There was a second woman, and the church knew

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

With this 20/20 hindsight you speak of do you think the church should be pushing legislation requiring both parties consent for any recording of conversations knowing full well that incidents like this would never come to light.  I really find this troubling for a church claiming to value truth. 

The law specifically makes exceptions for cases of abuse or other crimes.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Why in the world do you keep pushing this when it has been made clear this law made an exception for criminal behaviour?  This is ridiculous and is looking like it is intentional deception at this point, but knowing you there is likely another reason...but I find it unlikely you have missed every response pointing out the reality of the nonapplication of the law to these types of cases.

No sorry I didn’t know there were exceptions in the law. My fault. Thanks

i admit that I have become very untrustful of the church. Given my experience I hope you can understand why

Edited March 26, 2018 by california boy

[california boy]

There is another issue I am having that maybe you can help me with. Do I have this right?  The second woman came forward in 2010 and was given a settlement over her abuse from this man. Why was he not excommunicated at that point when his behavior was acknowledged by the church?

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is another issue I am having that maybe you can help me with. Do I have this right?  The second woman came forward in 2010 and was given a settlement over her abuse from this man. Why was he not excommunicated at that point when his behavior was acknowledged by the church?

Was the second woman given a settlement?  I had not read that.

It sounds as if the woman who made the recording was working on negotiating a settlement at the time that the recording was leaked.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The law specifically makes exceptions for cases of abuse or other crimes.

 

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

No sorry I didn’t know there were exceptions in the law. My fault. Thanks

i admit that I have become very untrustful of the church. Given my experience I hope you can understand why

 

This claim, an exception for criminal activity, has been made but the specific section wasn’t cited.  I just read through the bill and I don’t see such an exception. 

There is this...

9.b. (iv) that is inadvertently obtained by the service provider and appears to pertain to the commission of a crime, if the divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

That is the only reference I can find to criminal activity but perhaps I missed something.  As I read this bill, it would have prevented the publication of the audio recording in Utah (or at least make it illegal).

If I have missed something in the bill, please consider citing it.  Because, for now, it continues to seem very suspicious that the Church was encouraging this bill given they knew about this recording and were reportedly trying to settle with the victim. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

No sorry I didn’t know there were exceptions in the law. My fault. Thanks

i admit that I have become very untrustful of the church. Given my experience I hope you can understand why

It can be hard to keep track of posts and not skip over.  I miss a lot if I am ousting while others are as well..  Sorry, I should have made sure you hadn't missed it.

I can understand your position.  You have reasons not to trust, I have reasons to trust.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

 

This claim, an exception for criminal activity, has been made but the specific section wasn’t cited.  I just read through the bill and I don’t see such an exception. 

There is this...

9.b. (iv) that is inadvertently obtained by the service provider and appears to pertain to the commission of a crime, if the divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

That is the only reference I can find to criminal activity but perhaps I missed something.  As I read this bill, it would have prevented the publication of the audio recording in Utah (or at least make it illegal).

If I have missed something in the bill, please consider citing it.  Because, for now, it continues to seem very suspicious that the Church was encouraging this bill given they knew about this recording and were reportedly trying to settle with the victim. 

I wonder if it is a work in progress. I did cut and paste the exemptions, twice I think, but I can't remember if it was here or on FB.  This was when the online brouhaha was first building. What I continue to see, however, is that you can pretty much say it says whatever you want because you are the first one I've run into that has made any attempt to read it.  I did try to find it last week but only found a very brief bill with some number on it that seemed to be more about service providers (as you pasted) than anything. I didn't pursue it so I don't know if there is more of it somewhere or if has been completely changed after the outcry. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

There is another issue I am having that maybe you can help me with. Do I have this right?  The second woman came forward in 2010 and was given a settlement over her abuse from this man. Why was he not excommunicated at that point when his behavior was acknowledged by the church?

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Was the second woman given a settlement?  I had not read that.

It sounds as if the woman who made the recording was working on negotiating a settlement at the time that the recording was leaked.

I am pretty sure no settlement.

Rather she received support and counseling through her local leaders. 

No action was taken against him because he denied it and there was no evidence outside her word.

