There was a second woman, and the church knew

[Gray]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

One of our ward members is a cop. He said he and his colleagues were initially skeptical about them, but now they're largely in favor of them because they do protect cops too, especially when perpetrators make up stories about how they were treated. As I recall he said something about them having to announce to everyone they interact with that they're being recorded - he said that also tends to make the people they interact with behave better.

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Gray

[rockpond]

7 hours 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?

Yep.  By the church’s account, that’s what happened with Bishop. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

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).

It is my personal interpretation.  (I prefaced it saying: As I read HB330...).  I am not a lawyer but I read the bill and don’t see anything that would have allowed publication of the recording. 

I’ll answer to your second question by responding to your other post.  

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

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).

I think you may be correct and I was told something false.  I was told about the “5 women” and believed it when the person told me that it was reported by KUTV this weekend.  

I apologize, I should have verified before repeating it here.  Usually, I do like to check things out on my own.  It was a lapse in judgment and I’m sorry. 

[bluebell]

8 hours 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.  

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. 

I agree with Juliann's reading of it, (confessions can be evidence of a crime in and of themselves, they are frequently entered as evidence in criminal trials) but even if you are right, the passing of the bill still would not have made this recording illegal.  It was recorded in Arizona, so Utah laws don't matter.  Besides that, laws are not usually retroactive.  If I'm understanding Smac and Danzo's posts on here about it correctly, because the recording was made prior to the law, a new law would have no affect on whether or not it was legal.

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with Juliann's reading of it, (confessions can be evidence of a crime in and of themselves, they are frequently entered as evidence in criminal trials) but even if you are right, the passing of the bill still would not have made this recording illegal.  It was recorded in Arizona, so Utah laws don't matter.  Besides that, laws are not usually retroactive.  If I'm understanding Smac and Danzo's posts on here about it correctly, because the recording was made prior to the law, a new law would have no affect on whether or not it was legal.

But would the law have prevented news outlets from publicizing the recording in Utah, where the crime took place and where the church is headquartered?

I'm not a lawyer and not sure how these things work.

Even if the church wasn't aiming to stop this particular recording (there were, after all, already negotiating with the woman per her account).  After realizing the damage such a recording could do, did they then decide that push for this law?  I think it is naive to not question the timing of the church's support for HB330 and their being made aware of this audio recording.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think you may be correct and I was told something false.  I was told about the “5 women” and believed it when the person told me that it was reported by KUTV this weekend.  

I apologize, I should have verified before repeating it here.  Usually, I do like to check things out on my own.  It was a lapse in judgment and I’m sorry. 

Judging by the recording I think it is a safe bet that there are more than just two victims.  Bishop talks about an addiction that has lasted for years, he confused the woman in the recording with two others (perhaps other victims), and said he molested another.  We may not find out the entire truth but it seems this guy was doing this for years and years.

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

But would the law have prevented news outlets from publicizing the recording in Utah, where the crime took place and where the church is headquartered?

I'm not a lawyer and not sure how these things work.

Even if the church wasn't aiming to stop this particular recording (there were, after all, already negotiating with the woman per her account).  After realizing the damage such a recording could do, did they then decide that push for this law?  I think it is naive to not question the timing of the church's support for HB330 and their being made aware of this audio recording.

The timing is curious.  The SL Tribune has an article on this https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/03/26/gehrke-a-secret-recording-launched-a-sex-assault-scandal-the-lds-church-received-it-the-same-month-it-tried-to-ban-secret-recordings-in-utah/

[provoman]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree with Juliann's reading of it, (confessions can be evidence of a crime in and of themselves, they are frequently entered as evidence in criminal trials) but even if you are right, the passing of the bill still would not have made this recording illegal.  It was recorded in Arizona, so Utah laws don't matter.  Besides that, laws are not usually retroactive.  If I'm understanding Smac and Danzo's posts on here about it correctly, because the recording was made prior to the law, a new law would have no affect on whether or not it was legal.

 

51 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But would the law have prevented news outlets from publicizing the recording in Utah, where the crime took place and where the church is headquartered?

I'm not a lawyer and not sure how these things work.

Even if the church wasn't aiming to stop this particular recording (there were, after all, already negotiating with the woman per her account).  After realizing the damage such a recording could do, did they then decide that push for this law?  I think it is naive to not question the timing of the church's support for HB330 and their being made aware of this audio recording.

