathering evidence, or are you disagreeing why my point that proper protections weren't in place?  

I am saying there is no way to put “proper protections” in place that can absolutely prevent these things from happening without becoming a police state.

I am good with taking reasonable steps to mitigate these things happening but it happening is not a blank check for change.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Great, glad for you.  How about you keep your opinion and I will do the same.  There is nothing for us to discuss.  You will be on ignore and I never have to see stupid comments again.  Cheers

Your opinion is terrible but okay.

[jkwilliams]

42 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Excellent points all, Analytics, and it is asking a lot of young people to act like adults in such controlled circumstances.  However, it is actually quite easy for a missionary trainee at MTC to simply walk off campus and use any available phone.  Dialing 911 is free and immediate. One would only do that in extreme circumstances anyhow.  Disobeying the rules seems irrelevant in such cases.

I recall the tight restrictions in Marine Corps boot camp.  Even with that, however, we had young men who wrote a letter to their congressman and got immediate results.  Where there's a will, there's a way, we used to say.  We also had the absolute right to "request mast," which was the power to immediately see the commanding officer (usually the Captain) to complain about anything. We were young and stupid, but we all knew not to use such power for small matters.  Too bad that Mormon parents don't each their children to exhibit some backbone and independence.

Years ago, when I was still active in the church, we were at a family activity, and I was talking to a couple and their oldest child, who was entering the MTC the following week. As neither parent had served a mission, they asked what advice I wished I had been given before my mission, and I said, “Don’t ever do anything you don’t think is right, no matter who tells you to do it and how much pressure you get to conform.” (Gee, I sounded like Brother Bukowski.)

After the son walked away, the parents told me I should not have said that, that he needed to learn obedience to inspired priesthood leaders, and it wasn’t his place to “rebel” against priesthood authority. 

Edited March 23, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

In this case, the parent had raped his daughter.

Victims of abuse and assault often become victims of abuse and assault because they are already vulnerable.  Predators who have time to choose their prey aren't likely to choose ones who look like they will fight back.  Expecting that behaviour from those who are victims precisely because they have not been taught independence, self worth, etc. is irrational imo.

In an ideal world every one would have backbone and independence.  Predators however operate in the worse of our very unideal world.

And so often the victim feels part of the blame and don't tell. Somehow they think it's their fault believe it or not, those that are apalled that they have no back bone or whatever. 

And in the case with the woman and Bishop, she didn't want to hurt others' testimonies with what she knew since it was with someone so high up in the church. 

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm curious, Robert; have you ever had occasion to interact with an individual in the minutes immediately following a traumatic sexual assault?  Rational thought is not necessarily a reasonable expectation.   Moreover, the suggestion to use "common sense" is often overridden by fear of retribution, especially in relatively authoritarian organizations, in the weeks and months that follow.  I don't think you are setting reasonable expectations on the alleged victim in formulating your argument.

Your point is well taken here.  It might help for the victim to simply get mad, or want to get even.  Attitudes differ from one community to the other, with women in the Black community more likely to get angry and do something about it.  I worked with a strong Black woman who had been raped on a date, and she was very annoyed and unsettled by the experience.  I did not recommend that she notify law enforcement (we were both in law enforcement), but just continued to treat her as the great person she was.  She handled the matter well.  I also had a very close friend who was raped on a date with a fellow hospital worker in SLC.  She did not report it, and I was not going to guilt-trip her on not doing so.  She was a karate black belt, but could not bring herself to injure the guy.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And so often the victim feels part of the blame and don't tell. Somehow they think it's their fault believe it or not, those that are apalled that they have no back bone or whatever. 

And to be lectured on what they should have done if only they had been strong or knowledgeable enough isn't going to help.

If God gives revelation adapted to the "weakest of saints", then it is wise imo to consider how our own words might better reach out to the weak as well.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m having trouble with your logic. The brethren put policies in place that make it difficult to communicate with them (they discourage it in general conference, they send letters back), but we can’t blame them for these policies?

The brethren tell us they have the gift of discernment, Elder Eyring tells us callings are perfect.  The brethren tell us not to criticize them. We are taught to trust our bishops, to go them with our life’s struggles. And when people believe this and act on it, the brethren have no responsibility?

