There was a second woman, and the church knew

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

All of the Church's money started out as tithing and donations.  They didn't buy and build businesses and assets out of thin air.  It may not have been your tithing money, but it was someone's.

Not entirely true. A lot of the original church businesses came from the sale of land in Utah or were just created 'out of thin air'. Not all, but quite a bit of it.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I thought of that as well and I would be very offended if my tithing money was being used to pay lawyers and settlements.  However the church does have lots of income that come from other places and that do not come from member donations so i am sure that is where the money comes from.  The money for the mall near temple square came from its business income.   Otherwise I would withhold my tith money because my tith money is meant to build up the church, not to pay lawyers.  I work too hard and sacrifice too much for that.

I am guessing Church lawyers save more money than they cost. Plenty of people know the church has deep pockets and would gladly target them. While being a lawyer might be an evil profession (Brigham Young, I believe) it falls in with war and many other things as a necessary evil.

Edited March 24, 2018 by The Nehor

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not entirely true. A lot of the original church businesses came from the sale of land in Utah or were just created 'out of thin air'. Not all, but quite a bit of it.

First, can you share with us the documentation to support this claim?

And, how did the church get the land in Utah?

[The Nehor]

Just now, rockpond said:

First, can you share with us the documentation to support this claim?

And, how did the church get the land in Utah?

No.

By stealing it from the Mexicans or stealing it from the Native Americans or by claiming it because they were there and no one else was or because God led them there and gave it to them. Pick your favorite interpretation.

[The Nehor]

Did anyone connect the two sets of allegations? As far as I know the Church does not have a master repository in which to record allegations that were unsubstantiated or unproven.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Did anyone connect the two sets of allegations? As far as I know the Church does not have a master repository in which to record allegations that were unsubstantiated or unproven.

It was the same year and it was his local leaders dealing with it...chances are same men, right? 

Might not have connected it up line, but 2010 is 8 years ago.  Mandatory reporting to SL by then right with the hot line?

Edited March 24, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was the same year and it was his local leaders dealing with it...chances are same men, right? 

Might not have connected it up line, but 2010 is 8 years ago.  Mandatory reporting to SL by then right with the hot line?

I thought the hotline was only recommended when it was abuse against a child but I looked it up and it is recommended generally when the conditions are met. The bishop in the second case may have called the hotline but if he did there would be no obvious or formal way to connect it to the allegations made decades before. There of course could easily be an informal connection made of course if people were involved in both reports somehow.

All disciplinary reports of excommunication and disfellowshipment are sent to Salt Lake. Formal probation records are only kept locally I believe. If less then that happened usually records are not kept at all and if no council is convened there is no paper trail. I can understand why people think there should be but there is a lot of danger in putting unsubstantiated reports on a member's record. Suppose a completely ridiculous accusation is made against a member. The Bishop investigates and finds no evidence and the accused even has an airtight alibi. Should that end up on their record forever?

Edited March 24, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

Ugh....this whole thing is depressing. I need to do something upbeat before I go to bed.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I thought the hotline was only recommended when it was abuse against a child but I looked it up and it is recommended generally when the conditions are met. The bishop in the second case may have called the hotline but if he did there would be no obvious or formal way to connect it to the allegations made decades before. There of course could easily be an informal connection made of course if people were involved in both reports somehow.

All disciplinary reports of excommunication and disfellowshipment are sent to Salt Lake. Formal probation records are only kept locally I believe. If less then that happened usually records are not kept at all and if no council is convened there is no paper trail. I can understand why people think there should be but there is a lot of danger in putting unsubstantiated reports on a member's record. Suppose a completely ridiculous accusation is made against a member. The Bishop investigates and finds no evidence and the accused even has an airtight alibi. Should that end up on their record forever?

The first woman (I will call her Red because that is the color in the transcript, the second I will call Two) called local leaders in Pleasant Grove in 2010.  Red also threatened Bishop in that call so  Police were sent out.  Iirc, the press release said Red's accusations were shared with .bishop's local leadership.  It was decided not enough info to determine one way or the other.

Two also told leadership in 2010.  Two's allegations were shared with Bishop's local leadership iirc.

Someone please correct me if I misread something.