"We are aware of one other woman (who is referenced in the December recording) who informed her local ecclesiastical leaders that she was sexually abused by Joseph Bishop while he served as president of the Missionary Training Center. When she reported the alleged abuse to her local Church leaders in 2010, they provided emotional support as well as professional counseling services. Mr. Bishop’s local ecclesiastical leaders were contacted and they confronted him with her claims, which he denied, and local leaders did not feel they could pursue church discipline for Mr. Bishop."

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018

Yes, a settlement for the woman with the tape was apparently being discussed.  She said, iirc, that the leak helped her make up her mind or prevented her from making the wrong choice or something along that line.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Link to Juliann's post for the exceptions:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70189-is-the-mormon-church-pushing-a-two-party-consent-law-to-protect-ecclesiastical-leaders/?do=findComment&comment=1209793962

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Link to Juliann's post for the exceptions:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70189-is-the-mormon-church-pushing-a-two-party-consent-law-to-protect-ecclesiastical-leaders/?do=findComment&comment=1209793962

Based on my reading of the exemptions, this recording would have been illegal. Maybe I missed something?

 

Quote

(d) Notwithstanding Subsection (7)(b), a wire, electronic, or oral communication may
103     be recorded with the consent of one party to the communication when the person making the
104     recording reasonably believes that the communication:
105          (i) is of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime,
106     or disaster;
107          (ii) is likely to involve or convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, injury,
108     abuse, whether physical, psychological, or otherwise, other unlawful requests or demands, or
109     evidence of a crime;
110          (iii) is likely to be fraudulent, obscene, or harassing in nature;
111          (iv) occurs anonymously, repeatedly, or without invitation or at an inconvenient hour;
112          (v) is intended to harass or is part of an ongoing pattern of harassment or abuse;
113          (vi) relates to communications by a hostage holder as discussed in Section 54-3-24, or
114     barricaded person, whether or not conversation ensues;
115          (vii) involves a commercial solicitor, pollster, or other person unknown to the recipient
116     of the communication; or
117          (viii) consists of a statement by a public official or public employee in the performance
118     of the public official's or public employee's official duty.

 

[Calm]

Misread it, see Juliann's post below...

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

Based on my reading of the exemptions, this recording would have been illegal. Maybe I missed something?

 

 

 may
103     be recorded with the consent of one party to the communication when the person making the
104     recording reasonably believes that the communication:

107          (ii) is likely to involve or convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, injury,
108     abuse, whether physical, psychological, or otherwise, other unlawful requests or demands, or
109     evidence of a crime;

Edited March 26, 2018 by juliann

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Our child's school has security cameras in every room, which I think protects both teachers and students. Not unlike body cams on police officers, which protect both the officers and those they interact with.

While I approve of body cams and many cops do as well I work quite closely with law enforcement and there are some problems that need to be hammered out about their use.

Basically to protect everyone they have to be on and their footage would have to be public record. What happens when the police go into a domestic disturbance with body cams on? Does that fight become public record accessible to anyone? Do the police turn it off while on break? While using the restroom? If they go into a violent confrontation and a civilian or a cop is killed is that brutal footage covered? What if a cop (intentionally or without purpose) records something they should not have seen? What if a cop needs to be chewed out by a superior? Do we put that on the record?

It is easy to say we can check the footage first to make sure it is 'good' to be released but what if what seems to be critical footage is refused release because of the content? Will it be assumed to be a cover up?

Do not get me wrong I think bodycams could be a big help and many cops agree but there are reasons cops, civil right defenders, and others oppose them or want to deal with these issues before they become used generally.

Sorry, largely irrelevant derail over.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

Remember how they got some donations specifically to buy the Book of Mormon manuscript from the CoC?  They could solicit donations from wealthy members specifically for payouts to women (and men?) who have been abused by MTC Presidents and/or General Authorities.

You would have to give it a really peppy and upbeat name to make that work.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

 may
103     be recorded with the consent of one party to the communication when the person making the
104     recording reasonably believes that the communication:

107          (ii) is likely to involve or convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, injury,
108     abuse, whether physical, psychological, or otherwise, other unlawful requests or demands, or
109     evidence of a crime;

Funny, I read that as threats of extortion for a crime...laws---with all that interruption---are almost as hard to read as my posts.