"callings are perfect"?   "the brethren have no responsibility"?  Nonsense.  Pres Eyring and the Brethren have made no such claims.

I have personally sent major items to members of the Twelve, and they were not sent back to my Stake Pres.  Instead, I have received nice letters in response -- one of them quite detailed.  The Brethren should not be treated as fools.

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Excellent points all, Analytics, and it is asking a lot of young people to act like adults in such controlled circumstances.  However, it is actually quite easy for a missionary trainee at MTC to simply walk off campus and use any available phone.  Dialing 911 is free and immediate. One would only do that in extreme circumstances anyhow.  Disobeying the rules seems irrelevant in such cases.

I recall the tight restrictions in Marine Corps boot camp.  Even with that, however, we had young men who wrote a letter to their congressman and got immediate results.  Where there's a will, there's a way, we used to say.  We also had the absolute right to "request mast," which was the power to immediately see the commanding officer (usually the Captain) to complain about anything. We were young and stupid, but we all knew not to use such power for small matters.  Too bad that Mormon parents don't each their children to exhibit some backbone and independence.

It's funny--I still have dreams about this. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had a pretty vivid dream about being on a mission and wanting to walk away from it. Even in my dream walking away was a difficult, complicated thing.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on Shunn's story (The Accidental Terrorist)--it really illustrates how difficult it is to walk away. Just walking out of the MTC to the nearest phone to call 911 is almost as hard as walking off of the set of The Truman Show. In a sense it would probably be easy. But at the same time, I could imagine staff members, security guards, leaders, and other missionaries trying to physically restrain you. Ultimately they'll let you go if that's what you really want to do, but not before long talks and counseling back in the mission president's office where they try to manipulate you to change your mind. 

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am saying there is no way to put “proper protections” in place that can absolutely prevent these things from happening without becoming a police state.

I am good with taking reasonable steps to mitigate these things happening but it happening is not a blank check for change.

Proper protections doesn't equal perfect protections.  There will still be abuses and mistakes, but the church needs to do a better job with the knowledge we have.  This is no excuse for negligence. 

The courts may very well be deciding whether the church took reasonable steps to mitigate these things from happening in this case.  

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's funny--I still have dreams about this. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had a pretty vivid dream about being on a mission and wanting to walk away from it. Even in my dream walking away was a difficult, complicated thing.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on Shunn's story (The Accidental Terrorist)--it really illustrates how difficult it is to walk away. Just walking out of the MTC to the nearest phone to call 911 is almost as hard as walking off of the set of The Truman Show. In a sense it would probably be easy. But at the same time, I could imagine staff members, security guards, leaders, and other missionaries trying to physically restrain you. Ultimately they'll let you go if that's what you really want to do, but not before long talks and counseling back in the mission president's office where they try to manipulate you to change your mind. 

In my mission, if you weren’t deathly ill or hadn’t broken the law of chastity, it was extremely difficult to leave. Our passports were kept in a safe in the mission office, so you couldn’t just leave without the consequences you describe. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Proper protections doesn't equal perfect protections.  There will still be abuses and mistakes, but the church needs to do a better job with the knowledge we have.  This is no excuse for negligence. 

The courts may very well be deciding whether the church took reasonable steps to mitigate these things from happening in this case.  

I hear a lot of clamoring for changes and some of these changes I find impractical or the cure about as bad as the disease.

The courts will do what they will. I doubt she will go after the church though. Proving negligence this long after the fact would be even harder than winning a civil case against him and I doubt she can win there.

[HappyJackWagon]

47 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

C'mon, guys.  There are always going to be extreme circumstances which leave behind the ordinary, accepted rules.  Why?  Because the ordinary rules are inadequate to deal with extreme circumstances.  All of us are independent, thinking humans, and the LDS Church is not the only consideration which should be brought to bear.  One must be prepared to step outside the system if necessary.

Agreed. And I'm all for getting that message out more because it's definitely not the message I've been taught throughout my life in the church.

 

*PS- Not sure why you included me and my quote in that message. I'm assuming you didn't catch my somewhat obscure reference. Your quote mirrored the movie and I couldn't resist