My preference would be that all accusations get recorded up in SLC, no matter how nonsensical.  This includes info on the one making accusations as well as the accused.  Someone who is a multiple accuser needs to be flagged for local leaders so as to ensure if they are a false accuser they are given no chance and possibly discipline action.  If they are a victim multiple times, sensitive, compassionate, and careful support should be given.  If someone gets a bunch of stupid accusations, the reason for that happening needs to be learned imo.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Calm

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ugh....this whole thing is depressing. I need to do something upbeat before I go to bed.

watch this

[sjdawg]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree that Tad Walch's first sentence could be read two ways:  "The LDS Church learned in 2010 that a second woman had made an allegation of sexual abuse against a former president of the church's Missionary Training Center in Provo, the church said in a statement released Friday afternoon."  Did they learn IN 2010 that the woman had made an allegation?  Or, did they learn AFTER Tuesday's press release that a second woman had come forward in 2010?

I'm not entirely sure but the church newsroom has shown itself to be trying to hide as much as possible.  Again, where is our prophet?  Why won't he address this head on?

But... thank you for sharing a bit of your faith journey.  I think I understand some of your pain as I believe I have been there.

The church newsrooms seems to also be working hard to ensure any blame gets pointed at "local leadership" only.

[pogi]

I won’t be surprised if more victims start stepping forward.  I highly doubt there are only 2 victims.  He had a creepy sex chamber, I mean office, in the basement of the MTC after all.

 

[sjdawg]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I thought the hotline was only recommended when it was abuse against a child but I looked it up and it is recommended generally when the conditions are met. The bishop in the second case may have called the hotline but if he did there would be no obvious or formal way to connect it to the allegations made decades before. There of course could easily be an informal connection made of course if people were involved in both reports somehow.

All disciplinary reports of excommunication and disfellowshipment are sent to Salt Lake. Formal probation records are only kept locally I believe. If less then that happened usually records are not kept at all and if no council is convened there is no paper trail. I can understand why people think there should be but there is a lot of danger in putting unsubstantiated reports on a member's record. Suppose a completely ridiculous accusation is made against a member. The Bishop investigates and finds no evidence and the accused even has an airtight alibi. Should that end up on their record forever?

I'm reasonably certain that an allegation of abuse involving a MTC mission president and sister missionary (at the time of alleged abuse) would trigger a few calls to SLC.

[sjdawg]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I won’t be surprised if more victims start stepping forward.  I highly doubt there are only 2 victims.  He had a creepy sex chamber, I mean office, in the basement of the MTC after all.

 

The purpose of this room was to provide a private solitude in which to rest from the labors of the day and listen to the beautiful music of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.  oh yeah, and some other stuff too

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I'm reasonably certain that an allegation of abuse involving a MTC mission president and sister missionary (at the time of alleged abuse) would trigger a few calls to SLC.

I am not so certain but it may have happened.

[Calm]

Two:

"The church said Friday that the second woman on the recording reported to her ecclesiastical leaders in 2010 that Joseph Bishop sexually abused her while he was the MTC president.

"When she reported the alleged abuse to her local church leaders in 2010, they provided emotional support as well as professional counseling services," the statement said. "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.""

Red:

"This matter was brought to the attention of the Church in 2010, when this former Church member, who served briefly as a missionary in 1984, told leaders of the Pleasant Grove Utah West Stake that she had been sexually assaulted by the president of the Provo Missionary Training Center, Joseph Bishop, 25 years earlier. They listened carefully to the claims being made and then this was immediately reported to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the police interviewed her at that time. The Church does not know what she said in that interview, but the Church received no further communication from the police concerning the matter.

At the same time, the Church referred these allegations to the local ecclesiastical leaders of Joseph Bishop. Those leaders met with Mr. Bishop, who denied the allegations. Unable to verify the allegations, they did not impose any formal Church discipline on Mr. Bishop at that time."

Both Red and Two's allegations were sent to Bishop's local leaders.  Unless he moved right after the first, kind of a red flag, don't you think?

That it happened in the same year and that Red knew Two's name (know this from the interview), it is possible they shared awareness of each other's claim and reported this knowledge which made the local leaders view it as more like one allegation, rather than two, as in it might be possible they were working together to discredit him.  It is the only valid reason I can think a leader would just be satisfied with leaving it as he said, she said with two accusations when Bishop was still at least semi prominent (a DeseretBook subsidiary published two of his books a few years later).

Edited March 24, 2018 by Calm

[cinepro]

I think the FP needs to issue a letter to be read in Sacrament Meeting on Sunday advising all members who will be discussing this issue online to please take a few minute to study how the faithful Catholic membership reacted to the accusations in their church 15 years ago and NOT DO WHAT THEY DID!

[bsjkki]

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

“Today we spoke with the attorney for one of the women, Craig Vernon of Idaho, says although there are now 2 women who have come forward with accusations, he thinks it’s likely there are as many as three victims.”

