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

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, why me said:

Taking it to mormonleaks certainly does harm the church only in the sense, it gives the antimormons some hay to start a fire with. This is the purpose for mormonleaks: to provide hay. This was so long ago, I am sure that things are done differently now. But...unfortunately, bishops are just people who have outside jobs and they may get things wrong at times.

I know why Ryan started MormonLeaks, and it wasn’t to “provide hay” for anti-Mormons. Agree with him or not, Ryan is a good man with noble intentions. And, in case you’re wondering, I have absolutely no involvement in MormonLeaks. No interest. 

[why me]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Once the info has been released, there is little reason for the Church to settle to prevent publicity so I doubt she lied about not wanting it to be released and Mormonleaks going ahead without her permission (absolutely despicable imo).

As to why one of those she trusted with it leaked it to Mormonleaks, theywere likely not any that would benefit financially from doing so so motivation might have been a desire to harm the Church or to motivate change or both or something else.

 

This case goes back over 30 years. I think that the lds church is more aware of what to do when someone reports abuse. One tends to learn with time. However, I have no idea what this has to to with the lds church as a whole. It was a perverted church leader and not the policy of the lds church. It seems that the church did what they thought was best for that time. 

[why me]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I know why Ryan started MormonLeaks, and it wasn’t to “provide hay” for anti-Mormons. Agree with him or not, Ryan is a good man with noble intentions. And, in case you’re wondering, I have absolutely no involvement in MormonLeaks. No interest. 

Well, it seems that the the antimormons love it. Has mormonleaks leaked information that may be favorable to the lds church? It seems to get a lot of hay on antimormon sites. And this speaks volumes.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, why me said:

This case goes back over 30 years. I think that the lds church is more aware of what to do when someone reports abuse. One tends to learn with time. However, I have no idea what this has to to with the lds church as a whole. It was a perverted church leader and not the policy of the lds church. It seems that the church did what they thought was best for that time. 

That's not a defense.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, why me said:

Well, it seems that the the antimormons love it. Has mormonleaks leaked information that may be favorable to the lds church? It seems to get a lot of hay on antimormon sites. And this speaks volumes.

From what I’ve seen, a lot of what they have published is pretty mundane. Maybe he’s trying to hurt the church by making it look boring. 

[why me]

Just now, ttribe said:

That's not a defense.

I think that it is. One must always look at the time frame when passing judgement.

[ttribe]

Just now, why me said:

I think that it is. One must always look at the time frame when passing judgement.

Are you talking legally? I was.

[why me]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

From what I’ve seen, a lot of what they have published is pretty mundane. Maybe he’s trying to hurt the church by making it look boring. 

I have no idea. Maybe you should ask him why he started the site. The idea is in the word 'leak'.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, why me said:

I have no idea. Maybe you should ask him why he started the site. The idea is in the word 'leak'.

Indeed it is. As I said, I know exactly why he started the site, and if you’ve been paying attention, you would too. 

[why me]

Just now, ttribe said:

Are you talking legally? I was.

I am talking about judgement. I will give an example: many americans were prejudice in the past. This prejudice what not exactly white and black. But also against the Polish, Irish, Italians etc. The US was an ethnic society with jokes galore. And now....times have changed. Should I judge my grandmother or grandfather now for their time frame of life and their attitudes?

[why me]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Indeed it is. As I said, I know exactly why he started the site, and if you’ve been paying attention, you would too. 

And what has been the result? Were there any unintended consequences for starting the site? Or have the goals been met?

Edited March 23, 2018 by why me

[jpv]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I believe it is Mormon Discussions.  My favorite one is "The Wrong Road"

Crazy... I was a huge fan of Consig back when I was a lurker here.  Lots of unique rich doctrinal views I happened to share.  I recognized Reel's guest's voice as the former Rational Faiths blogger I liked, but didn't realize RFM was the same guy as Consig.  So cool! 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

From what I’ve seen, a lot of what they have published is pretty mundane. Maybe he’s trying to hurt the church by making it look boring. 

Personally I don't agree with their mission, EXCEPT in cases like this where there is a clear whistle blower function that they're serving. Otherwise, the church should have the right to not be transparent.

[Jeanne]

Just now, jpv said:

Crazy... I was a huge fan of Consig back when I was a lurker here.  Lots of unique rich doctrinal views I happened to share.  I recognized Reel's guest's voice as the former Rational Faiths blogger I liked, but didn't realize RFM was the same guy as Consig.  So cool! 

I hope you saw my edit.  It is Radio Free Mormon.  He is still LDS..and real blunt and honest..he still disagrees with critics at times and extremely fair.

