There was a second woman, and the church knew

[Brian 2.0]

Bishops are ecclesiastical leaders in the church. So yes, "the church knew".  The leaders in Salt Lake may not have known, but the church isn't simply the COB. When someone says "the church has a lay ministry" does that not include Bishops or Stake Presidents? Of course it does. Yes, the church knew, but the upper leadership did not for a bit. Whatever the breakdown (bad policy, bad judgement by local leader) it was a breakdown in church policy/structure/training and the church should take responsibility for the breakdown. Hiding behind "well it was just local leadership" is just poor form. Maybe the next time I hear the church has a lay ministry I'll just say "well, just the local leadership is a lay ministry."

Edited March 24, 2018 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

 

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

Victims hide.  They fear.  They try to forget.  It's not a coincidence that the #MeToo movement has so many woman finally speaking out about abuse; it's because they finally feel the collective courage to do so.  I suspect that's part of what we are seeing with these two women, as well.

 

Hold up. Yeah. it's 2018 now. But this is not the first time this has been brought up by the accuser to church leadership. These are CONFIRMED times church leadership was informed after the abuse took place in 1984:

1987: She tells her local leadership about the abuse. She is not believed and Joe Bishop is not contacted
2010: She tells her local leadership again. Joe Bishop is confronted and denies it.
2010: A 2nd woman (back rub) tells her local leadership. Joe Bishop is confronted and denies it. 
2016: Original accuser tells her local leadership AGAIN
2017: Original accuser tells BYU Police (not really church leadership but worth including)
2018: Lawyer for accused contacts church HQ and gives them recording

Add to this that Joe Bishop admitted that he confessed things to Elder Wells (though who knows what he said in those meetings) But, no, this didn't just come out. This isn't a 2018 deal. This has been coming out or trying to come to light for decades and she got increasingly frustrated. Understandably so.

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Brian 2.0

[Calm]

2 hours ago, sjdawg said:

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

I really, really hope for the sake of victims,he originally set it up as a place to get away by himself, use the porn to satisfy his needs, which of course didn't work and then he went on to other more intimate  rewards.  That way maybe there are only a few...but there is a sense of doom with this, so thinking is pretty wishful likely.

[readstoomuch]

This is all just sickening.  Sexual allegations are all too common.  It has been an issue with adultery in my ward since I have been in the bishopric.  Unless the ward starts collecting statements and people to interview like the police, it can become she said/he said.  We had a nonmember telling one of the bishopric about the situation.  She wasn’t willing to have her named used or testify in any type of council.  It has been very hard to hold the brother responsible.  I am in no way comparing it to the incident.  Just that it is too common and hard for the Church to know how to be involved and gather information.   He doesn’t come to church, so the accused is not serving and by no means given a pass.  He is not a noble person, but is adamant in his denials.  He is separated and probably divorce eventually.

I don’t think any one is condoning what seemed to have happened in the MTC, but wondering if it was handled correctly.  We may have to wait for the process to work out to know the facts.  It does seem like MormonLeaks tries to embarrass and cause dissension as much as possible.  I get the impression that people find them noble in this case..  They haven’t been that way (noble) in the past, so it is hard to see them as any thing but trouble makers, IMO.

[Brian 2.0]

4 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

They haven’t been that way (noble) in the past, so it is hard to see them as any thing but trouble makers, IMO.

I'm not saying they're noble. But I am saying their nobility or lack thereof doesn't change confirmed and admitted facts revealed by such "trouble makers".

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I really, really hope for the sake of victims,he originally set it up as a place to get away by himself, use the porn to satisfy his needs, which of course didn't work and then he went on to other more intimate  rewards.  That way maybe there are only a few...but there is a sense of doom with this, so thinking is pretty wishful likely.

I hope so too but I too keep waiting for the floodgates to open.  

[Buckeye]

10 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".

I have no idea how things work internally commingling for church finances, but there are lots of non-tithing sources of income.  A few quick examples that come to mind:

- time donated by members serving at welfare farms or other church properties. In my stake we build and maintain facilities at a girls camp. We also clean the church

- for many years members built their own chapels through manual labor and fund raising drives. 1/2 of my chapel was built this way

- the church has a strong philanthropic donation program  I’ve heard them present before: lots of educational, missionary, shelter, foreign aid, and other cause-specific places for people to donate money (especially from their wills)  My engineering program at BYU is named after a couple who donated millions to the school 

- the church non profit farms have many service missionaries who donate time building and maintaining facilities. If anyone here is interested in a ‘blue-collar’ mission I know who can hook you up

These are just examples. There’s many more  

Please don’t read the above to reflect at all on the subject of this discussion  I’m sickened too.

[cdowis]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

I wonder when our Prophet will address this instead of unnamed church spokespeople?

Why should he do such a thing?  It seems to me that you want to take an unfortunate event by an individual who violated his  sacred trust as an excuse to shame the entire church.

