There was a second woman, and the church knew

[rockpond]

1 hour 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.  

I don’t want to shame the entire church, I want the issue to be addressed by the entire church, and that should be led by the Prophet.  Do you disagree?

Let’s review the people who are alleged to have been involved in this:

* Multiple local leaders over decades 

* Carlos Asay

* Robert Wells

* The president of the MTC

We’ve got men across varying levels of leadership.  It’s a systemic issue.  You say that the church is now putting procedures in place.  Where is your evidence of that?  As of March 19th they were still hiding everything.  It took MormonLeaks for us to even be aware. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, rpn said:

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? 

That's why I say and maybe they are doing this but someone should contact Elder Wells to see what he recalls from all this. Aside from that though, Bishop confessed and should be kicked out of the Church, 85 years old or not

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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. 

I understand what you are saying..but I think it would mean so much to members..and all leaders would take serious note to his authority..comdemnation of said allegations and their roles of leadership. 

Edited to add:  It is his job..his role as a Prophet and leader..his example is key.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Jeanne

[mcjathan]

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

A friend of mine, who is an attorney, said:

John: it's not a coincidence that it was during litigation against the church in a sex abuse case when I determined the church is not true.

"When the culture of any organization mandates that it is more important to protect the reputation of the system, and those in power, than it is to protect the basic human dignity of the individuals who serve that system, or who are served by that system, you can be certain that shame is systemic, money is driving ethics, and that accountability is all but dead.  This is true in corporations, nonprofits, universities, governments, faith communities, schools, families and sports programs."
―Brené Brown

[HappyJackWagon]

Let's be honest. The general culture of both society and the church has changed dramatically over the last 35 years. It really shouldn't be all that shocking that the church didn't have any solid policies in place to protect victims in the 80's. I think most people, though disappointed, would understand that things have changed significantly since then. I can understand a bishop from 1984 not believing claims of a sx room in the MTC where the mission Pres. took advantage of Sis. Missionaries. It's so horrific that it seems impossible.

That understanding aside, the culture has shifted but the church seems to be committed to living with 1984 style excuses. It's bad enough that this horrible thing happened in the 80's and that no one believed her in the 90's or the 2000's but here we are in 2018 with a lot of cultural evolution under our collective belts. The culture of the church leadership, including proscribed policies and procedures need to be updated. Members need to stop giving a pass to bad leadership. Membership should expect more from its leadership than excuses or the shift of blame and it should never be acceptable for the church to blame the victim and use code words to imply that the church didn't know and that the victim can't be trusted. What happened to this survivor in the 80's is bad enough but the church is wallowing in the mistake, refusing to take responsibility and address the real issues facing it. IF this was all in the past it would be disturbing, but it's even worse because it's in the present and the top leadership seems to be resisting change.

I don't envy the PR department for having to deal with this. I don't envy Pres. Nelson for leading in such difficult times, but I do hope he's up to the task and leads. He, and the other Q15 need to address this directly and not simply through PR statements. It's unfair to place such a burden on the department to do what leadership should.

[Brian 2.0]

1 hour 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.  

 

Sure. But why does it matter? Why use that distinction? It’s so weak.

Think of the school shooting in Parkland. The FBI failed to act on a tip that could have prevented the shooting. The FBI apologized and took responsibility. Now the fault was a local field office with an agent that didn’t follow up. Did the FBI or anyone in the FBI say “it was just a local office that screwed up. The FBI didn’t know.” Of course no one said that. It would have been insanely dumb of them to say that. They would have been raked over the coals, and for good reason. There was a breakdown in The FBI so the FBI took responsibility and apologized, right away.

I don’t see how this situation is any different. The church knew. OF COURSE they should apologizes for the breakdown. Saying “the church didn’t know” in any context here is just weak sauce. 

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, mcjathan said:

"When the culture of any organization mandates that it is more important to protect the reputation of the system, and those in power, than it is to protect the basic human dignity of the individuals who serve that system, or who are served by that system, you can be certain that shame is systemic, money is driving ethics, and that accountability is all but dead.  This is true in corporations, nonprofits, universities, governments, faith communities, schools, families and sports programs."
―Brené Brown

Good quote mcjathan!