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, provoman said:

negligence is a legal question

I get that.  Can you explain why that wouldn't prove negligence?  Is it because there was no mandatory reporting at the time required?  No requirement for organizations to have such reporting procedures in place?  

I am not talking about about reporting it to police, but rather whether or not there was negligence in ensuring a potential predator was removed from position that gave him easy access to likely victims****.  While the Church procedures may not have been properly followed, isn't someone acting as an agent for the Church leadership considered as if the leadership were acting even if they act contrary to policy?

****It is not as if there weren't other men available to take the callings he was called to, though obviously not an unlimited source.  Even if evidence was not sufficient for legal judgment, even if no discipline is taken because of insufficient evidence, ignoring the possibility of harm (I assume there is a higher likelihood a man accused of sexual assault is an abuser than a random man chosen from a similar pool)...does that qualify as negligence in a legal sense?

Edited March 23, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, why me said:

And what has been the result? Were there any unintended consequences for starting the site? Or have the goals been met?

You would have to ask him. 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

Does the statute of limitations apply to civil litigation?

I saw a Utah representative (?) last night that was interviewed about a law she helped enact that allowed someone to go back and sue through civil court that is past the statute of limitations.

Here is the interview on Fox13 news...http://fox13now.com/2018/03/22/woman-who-accused-former-mtc-leader-of-sexual-assault-will-pursue-a-civil-lawsuit-against-the-lds-church/

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Personally I don't agree with their mission, EXCEPT in cases like this where there is a clear whistle blower function that they're serving. Otherwise, the church should have the right to not be transparent.

He values transparency, and he’s consistent. I don’t have any interest in that, but he’s doing what he believes is right. In this case, I have no idea what happened or why, so I’m not going to condemn his actions until I have the facts. 

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, jpv said:

Crazy... I was a huge fan of Consig back when I was a lurker here.  Lots of unique rich doctrinal views I happened to share.  I recognized Reel's guest's voice as the former Rational Faiths blogger I liked, but didn't realize RFM was the same guy as Consig.  So cool! 

He’s a great guy. Intelligent, passionate, and fair. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

He values transparency, and he’s consistent. I don’t have any interest in that, but he’s doing what he believes is right. In this case, I have no idea what happened or why, so I’m not going to condemn his actions until I have the facts. 

The bishop who refrained from reporting abuse thought he was doing right.  I don't believe that should be the most important standard of judgment.

[revelstoked]

9 minutes ago, why me said:

I think that it is. One must always look at the time frame when passing judgement.

 

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Are you talking legally? I was.

 A point of comparison may be the Boston Archdiocese case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_Catholic_archdiocese_of_Boston) - many of the abuses came to a head in the 80's.  The question is has the Church been paying attention to these cases and putting safeguards in place.  I've seen changes: men must be two deep in primary (women don't), and leaders are always 2 deep in nursery and cub scouts (but scouts is a BSA thing... that changed in the early 90s).  Also, windows on primary classroom doors.  I would expect that if this case went to trial policy changes within the church and training changes to bishops since the '80s will be pointed out. 

Also, don't forget this will most likely be a jury in Utah.  I doubt the defense will be able to strike jurors based on religious affiliation or opinion.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

The bishop who refrained from reporting abuse thought he was doing right.  I don't believe that should be the most important standard of judgment.

I agree. I’m just saying I don’t know what happened or why Ryan did what he did. Until I do, I won’t condemn his actions. 

[provoman]

In terms of negligence of the bishop that the rape was reported too,

In 1987 Did the bishop act reasonably in consideration of the totality of the circumstances.

[rpn]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  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.

.... 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.

The woman in this story was sexually abused by her father for years before joining the church.   She said she was thrilled when she was singled out for personal attention (which prompted other missionaries to like her better).  We are stunned to the point of disbelief when we dispassionately read her story and we have trouble believing it could be real.    She'd already spent years of not being believed about her father.   She has to have wondered how anyone would believe this.   While not being able to really understand how to walk in her shoes is probably good as it is a horrible thing to fully understand and one that only comes at great cost,  all this assertion that someone she woulda coulda DONE better, is like beating her up some more.    She ought to be celebrated for her strength, not have her veracity questioned.  

And yes, if LDS families are parenting or displaying force, compulsion and/or blind obedience, then they should stop.   We all should challenge those actions when they are spoken of with approval by our peers at church.  More importantly, we should identify techniques that support informed discipleship, and model them.

[why me]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You would have to ask him. 

You know him. Just a phone call away.