OK, the church was unprepared to handle such a situation but it is now putting procedures in place.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Why should he do such a thing?  It seems to me that you want to take an unfortunate event by an individual who violated his  sacred trust as an excuse to shame the entire church.

OK, the church was unprepared to handle such a situation but it is now putting procedures in place.  

Has it though? What is the procedure for a young women who is asked about her masturbation habit in graphic detail in a bishops interview? How does she know what the procedure is? Who investigates? 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Has it though? What is the procedure for a young women who is asked about her masturbation habit in graphic detail in a bishops interview? How does she know what the procedure is? Who investigates? 

Ideally, her parents have prepared her for the possibility of inappropriate questions, she knows that the procedure is to tell her parents about it, and her parents head the investigation.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 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.

 

How does one define the church? Is it the leadership? The organization? The church membership? In any case, I think it's fair to say the church knew even if it is uncertain whether or not the highest authorities personally knew. The church imbues it's local leaders with power and authority to act on its behalf in certain ways. If those leaders, whether GA's or local bishops and SP's know and/or do something, the "church" knows or has done it. It is problematic to suggest that just because a top official didn't know personally, or it can't be proven that he knew, that the church doesn't have responsibility.

That's what it comes down to for me as well. IF God wants me to be fully engaged in the CoJCoLDS then he needs to let me know. I've pled for confirmation but I'm still waiting. IF it's important for me to know that, I can't tell based on the communication I've received.

[Jeanne]

41 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Why should he do such a thing?  It seems to me that you want to take an unfortunate event by an individual who violated his  sacred trust as an excuse to shame the entire church.

OK, the church was unprepared to handle such a situation but it is now putting procedures in place.  

He should have been the first person to speak out..loud and clear.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Brian 2.0 said:

Bishops are ecclesiastical leaders in the church. So yes, "the church knew".  The leaders in Salt Lake may not have known, but the church isn't simply the COB. When someone says "the church has a lay ministry" does that not include Bishops or Stake Presidents? Of course it does. Yes, the church knew, but the upper leadership did not for a bit. Whatever the breakdown (bad policy, bad judgement by local leader) it was a breakdown in church policy/structure/training and the church should take responsibility for the breakdown. Hiding behind "well it was just local leadership" is just poor form. Maybe the next time I hear the church has a lay ministry I'll just say "well, just the local leadership is a lay ministry."

I think that people use the term 'the church' in a lot of different ways.  Sometimes they use it to mean the institution (like in the example you used) and other times they use it to mean the upper leadership (as in, the ones with the power to act in the name of and direct the entire organization).

I think when people talk about whether or not 'the church' knew (or knows) they are using the term in the second way.  They aren't talking about whether or not one lower level leader knew.  That's been my experience in other online forums anyway.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ideally, her parents have prepared her for the possibility of inappropriate questions, she knows that the procedure is to tell her parents about it, and her parents head the investigation.

So the answer is no then? The church has no policy in place here? And what are the parents to do? Raise the issue with the bishop and stake president who likely will brush the issue aside as a misunderstanding or over sensitive parents? Have you read the condemnation on this board from faithful members about parents who want to sit in on interviews with their kids?

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that people use the term 'the church' in a lot of different ways.  Sometimes they use it to mean the institution (like in the example you used) and other times they use it to mean the upper leadership (as in, the ones with the power to act in the name of and direct the entire organization).

I think when people talk about whether or not 'the church' knew (or knows) they are using the term in the second way.  They aren't talking about whether or not one lower level leader knew.  That's been my experience in other online forums anyway.  

Look at my comment above. I think I address it a little.

But also think of it this way...

I work as a manager for a large organization. If a customer comes in to complain to me about something, whether it happened at my location or not, my organization is responsible for how I handle the situation. Did I follow procedures? Did I communicate up the chain as necessary? Did I complete legally required reports? If I don't, the organization is responsible, not just me. They employ me and therefore accept risk for how I do my job. The same could/should be said for the church. If I, as a bishop or SP, or whatever, do something under the authority of the church, the church is responsible. They cannot simply claim ignorance. Organizations and designated authority don't work that way. I am an agent for my employer just as I was an agent for the church.

If top organization leadership wasn't made aware of something they wished they had, then they can investigate whether or not policies and procedures were followed. If policies and procedures were followed but they still weren't aware of something they should have been, then they at responsible because they establish the policies and procedures.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

He should have been the first person to speak out..loud and clear.

It would have been so great if he had, but I don't fault him for not.  The claims are very outrageous and I don't think it was unreasonable for him to doubt them. But, I wish he would have thought of some kind of an in-between reaction, where he could have acknowledged his reasonable (though ultimately wrong) doubt but also supported the woman more, helping her to do what she believed she needed to do even if he didn't believe her.  Perhaps with more contact with her, her story would have seemed less outrageous to him and ultimately he could have helped her. 

[rpn]

10 hours 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 in 2010 that the first woman went again to the church.   I would hypothesize that she mentioned the second woman to them then.    If that is the case, and the Church reached out to her, it is completely strange that church officials didn't believe the first woman?   It is equally strange if the woman who recently recorded Bishop brought it up AFTER the church has apparently responded appropriately to the first known victim.