DBMormon is a member of this board and quoted this on FB for everyone to share.

"I can't emphasize this enough. Please take 30 seconds to understand this conundrum.

The LDS Church after learning of this audio felt it important to initiate legislation that prevented in Utah the sharing of such Audio where only one person knew a conversation was being recorded. They were informed of and listened to this audio only days or at most weeks before they felt suddenly there was a need in Utah for a change in the law. In the meantime, The LDS Church also knew there was a second allegation by a second woman against Bishop. In the meantime this man continued to be allowed to hold callings where he could be around and interact with youth.

When the Audio became public, the Church knew behind the scenes there had been a second woman who had come to them with allegations against Bishop, and yet avoided acknowledging such, and instead chose to use language that deflected or dismissed the Woman's claims.

Only when audio, that the Church initiated legislation to prevent from coming out, surfaced did the Church remove his books from Deseret Book. And only when Public Opinion seem to sway as the evidence mounted did the Church admit there was another woman with "non-recent" allegations against Bishop and did the Church back away from rhetoric that seemed to victim blame and take the matter seriously (at least in their words)

My Questions to be honored

1.) Was the other woman given Hush money and did she sign a NDA?

2.) Does the Church now admit that allowing such audio to come public is a positive thing if the priority is to protect the abused?

3.) Is the Church willing to admit it has unique mechanisms that contribute to a unhealthy space for abuse?

4.) Will the Church going forward support the right of a one party state in regards to audio recordings in an effort to protect victims of abuse?

5.) Can the LDS Church and its leaders acknowledge that Sam Young and others are asking for positive healthy change in the system and that God inspired leaders can be deeply wrong and behind the world when it comes to social changes like this?

Can I ask folks to share this and to pose this in its entirety to friends and family and ask that your questions be honored.

I am hoping that namely the Church will address this in the coming days (though I highly doubt they will ), defenders of Mormonism as God's one true Church might be vulnerable enough to weigh in (Though I highly doubt they will) and that others with nuanced beliefs might take a stab at these questions where they have an opinion of knowledge."

Resources:

https://www.sltrib.com/…/mormon-church-interested-in-bill-…/

http://www.foxnews.com/…/2nd-alleged-sexual-assault-victim-…

http://kutv.com/…/former-employee-confirms-odd-mtc-room-wit…

https://mormonleaks.io/…/mormonleaks-releases-of-former-mo…/

Me: I believe he's right, even though he isn't well received here I'm posting because he makes a good point. Rather than the church trying to squelch recordings why not accept that it very well can help convict abusers. But no, the church comes out with wanting a law changed to not allow these recordings right after receiving the recording in January, coincidence?  http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-supporters-and-other-object-bill-for-secret-recording-ban

"Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members," Eric Hawkins, LDS Church spokesman, said. "In other states, business, legal, religious and law enforcement organizations have supported similar laws to safeguard confidential conversations for the same reasons."

Edited March 24, 2018 by Tacenda

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Brian 2.0 said:

 

 

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.

 

The church has been putting the best spin they possibly can on history of the church since its beginning.  For example Joseph Smith publicly saying that no polygamy was being practiced when in fact that was totally false.  How the church handled this situation and is now handling the evidence that is known should not surprise one single member.  This is what the church does.  This is what the church has always done.  When challenged by facts, the church only does just enough to make it appear they might possibly be addressing the issue.  Even the touted essays were only written when the church was put in a box with internet reporting of events. They are carefully crafted the wording to try and mitigate the facts just enough to appear to be forthcoming, still leaving out the details that are still damaging to the church. 

Is something going to change?  Why would anyone hold that hope.  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

 

Sure. But why does it matter? Why use that distinction? It’s so weak.

Think of the school shooting in Parkland. The FBI failed to act on a tip that could have prevented the shooting. The FBI apologized and took responsibility. Now the fault was a local field office with an agent that didn’t follow up. Did the FBI or anyone in the FBI say “it was just a local office that screwed up. The FBI didn’t know.” Of course no one said that. It would have been insanely dumb of them to say that. They would have been raked over the coals, and for good reason. There was a breakdown in The FBI so the FBI took responsibility and apologized, right away.