 

The failed law had exceptions. Those exceptions likely WOULD NOT have prevented charges from being filed and or arrests for recording. The exceptions likely  WOULD NOT have allowed the publishing of a recording that only had the consent of one party.

In my opinion they were no reason to support the law even with the exceptions. The exceptions would not, in my opinion, automatically protect the person who made a one party consent recording. The party that did not consent would likely file a civil suit and the Judge or jury would determine if an exception permitted the recording.  If the Judge or jury determined the exception did not apply the party who made the recording could be held liable. The failed law also provided that the State could seek injunctive relief.  I do not understand the support for the law even with the exceptions as most definitely the exceptions would be determined and argued by a Judge or jury. 

For a hypothetical exercise, the woman who's Temple recommend was revoked for gossiping. I tend to doubt any exception would have applied to her situation. That is, I doubt a Judge or jury would have determined that any exception would have applied. For an exception to have applied she would have had to have a "reasonable belief" that the Stake President would be acting/speaking in such a way for the exception to apply.

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by provoman

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But would the law have prevented news outlets from publicizing the recording in Utah, where the crime took place and where the church is headquartered?

I'm not a lawyer and not sure how these things work.

Even if the church wasn't aiming to stop this particular recording (there were, after all, already negotiating with the woman per her account).  After realizing the damage such a recording could do, did they then decide that push for this law?  I think it is naive to not question the timing of the church's support for HB330 and their being made aware of this audio recording.

I'm not sure.  Hopefully smac or someone more versed in law can comment.  Maybe we could see how it's being handled in other two-party consent states (I think there are currently eleven)  California is a two party consent state for example,  have none of their newspapers been able to link to the recordings?  

Considering all the other instances of recording that the church has dealt with lately (in discipline councils and meetings with leaders doing their calling, for example), I seriously doubt that this one issue was much of a blip on the radar.  I think the church is concerned with recording church leaders when they are fulfilling their calling.  I don't think they are doing this to keep people from being able to record church members who are breaking the law as citizens.

The bill was introduced in January and this recording was made in December. That timeline is a little too quick in my estimation to blame on the church.  Do we know if the LDS church has supported two party consent laws in any of the other eleven states previous to this recording?  That would be evidence that this recording had nothing to do with the church's stance on the issue.

[Exiled]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Considering all the other instances of recording that the church has dealt with lately (in discipline councils and meetings with leaders doing their calling, for example), I seriously doubt that this one issue was much of a blip on the radar.  I think the church is concerned with recording church leaders when they are fulfilling their calling.  I don't think they are doing this to keep people from being able to record church members who are breaking the law as citizens.

The bill was introduced in January and this recording was made in December. That timeline is a little too quick in my estimation to blame on the church.  Do we know if the LDS church has supported two party consent laws in any of the other eleven states previous to this recording?  That would be evidence that this recording had nothing to do with the church's stance on the issue.

I think the church doesn't like having any of their leaders recorded and certainly doesn't like recordings like the one Bishop starred in recently.  So, I think there is an incentive to push for the change in the recording statute.  Also, the church doesn't have the influence over the legislatures in other states like it does in Utah.  So, I don't think whether or not the lobbying happened in other states means that the church didn't do it in Utah.  Also, making a phone call or having a meeting between a church lobbyist and legislator doesn't take that long to set up.  The church is constantly lobbying the legislators in Utah and has them on speed dial.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Exiled

[california boy]

I don’t necessarily think it is about this one single event.  It is kind of sad that the church doesn’t want to allow any protection to the injured party.  Individuals have little power against a big institution like the church.  They are seeking to maintain as much control as possible

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think the church doesn't like having any of their leaders recorded and certainly doesn't like recordings like the one Bishop starred in recently.  However, the church doesn't have the influence over the legislatures in other states like it does in Utah.  So, I don't think whether or not the lobbying happened in other states means that the church didn't do it here.  Also, making a phone call or having a meeting between a church lobbyist and legislator doesn't take that long to set up.  The church is constantly lobbying the legislators in Utah and has them on speed dial.

I agree that the church probably doesn't like any of their leaders being recorded without consent in general.  That in and of itself is nothing nefarious.  The most liberal state in the country right now, California, also doesn't believe it's fair for only one party to know they are being recorded.  It's an unfair advantage for the person who knows-they can cultivate their behavior based on the knowledge that they have without giving the other party the same opportunity.  In some cases, such as with crimes, that's not an issue.  In other non-criminal cases, it can be a big deal (such as custody issues, for example, where the recording parent can present themselves as calm and collected while showing the other parent in a negative light).