I would agree that the non-recording survivor's situation could have been a local matter; but the official church response yesterday admitted it knew of the other woman in 2010.  And you'll recall that in telling the story, she inquired about what carlos asay had done about what she had personally reported to him.   That would have had to go to headquarters.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So the answer is no then? The church has no policy in place here? And what are the parents to do? Raise the issue with the bishop and stake president who likely will brush the issue aside as a misunderstanding or over sensitive parents? Have you read the condemnation on this board from faithful members about parents who want to sit in on interviews with their kids?

Other than the very general policy of not asking inappropriate things?  No, I don't think they  have a specific policy on what to do when a bishop has been accused of asking something inappropriate.  I could be wrong though.

And yes, i've read some condemnation on this board to the idea of parents sitting in on interviews but obviously not all 'faithful members' on the board have reacted  that way.  I've read a lot of thoughts on that idea, from kids who claim they would never confess anything if their parents were there to kids who say it wouldn't make a difference, to parents who say they have no desire to be there to ones who say they would never let their kids be interviewed without them there.  There are a lot of different opinions on it and a lot of different things to consider.  It's a difficult question because there is no perfect answer to it.

Separate from all that though, we can always come back to the need to prepare our kids for adults who may try inappropriate things no matter the situation, so ideally, a girl or boy will go into an interview situation prepared and empowered to handle it how her or his parents taught them to.      

Edited March 24, 2018 by bluebell

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

So it is just your speculation that no tithing dollars were ever used to purchase property or businesses. 

And how was it claimed?  By the sacrifice of the saints in coming out to Utah.  That makes it consecrated. 

[rockpond]

10 hours 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.

Perhaps that is something that needs to be fixed as this issue is addressed. 

[rpn]

6 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

This is all just sickening.  Sexual allegations are all too common.  It has been an issue with adultery in my ward since I have been in the bishopric.  Unless the ward starts collecting statements and people to interview like the police, it can become she said/he said.  We had a nonmember telling one of the bishopric about the situation.  She wasn’t willing to have her named used or testify in any type of council.  It has been very hard to hold the brother responsible.

But this situation wasn't a garden variety adultery (which presupposes consenting adults).   This was a major abuse of power perped by a called church leader, and reported by two people in various forms, and over years.   The way it wasn't handled but should have been,  can fairly have resulted from church member's tendency to give their leaders extraordinary pass on their actions.   The fact that there are two, and a secondary basement room, and similarities in the situations of the survivors should have been enough that it isn't at all a he said she said.   Why would they say it if it weren't true?   And we sure as heck know why the perp would deny it.   At the very least, the high council should have had a council about it and heard the testimony.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Look at my comment above. I think I address it a little.

But also think of it this way...

I work as a manager for a large organization. If a customer comes in to complain to me about something, whether it happened at my location or not, my organization is responsible for how I handle the situation. Did I follow procedures? Did I communicate up the chain as necessary? Did I complete legally required reports? If I don't, the organization is responsible, not just me. They employ me and therefore accept risk for how I do my job. The same could/should be said for the church. If I, as a bishop or SP, or whatever, do something under the authority of the church, the church is responsible. They cannot simply claim ignorance. Organizations and designated authority don't work that way. I am an agent for my employer just as I was an agent for the church.

If top organization leadership wasn't made aware of something they wished they had, then they can investigate whether or not policies and procedures were followed. If policies and procedures were followed but they still weren't aware of something they should have been, then they at responsible because they establish the policies and procedures.

I get that.  But this issue comes down to those times when there aren't procedures that must be followed and when all an organization requires is that a 'manager' to reacted in a reasonable way.  The church is not responsible for every time their leadership is wrong (part of the teachings of the church is that their leadership will definitely be wrong sometimes), they are responsible for those times when their leadership did not follow procedure, rules, or acted in an unreasonable way.

From my perspective, it all comes down to whether or not it was unreasonable for the woman's bishop not to believe her claims.  

[Thinking]

14 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Hope tithing dollars are not used for such negotiations.

This disclaimer is on the tithing donation slip.

Quote

Though reasonable efforts will be made to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission.

 

[rpn]

And on the tape, he said he confessed to Elder Robert Wells (I haven't seen how he was ever in a priesthood chain of command for Bishop such that it would hold any confessional privilege or could receive any disciplinary dispostion, but I may not know something.)   We have not yet heard from Elder Wells (who is 91 this year), but what did he say in 2010 when he was asked about Bishop?   And since apparently it was Elder Wells who had recommended Bishop for church leadership, why wouldn't whomever was looking into the issue have contacted Elder Wells.   And if Bishop did confess anything (if I recall correctly Bishop said he confessed to something inappropriate involving a woman in FL who has not come forward publically that I know of), how was church discipline ruled out then? 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This disclaimer is on the tithing donation slip.

 

Pretty much covers everything. Thanks, I haven't seen a donation slip since 2008.