I don’t see how this situation is any different. The church knew. OF COURSE they should apologizes for the breakdown. Saying “the church didn’t know” in any context here is just weak sauce. 

Words almost always (always?) have multiple definitions. Acknowledging that isn’t weak, it’s just a fact. 

From what I’ve seen, the question “did the church know” usually comes from those who are trying to decide if the church acted appropriately given what it knew. 

The answer to “did the church act appropriately” is different depending on whether one bishop knew of the claim, didn’t believe it, and never told anyone else, or whether upper leadership knew of the claim and of other similar claims. 

That’s why it’s not weak sauce to differentiate between one bishop and church leadership when asking if the church knew.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good quote mcjathan!

DBMormon is a member of this board and quoted this on FB for everyone to share.

"I can't emphasize this enough. Please take 30 seconds to understand this conundrum.

The LDS Church after learning of this audio felt it important to initiate legislation that prevented in Utah the sharing of such Audio where only one person knew a conversation was being recorded. They were informed of and listened to this audio only days or at most weeks before they felt suddenly there was a need in Utah for a change in the law. In the meantime, The LDS Church also knew there was a second allegation by a second woman against Bishop. In the meantime this man continued to be allowed to hold callings where he could be around and interact with youth.

When the Audio became public, the Church knew behind the scenes there had been a second woman who had come to them with allegations against Bishop, and yet avoided acknowledging such, and instead chose to use language that deflected or dismissed the Woman's claims.

Only when audio, that the Church initiated legislation to prevent from coming out, surfaced did the Church remove his books from Deseret Book. And only when Public Opinion seem to sway as the evidence mounted did the Church admit there was another woman with "non-recent" allegations against Bishop and did the Church back away from rhetoric that seemed to victim blame and take the matter seriously (at least in their words)

My Questions to be honored

1.) Was the other woman given Hush money and did she sign a NDA?

2.) Does the Church now admit that allowing such audio to come public is a positive thing if the priority is to protect the abused?

3.) Is the Church willing to admit it has unique mechanisms that contribute to a unhealthy space for abuse?

4.) Will the Church going forward support the right of a one party state in regards to audio recordings in an effort to protect victims of abuse?

5.) Can the LDS Church and its leaders acknowledge that Sam Young and others are asking for positive healthy change in the system and that God inspired leaders can be deeply wrong and behind the world when it comes to social changes like this?

Can I ask folks to share this and to pose this in its entirety to friends and family and ask that your questions be honored.

I am hoping that namely the Church will address this in the coming days (though I highly doubt they will ), defenders of Mormonism as God's one true Church might be vulnerable enough to weigh in (Though I highly doubt they will) and that others with nuanced beliefs might take a stab at these questions where they have an opinion of knowledge."

Resources:

https://www.sltrib.com/…/mormon-church-interested-in-bill-…/

http://www.foxnews.com/…/2nd-alleged-sexual-assault-victim-…

http://kutv.com/…/former-employee-confirms-odd-mtc-room-wit…

https://mormonleaks.io/…/mormonleaks-releases-of-former-mo…/

Me: I believe he's right, even though he isn't well received here I'm posting because he makes a good point. Rather than the church trying to squelch recordings why not accept that it very well can help convict abusers. But no, the church comes out with wanting a law changed to not allow these recordings right after receiving the recording in January, coincidence?  http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-supporters-and-other-object-bill-for-secret-recording-ban

"Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members," Eric Hawkins, LDS Church spokesman, said. "In other states, business, legal, religious and law enforcement organizations have supported similar laws to safeguard confidential conversations for the same reasons."

Tacenda, the issue of the two party recording law has already been covered.

The recording was made in Arizona, so Utah laws wouldn’t make a difference. The recording was done before the law was  created, so the law would have no affect on this specific recording. And, the law specifically allows one party recording when a crime has been committed (such as rape or attempted rape, for example). 

 

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good quote mcjathan!

DBMormon is a member of this board and quoted this on FB for everyone to share.

"I can't emphasize this enough. Please take 30 seconds to understand this conundrum.

The LDS Church after learning of this audio felt it important to initiate legislation that prevented in Utah the sharing of such Audio where only one person knew a conversation was being recorded. They were informed of and listened to this audio only days or at most weeks before they felt suddenly there was a need in Utah for a change in the law. In the meantime, The LDS Church also knew there was a second allegation by a second woman against Bishop. In the meantime this man continued to be allowed to hold callings where he could be around and interact with youth.