I also agree that the church doesn't have the same influence in other states, however, if I'm remembering right, the church has lobbied for bills in other states.  If that's true then a lack of similar influence in other states doesn't mean that much to the church when deciding whether or not to lobby for a bill.

And lastly, CFR on the "church has legislators in utah on speed dial" statement.

[bluebell]

Just now, california boy said:

I don’t necessarily think it is about this one single event.  It is kind of sad that the church doesn’t want to allow any protection to the injured party.  Individuals have little power against a big institution like the church.  They are seeking to maintain as much control as possible

Did you find it equally sad when the eleven other states, including California, implemented two party recording laws?  Personally, I'm in favor of two-party consent laws.  I value the right to have private conversations.  

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And lastly, CFR on the "church has legislators in utah on speed dial" statement.

You don't think the church lobbyists have cozy relationships with legislators in Utah?  The church gets what it wants a lot of the time, if not an overwhelming majority of the time when it comes to legislation. It might not have gotten its wish on the recording laws but it certainly looks like it weighed in on the subject. Just take a look at the liquor laws and how the church always weighs in and pretty much has veto power there.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

You don't think the church lobbyists have cozy relationships with legislators in Utah?  The church gets what it wants a lot of the time, if not an overwhelming majority of the time when it comes to legislation. It might not have gotten its wish on the recording laws but it certainly looks like it weighed in on the subject. Just take a look at the liquor laws and how the church always weighs in and pretty much has veto power there.

If you make a statement of fact, you must be able to back it up or you have to retract it.  Those are the rules of the board.

Besides that, in December of 2016 88% of legislators in Utah were LDS.  Is it really a surprise that laws in Utah look weighted to represent LDS beliefs?  

[provoman]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you make a statement of fact, you must be able to back it up or you have to retract it.  Those are the rules of the board.

Besides that, in December of 2016 88% of legislators in Utah were LDS.  Is it really a surprise that laws in Utah look weighted to represent LDS beliefs?  

CFR has pretty much lost its value and purpose on this forum when several people can respond with “go look it up yourself” type responses; then when challenged in that tupe of response, the person challenging is thread banned or otherwise retailiated against or accused of board nannying when pointing out what the board rules are.

 

As to the demographics of the Utah legislator - there is a difference between laws reflecting a society and legislatures waiting for the Major religious organization to issue a statement before the legislatures will vote. Rhetorically, why did it take the LDS Church direct involvment on  several non-discrimantion issues in the State of Utah?

As for Utah liquor laws and LDS beliefs...the laws do not reflect my beliefs as a memeber of the LDS Church. I grew up with in a culture wherein comsumption of alcohol was acceptable and guesse what I do not drink; but the rationale behind some past or current Utah laws is that I should be a drinker because I have witnessed mixed alcoholic drinks being made or otherwise witnessed on a regular basis the consumption of alcohol.

Edited March 26, 2018 by provoman

[rongo]

Just now, provoman said:

CFR has pretty much lost its value on this when several people can respond with “go look it up yourself” type responses, then when challenged in that tupe of response to a CFr the person challenging is thread banned or otherwise retailiated against.

CFR is kind of a joke here. It's really just a bludgeon to beat someone with, and neither the issuer nor the recipient usually have any intent on accepting or filling it. 

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And lastly, CFR on the "church has legislators in utah on speed dial" statement.

Suggesting the church has legislators on speed dial isn't necessarily a negative thing and doesn't strike me as an accusation so much as the realistic way in which the world works. Do teachers unions have legislators on speed dial? I'd guess yes. Does the NRA? Yes. Does the church? Sure, why not? The church would be negligent if they didn't look after their own concerns and legal rights.

So IF the church has any reason to engage with state politics and IF the church has access to LDS legislators, then I can't see why anyone would suppose that the church doesn't have legislators on "speed dial".

The church's own lobbyist was hired to run a legislative office.

http://kutv.com/news/local/lawmakers-ok-lds-church-lobbyist-to-run-office

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

But would the law have prevented news outlets from publicizing the recording in Utah, where the crime took place and where the church is headquartered?

I don't know how that would even work.  Think about the dissemination of information we have now.  Variation in state laws can't prevent the publication of information across state lines, even if it's collection would have violated a law in different states.