[sjdawg]

28 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

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

“Today we spoke with the attorney for one of the women, Craig Vernon of Idaho, says although there are now 2 women who have come forward with accusations, he thinks it’s likely there are as many as three victims.”

I don’t think you go though the headache of getting a room set up in the basement for a one time spur of the moment lapse in judgement.  This may get much uglier unfortunately

[jpv]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Would carbon dioxide continue to skeptical? It is now almost certain that Bishop is guilty and must be held accountable. It is very troubling that local leaders didn't believe the sisters. All allegations must be taken seriously. I see change coming to the church now.  

Did it take anyone else until this post to realize Sam's not a parody troll?  

I repent.

[jpv]

6 hours ago, drums12 said:

Your thread title says "the Church knew."  I read the article you linked to.  It says the second accuser told her local leaders.  Then his leaders confronted him.  I don't know if you're aware, but Bishops and Stake Presidents have directories and can (and do) contact leaders of other Stakes/Wards directly.  I know this from personal experience.  So while it's possible this was reported by her leaders to Salt Lake, it is also possible it wasn't.  We don't know the details.  In any case, let me state emphatically that I am disgusted, repulsed, and sickened by this whole thing.  If General Authorities knew, and it seems likely that at least Elder Asay and Elder Wells had some knowledge of this man's proclivities, there is no defending them.  

My testimony, which was already like a few leaves clinging to a tree in November, it now more like down to its last leaf.  I have come to the conclusion that I have to take my concerns (all of them from historical issues to modern Church policies, Mormon culture, etc) to God.  If He wants me to stay I need to know from him.  Otherwise I think I have to walk away to have some mental peace.  In fact, I've not attended church in almost a year.  I don't plan to resign my membership, but I really have a hard time seeing myself being fully engaged in Mormonism anymore.  My heart is broken, for many reasons, of which this sexual abuse issue is just the latest.  Sorry for the personal stuff in this post.

 

God bless you. It was very hard for me to come to terms with  (most?) callings not being inspired.

I hope you can disconnect that from your faith in the atonement and restoration, but I understand if that is too difficult at this time.

[jpv]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I was not going to comment since I was banned from the other thread so I simply will say this and nothing more.  I was not skeptical or asserting that what is claimed to have happened did not happen. I have no reason to believe she is lying.  I am just frustrated and maybe a little skeptical of the motive being that it is 2018.   These things come out decades after the fact and the remedy seems to be often in society is to sue organizations like the Church when they were not responsible for what the individual who committed the crime did.  Sue the person responsible is fine but don't sue people and organizations if they were not involved in the actual crime.   I don't know what the victim is seeking so I will keep an open mind but as a general rule when I hear about any lawsuit and money is high on the list of what they are suing for, I do question motive.   I do believe there should be a law that says in any lawsuit,  anything beyond paying legal costs and medical bills should be given to charity.   If such was a law, it would clarify motive and would eliminate many of the lawsuits in our society where many people do actually use the legal system as a way to financial security.  That does happen and I believe you would agree that it does.   I don't know if that is her intent and perhaps I was wrong to assume it but it is an issue that needs to be clarified in my mind.  That is really my problem and not much beyond that.  That is all I have to say.  

If she'd been believed and he was exed, there'd be no lawsuit. Its clear she wants him to finally confess and face church discipline for his crimes. 

Whichis why it's so disingenuous for Ryan and Dehlin to use this to push against confession for sexual sin.

[jpv]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I thought of that as well and I would be very offended if my tithing money was being used to pay lawyers and settlements.  However the church does have lots of income that come from other places and that do not come from member donations so i am sure that is where the money comes from.  The money for the mall near temple square came from its business income.   Otherwise I would withhold my tith money because my tith money is meant to build up the church, not to pay lawyers.  I work too hard and sacrifice too much for that.

There are lots of documented cases of the church paying lawyers to settle in the millions. It's disconnecting to me too, but when the church is centralized like a corporate conglomerate (as opposed to Catholic franchises) I don't see how you avoid it.

[Meerkat]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm sick.

And, in my opinion, "tithing dollars" were used because that's all the church has.  Everything it has ever been given, or gained by the service of church members, or earned from interest off of donations, etc is "tithing".

How about profits from their businesses and investments?

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Except for the stuff about leaders having discernment.  This might just put the nail in the coffin on that one for a lot of members...

Discernment is only one gift of the Spirit. Not everyone has the same gifts