When the Audio became public, the Church knew behind the scenes there had been a second woman who had come to them with allegations against Bishop, and yet avoided acknowledging such, and instead chose to use language that deflected or dismissed the Woman's claims.

Only when audio, that the Church initiated legislation to prevent from coming out, surfaced did the Church remove his books from Deseret Book. And only when Public Opinion seem to sway as the evidence mounted did the Church admit there was another woman with "non-recent" allegations against Bishop and did the Church back away from rhetoric that seemed to victim blame and take the matter seriously (at least in their words)

My Questions to be honored

1.) Was the other woman given Hush money and did she sign a NDA?

2.) Does the Church now admit that allowing such audio to come public is a positive thing if the priority is to protect the abused?

3.) Is the Church willing to admit it has unique mechanisms that contribute to a unhealthy space for abuse?

4.) Will the Church going forward support the right of a one party state in regards to audio recordings in an effort to protect victims of abuse?

5.) Can the LDS Church and its leaders acknowledge that Sam Young and others are asking for positive healthy change in the system and that God inspired leaders can be deeply wrong and behind the world when it comes to social changes like this?

Can I ask folks to share this and to pose this in its entirety to friends and family and ask that your questions be honored.

I am hoping that namely the Church will address this in the coming days (though I highly doubt they will ), defenders of Mormonism as God's one true Church might be vulnerable enough to weigh in (Though I highly doubt they will) and that others with nuanced beliefs might take a stab at these questions where they have an opinion of knowledge."

Resources:

https://www.sltrib.com/…/mormon-church-interested-in-bill-…/

http://www.foxnews.com/…/2nd-alleged-sexual-assault-victim-…

http://kutv.com/…/former-employee-confirms-odd-mtc-room-wit…

https://mormonleaks.io/…/mormonleaks-releases-of-former-mo…/

Me: I believe he's right, even though he isn't well received here I'm posting because he makes a good point. Rather than the church trying to squelch recordings why not accept that it very well can help convict abusers. But no, the church comes out with wanting a law changed to not allow these recordings right after receiving the recording in January, coincidence?  http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-supporters-and-other-object-bill-for-secret-recording-ban

"Church representatives have spoken with legislators to express support for House Bill 330, which is intended to protect the confidentiality of sensitive private conversations including those between ecclesiastical leaders and their members," Eric Hawkins, LDS Church spokesman, said. "In other states, business, legal, religious and law enforcement organizations have supported similar laws to safeguard confidential conversations for the same reasons."

Mic drop.  I didn't even think of this..wow..they were getting a head of the game. 

[Brian 2.0]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Words almost always (always?) have multiple definitions. Acknowledging that isn’t weak, it’s just a fact. 

From what I’ve seen, the question “did the church know” usually comes from those who are trying to decide if the church acted appropriately given what it knew. 

The answer to “did the church act appropriately” is different depending on whether one bishop knew of the claim, didn’t believe it, and never told anyone else, or whether upper leadership knew of the claim and of other similar claims. 

That’s why it’s not weak sauce to differentiate between one bishop and church leadership when asking if the church knew.

You can make that differentiation, but that doesn’t excuse full responsibility. The top church leadership didn’t know. Neither did the FBI in Parkland. Both the FBI and the church admitted the top leadership didn’t know. 

But the FBI apoloized and took responsibility because while protocol wasn’t followed correctly, it’s their responsibility to train the have systems in place. So when a breakdown happens it doesn’t matter to them that they didn’t know. That means they did a poor job of training and enforcing policies that would have prevented it. 

So what does the top brass “church” not knowing mean? It means there wasn’t a top level cover up, sure. But does that mean the top brass “church” bears no responsibility and doesn’t need to apologize? Absolutely not. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Brian 2.0

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, mcjathan said:

"When the culture of any organization mandates that it is more important to protect the reputation of the system, and those in power, than it is to protect the basic human dignity of the individuals who serve that system, or who are served by that system, you can be certain that shame is systemic, money is driving ethics, and that accountability is all but dead.  This is true in corporations, nonprofits, universities, governments, faith communities, schools, families and sports programs."
―Brené Brown

A perfect quote for this situation.  