ETA: I can see preventing its admissibility in another state's court, but not its publication.

Edited March 26, 2018 by ttribe

[Exiled]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you make a statement of fact, you must be able to back it up or you have to retract it.  Those are the rules of the board.

Besides that, in December of 2016 88% of legislators in Utah were LDS.  Is it really a surprise that laws in Utah look weighted to represent LDS beliefs?  

Q.Michael Croft wrote a doctoral thesis on this very subject. He was a teacher of mine. His links to his notes and thesis are below.

http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv10583

https://www.worldcat.org/title/influence-of-the-lds-church-on-utah-politics-1945-1985/oclc/13368889

I also heard it first hand from legislators I know and knew that the LDS church still uses its influence on legislation today and that the legislators know the church lobbyists well, at least the legislators I know and knew did.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

CFR is kind of a joke here. It's really just a bludgeon to beat someone with, and neither the issuer nor the recipient usually have any intent on accepting or filling it. 

"kind of a joke" is an understatement.  All too often someone tries to "CFR" an opinion and it's clearly an attempt to shout down the expression of that opinion.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, provoman said:

CFR has pretty much lost its value and purpose on this forum when several people can respond with “go look it up yourself” type responses; then when challenged in that tupe of response, the person challenging is thread banned or otherwise retailiated against or accused of board nannying when pointing out what the board rules are.

If someone is responding to a CFR with "go look it up yourself" then report them.  Some posters seem to think it's a badge of honor to never report anyone who breaks the rules; it's really just dumb not to report something if you think it's a problem.  The mods won't have a clue what's going on otherwise. They don't follow threads.

Quote

As to the demographics of the Utah legislator - there is a difference between laws reflecting a society and legislatures waiting for the Major religious organization to issue a statement before the legislatures will vote. Rhetorically, why did it take the LDS Church direct involvment on  several non-discrimantion issues in the State of Utah?

I don't know, why did it?  I haven't followed these issues at all.  

Quote

As for Utah liquor laws and LDS beliefs...the laws do not reflect my beliefs as a memeber of the LDS Church. I grew up with in a culture wherein comsumption of alcohol was acceptable and guesse what I do not drink; but the rationale behind some past or current Utah laws is that I should be a drinker because I have witnessed mixed alcoholic drinks being made or otherwise witnessed on a regular basis the consumption of alcohol.

They don't have to reflect every member's beliefs, but it's not really surprising when they reflect the beliefs of the individual legislature.  I didn't grow up in Utah either (have only lived here for 4 years) so i agree the laws are weird, but I've lived in other states (Wyoming and Montana-two states with a love of drinking) that come at the issue of alcohol and minors differently s so I get that not everyone agrees on the best way to handle that issue, even when they are pro-drinking.

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Q.Michael Croft wrote a doctoral thesis on this very subject. He was a teacher of mine. His links to his notes and thesis are below.

http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv10583

https://www.worldcat.org/title/influence-of-the-lds-church-on-utah-politics-1945-1985/oclc/13368889

I also heard it first hand from legislators I know and knew that the LDS church still uses its influence on legislation today and that the legislators know the church lobbyists well, at least the legislators I know and knew did.

I don't doubt at all the the church uses it's influence (they would be dumb not to).  I'm just challenging the assertion that they have the state legislature on speed dial.  (I recognize that you were probably attempting to use hyperbole but in serious discussions like this, I find hyperbole to be worse than useless.  It clouds the issues and causes unnecessary contention, taking focus away from the actual topic).

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Suggesting the church has legislators on speed dial isn't necessarily a negative thing and doesn't strike me as an accusation so much as the realistic way in which the world works. Do teachers unions have legislators on speed dial? I'd guess yes. Does the NRA? Yes. Does the church? Sure, why not? The church would be negligent if they didn't look after their own concerns and legal rights.

So IF the church has any reason to engage with state politics and IF the church has access to LDS legislators, then I can't see why anyone would suppose that the church doesn't have legislators on "speed dial".

The church's own lobbyist was hired to run a legislative office.

http://kutv.com/news/local/lawmakers-ok-lds-church-lobbyist-to-run-office

I agree.  It's the use of hyperbole that I felt needed to be challenged.  When leveling accusations at a person or a group, let's stick with actual facts or discuss opinions.  Mixing the two causes too many problems.