I caught it right the first time around back in February too.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

"Sorry, largely irrelevant derail over."

But highly informative.  Slow news day as well, so in my view.

[Thinking]

After reading many of the posts in this thread I have one question:

Is what's on the tape more important than whether it was obtained legally?

[Calm]

The only reason why anyone has been talking about the legality is as far as I remember because they are challenging the Church's support of the two party consent rule.  Since the new law would not affect this recording, even if someone supports the Church's position they can fully support the woman choosing to try and get a confession out of Bishop and taping him do it.

Why ask a question challenging something no one is complaining about? (There was one or two complaining about doing it to an old guy, but that is a different issue than legality).

Now if he hadn't confessed and there wasn't a second victim, the conversation would be different.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

 may
103     be recorded with the consent of one party to the communication when the person making the
104     recording reasonably believes that the communication:

107          (ii) is likely to involve or convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, injury,
108     abuse, whether physical, psychological, or otherwise, other unlawful requests or demands, or
109     evidence of a crime;

Confession of a crime and evidence of a crime are different things. 

As I read HB330 it would have certainly made the publication of this audio recording illegal and subject to punishment.  

I continue to believe that it is very suspect that the church tried to get this passed when they knew about the audio recording regarding Bishop. 

And now there are five women (per KUTV) with accusations against Bishop. 

Several statements to priesthood leaders about Bishop’s abuse. 

This is looking worse than it back on the 20th. 

Time for our Prophet and President to step forward and address it. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by rockpond

[california boy]

Does anyone else get the feeling that if a priesthood leader especially in an important calling denies a claim against him then that is good enough and no further investigation is needed?

[Storm Rider]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does anyone else get the feeling that if a priesthood leader especially in an important calling denies a claim against him then that is good enough and no further investigation is needed?

I don't think I have any kind of feeling about it, but it does not surprise me that leaders of an organization trust other leaders of an organization.  I think humans more easily have a higher degree of trust for others that are "like them".  Most LDS leaders counsel those with serious problems, but they don't easily suspect that another leader could be doing things that are much worse than the vast majority of the sinners they counsel.  

It probably takes some very, very strong evidence for a leader to think that one of their brothers would have such a grievous sin with which  they are dealing.  To me it is just further evidence that any human can fall and that sin is a companion of each of us - even leaders.  This does not seem to be an easy lesson for many to learn.  

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Confession of a crime and evidence of a crime are different things. 

As I read HB330 it would have certainly made the publication of this audio recording illegal and subject to punishment....

And now there are five women (per KUTV) with accusations against Bishop. 

Several statements to priesthood leaders about Bishop’s abuse. 

Is there any reason for this besides your personal interpretation or someone else not a lawyer's interpretation (you aren't one, right; have I spaced on that?)

I would love to see a lawyer address that specific section.

----

Link to the info on additional women and statements please.  It is not coming up on a search on their website (may be attached as an update to an article, but I didn't see it).

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Rockpond, I think you misread the article:  it is two women reporting to LDS authorities five times...

http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-leaders-told-5-times-about-sex-allegations-against-former-mtc-president

"Leaders inside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were told on five different occasions by two different women of alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by Joseph Bishop, the former president of the Missionary Training Center."

This is the same info as before, one woman reported it once in 2010; the other four times, 1987, 2010, 2016, 2017 (though the police report has it different, may be a typo of 1998 iirc).

Edited March 26, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Confession of a crime and evidence of a crime are different things. 

I'd be very surprised if a confession wasn't evidence. 

Quote

As I read HB330 it would have certainly made the publication of this audio recording illegal and subject to punishment.  

If so that is different than recording isn't allowed, and that is what is being claimed. That is what I responded to. 

Quote

And now there are five women (per KUTV) with accusations against Bishop. 

I'm assuming there will be many once they see the first woman supported. But it is not on KUTV's website nor has it popped up on FB which is quite odd if that is true.  Link?

[Gray]

8 hours ago, juliann said:

 may
103     be recorded with the consent of one party to the communication when the person making the
104     recording reasonably believes that the communication:

107          (ii) is likely to involve or convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, injury,
108     abuse, whether physical, psychological, or otherwise, other unlawful requests or demands, or
109     evidence of a crime;

Oops, missed that. Thanks!