Have we heard from our prophet yet regarding this issue?

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Tacenda, the issue of the two party recording law has already been covered.

The recording was made in Arizona, so Utah laws wouldn’t make a difference. The recording was done before the law was  created, so the law would have no affect on this specific recording. And, the law specifically allows one party recording when a crime has been committed (such as rape or attempted rape, for example). 

 

And so..the church took a lesson from this.

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Let's be honest. The general culture of both society and the church has changed dramatically over the last 35 years. It really shouldn't be all that shocking that the church didn't have any solid policies in place to protect victims in the 80's. I think most people, though disappointed, would understand that things have changed significantly since then. I can understand a bishop from 1984 not believing claims of a sx room in the MTC where the mission Pres. took advantage of Sis. Missionaries. It's so horrific that it seems impossible.

That understanding aside, the culture has shifted but the church seems to be committed to living with 1984 style excuses. It's bad enough that this horrible thing happened in the 80's and that no one believed her in the 90's or the 2000's but here we are in 2018 with a lot of cultural evolution under our collective belts. The culture of the church leadership, including proscribed policies and procedures need to be updated. Members need to stop giving a pass to bad leadership. Membership should expect more from its leadership than excuses or the shift of blame and it should never be acceptable for the church to blame the victim and use code words to imply that the church didn't know and that the victim can't be trusted. What happened to this survivor in the 80's is bad enough but the church is wallowing in the mistake, refusing to take responsibility and address the real issues facing it. IF this was all in the past it would be disturbing, but it's even worse because it's in the present and the top leadership seems to be resisting change.

I don't envy the PR department for having to deal with this. I don't envy Pres. Nelson for leading in such difficult times, but I do hope he's up to the task and leads. He, and the other Q15 need to address this directly and not simply through PR statements. It's unfair to place such a burden on the department to do what leadership should.

Well said.  The Church also has the benefit of being able to learn from both the mistakes and good responses made by the BSA and the Catholic Church. 

 

Side note:  Has anyone completed the latest update to the BSA’s Youth Protection Training?  They have now upped the requirement that if ANYONE is going to be at a scout activity for 72 hours or more that must be a registered leader (even if you are just a dad accompanying your son)... you need to register, have your background check, and complete YPT. 

[drums12]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

The Church, like any organization, is made up of individuals and isn't a monolithic, sentient being.  In this context, and similar contexts, I think of "the Church" as its high leadership such as the Seventy, Twelve, First Presidency.  

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Hope tithing dollars are not used for such negotiations.  The very idea that they gave good counsel and got help for this second woman sounds delightful...but why would she need help...if she were lying?  Oh well..Bishop denied so we will just let that one go...is anybody sick about this?

Of course tithing monies are used to pay judgments to victims, and that is as it should be.  This also applies to psychological services.  Once again, however, all this confusion points up the need for timely reporting and use of rape kits.  The notion that it is easy to assign blame decades later, without adequate evidence, is absurd.

Everyone entering the MTC needs to be told from day one that sexual assault requires immediate reporting by 911 to local police, and that the MTC will maintain confidentiality in all such instances.  They need also to be informed that newspapers have a policy of never mentioning the name of the victim, unless the victim wants to be named.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course tithing monies are used to pay judgments to victims, and that is as it should be.  This also applies to psychological services.  Once again, however, all this confusion points up the need for timely reporting and use of rape kits.  The notion that it is easy to assign blame decades later, without adequate evidence, is absurd.

Everyone entering the MTC needs to be told from day one that sexual assault requires immediate reporting by 911 to local police, and that the MTC will maintain confidentiality in all such instances.  They need also to be informed that newspapers have a policy of never mentioning the name of the victim, unless the victim wants to be named.

Robert..paying money is nice no matter where it comes from...but not a coverup.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

16 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.

Posting on this board is a privilege, not a right. Someone is paying to keep this board running so don't complain.

If you don't like it you can create your own board.

[Tacenda]

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/03/24/statement-on-behalf-of-victim-in-joseph-l-bishop-audio/

Statement on Behalf of the Victim in Joseph L. Bishop Audio Recording

The following is statement written by the victim whose voice is heard in the audio recording of former Mission President, Joseph L. Bishop, admitting to inappropriate relations with women.

I’m the woman in the recording with Joseph L. Bishop. My identity will be revealed when I file the lawsuit.

First, although MormonLeaks did release my recording prior to my consent, Mr. McKnight and Mr. Dodge support my cause. It is my belief that they were concerned about ALL of the victims that may become forgotten if my story was silenced by a settlement and non-disclosure agreement. I cannot fault them for that. Having this story leaked has actually helped me. I was struggling with the settlement. Part of me wanted to take it and part of me didn’t. They made it easy for me. I didn’t have to choose. Some have stated that I am heroic and brave. I am neither of those things. I interviewed my rapist because I was pissed off. The church told me I wasn’t entitled to know what action, if any, had been taken in my reporting his raping me to several church leaders for 30 years. I was fed up. It was neither brave nor heroic.

Part of me wanted this to go away quietly and a bigger part of me wanted to scream from the top of the mountain what he did to me. Now I get to scream!

Even if the leak of the recording was prior to my consent, I do not agree that these men are re-victimizing me. I don’t think they would have released the recording without giving it serious thought and weighing the consequences heavily.

I look forward to sharing more of the story in the coming weeks.

 

[CA Steve]

9 minutes ago, drums12 said:

The Church, like any organization, is made up of individuals and isn't a monolithic, sentient being.  In this context, and similar contexts, I think of "the Church" as its high leadership such as the Seventy, Twelve, First Presidency.  

Were they acting as individuals or separate entities when they issued the policy turned revelation on the children of married gay people?

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

So what does the top brass “church” not knowing mean? It means there wasn’t a top level cover up, sure. But does that mean the top brass “church” bears no responsibility and doesn’t need to apologize? Absolutely not. 

I can appreciate that your answer to that question is “absolutely not.”  Other people see it differently, and are judging the church using different metrics.

Going forward, the church needs to fix the issue that allowed this to happen so it can’t happen again.  I don’t personally believe the church was negligent for not having such protocols and rules in place to before the fact.  Naive yes, but not negligent in my opinion. 

I think most of the problems in this issue come from too heavy a reliance on the idea that evil or messed up men cannot be called to high positions of authority.  It’ll be good for us to get away from that myth. 

[Jeanne]

There seems to be a silent relief in her comments..no matter what happens, she deserves some peace for the rest of her mortal life.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 hours ago, jpv said:

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

I repent.

I am not a parody troll, I am a Mormon Christian. I am not ashamed to call myself a Christian. My words are foolishness to the world, but Christ taught us to love those that persecute us (Matthew 5).  I am glad you see the light brother jpv.

Edited March 24, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/03/24/statement-on-behalf-of-victim-in-joseph-l-bishop-audio/

Statement on Behalf of the Victim in Joseph L. Bishop Audio Recording

The following is statement written by the victim whose voice is heard in the audio recording of former Mission President, Joseph L. Bishop, admitting to inappropriate relations with women.

I’m the woman in the recording with Joseph L. Bishop. My identity will be revealed when I file the lawsuit.

First, although MormonLeaks did release my recording prior to my consent, Mr. McKnight and Mr. Dodge support my cause. It is my belief that they were concerned about ALL of the victims that may become forgotten if my story was silenced by a settlement and non-disclosure agreement. I cannot fault them for that. Having this story leaked has actually helped me. I was struggling with the settlement. Part of me wanted to take it and part of me didn’t. They made it easy for me. I didn’t have to choose. Some have stated that I am heroic and brave. I am neither of those things. I interviewed my rapist because I was pissed off. The church told me I wasn’t entitled to know what action, if any, had been taken in my reporting his raping me to several church leaders for 30 years. I was fed up. It was neither brave nor heroic.

Part of me wanted this to go away quietly and a bigger part of me wanted to scream from the top of the mountain what he did to me. Now I get to scream!

Even if the leak of the recording was prior to my consent, I do not agree that these men are re-victimizing me. I don’t think they would have released the recording without giving it serious thought and weighing the consequences heavily.

I look forward to sharing more of the story in the coming weeks.

 

Thanks for posting this.