There was a second woman, and the church knew

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Those who were pushing the demention issue because  the most are the same ones who believe these 85 plus aged men are always fully competent and know the will of God  in all things  

You can’t have it both ways and have any credibility 

I didn't see anyone pushing the dementia issue weren't pushing it just because of the man's age, but specifically because someone who claimed to know him said he had had it for years.  Have posters on here pushed the dementia issue based solely on the man's age?  

Edited March 24, 2018 by bluebell

[Brian 2.0]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I made this point earlier but I'm sorry if I wasn't clear (or maybe you missed it).  The issue 'did the church know' is only important as far as it shows whether or not the church was at fault or acted inappropriately.  If the church did not act inappropriately because the bishop in question acted reasonably and no one else in the church knew about it, then I don't see the point of the church offering an apology.  

Oh. I thought we were well beyond debating if the local leaders acted reasonably or not. 

Are you saying that with what we know now the multiple local leaders she told, and the leaders that spoke to Joe Bishop regarding multiple sexual allegations against him by multiple women acted reasonably or appropriately? 

[bluebell]

Just now, Brian 2.0 said:

Are you saying that with what we know now the multiple local leaders she told, and the leaders that spoke to Joe Bishop regarding multiple sexual allegations against him by multiple women acted reasonably or appropriately? 

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.  Are you asking if the bishop she told who didn't believe her acted reasonably (I think he did, though I wish he had done more) or are you asking if the church acted reasonably in 2010 (it looks like they did, but i'm not sure i have enough information to really judge that)?

[Brian 2.0]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.  Are you asking if the bishop she told who didn't believe her acted reasonably (I think he did, though I wish he had done more) or are you asking if the church acted reasonably in 2010 (it looks like they did, but i'm not sure i have enough information to really judge that)?

Do you think top church leaders (or law enforcement) SHOULD have known about these multiple allegations from their local leaders? 

If so then there were multiple points where such a thing could have happened, should have happened, but didn’t. That is the breakdown to apologize for. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Brian 2.0

[cdowis]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m not sure what the resources are that the church has developed to deal with this.  I was a counselor in a Bishopric from 2012 thorough 2016 and never received any training or resources on this matter. 

  OK, you were not a bishop.  You did not do youth or worthiness interviews, did you, only to renew temple recommends.  Ask the bishop about his special phone number for sensitive issues.

Edited March 24, 2018 by cdowis

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't see anyone pushing the dementia issue weren't pushing it just because of the man's age, but specifically because someone who claimed to know him said he had had it for years.  Have posters on here pushed the dementia issue based solely on the man's age?  

People grab onto an unsubstantiated comment like that and build an entire defense around that, completely ignoring that his OWN son made no such claim. People want to believe what they want to believe    They ignore logic to fit those beliefs.  That is my point.  

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

Do you think top church leaders (or law enforcement) SHOULD have known about these multiple allegations from their local leaders? 

If so then there were multiple points where such a thing could have happened, should have happened, but didn’t. That is the breakdown to apologize for. 

Personally, no, i don't think it's unreasonable that they didn't know about it (though I wish they had).

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

People grab onto an unsubstantiated comment like that and build an entire defense around that, completely ignoring that his OWN son made no such claim. People want to believe what they want to believe    They ignore logic to fit those beliefs.  That is my point.  

You could be right to some degree.  On here though, the people that grabbed on to it seemed to do so because 1) it was reported by someone who knew him 2) it seemed plausible having read the transcript and 3) also seemed plausible compared to their personal experiences dealing with someone with dementia (which is perfectly logical).  

Speaking for myself, I always reminded people that my concerns about his possibly dementia had not been proven or supported and were just concerns if that possibility ended up being true.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

  OK, you were not a bishop.  You did not do youth or worthiness interviews, did you, only to renew temple recommends.  Ask the bishop about his special phone number for sensitive issues.

Counselors can do both youth (semi-annual) and worthiness interviews (patriarchal blessing, ordination, baptismal, etc.). They have been able to for years now, though that was a change at one point.

[Meerkat]

10 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.

 

Yes, due process is very important.  There's a lot to be said for a speedy trial.  I'm sure some training will be coming down the pike.  

[juliann]

I only read the transcript. He didn't sound all there in my estimation. But everyone I saw that had listened to it thought he didn't have issues, in fact, quite the opposite. It was that crazy son's defenses of him that convinced me of his father's guilt because of the extra little details he provided.  Bishop himself certainly had the wherewithal to go through every textbook rationalization of the poor put upon abuser. 

[cdowis]

23 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

Do you think top church leaders (or law enforcement) SHOULD have known about these multiple allegations from their local leaders?

Perhaps, in a perfect world where everyone acts with 20/20 hindsight. But when do "multiple allegations" merely become an echo chamber of rumours involving a perfectly innocent individual.  I have personal experience with the rumour mill.

If so then there were multiple points where such a thing could have happened, should have happened, but didn’t. That is the breakdown to apologize for. 

Let's agree to disagree.  Sometimes the medicine is more deadly than the disease.  The church gave a description on what we did do.  Tell us exactly why we need to make an apology beyond giving a brief narrative of the facts.

The world is still waiting for an apology for polygamy, and blacks and the priesthood.

 

Edited March 24, 2018 by cdowis

[Brian 2.0]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Personally, no, i don't think it's unreasonable that they didn't know about it (though I wish they had).

We just have very different standards of reasonabikity I guess. Here’s the list I look at to determine that question:

1987: She tells her local leadership about the abuse. She is not believed. Joe Bishop is not contacted. 

Unknown dates: Joe Bishop confesses some of the things Elder Wells. What exactly is confessed is unknown  

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 abusing AGAIN (This has become unreasonable now)  

2016: Original accuser tells her local leadership AGAIN

2017: Original accuser tells BYU Police (not really church leadership but worth including)

 

Maybe you see it differently. When I look at the definition of unreasonable... “beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness” then yes, I find it very much so unreasonable. 

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, cdowis said:

  OK, you were not a bishop.  You did not do youth or worthiness interviews, did you, only to renew temple recommends.  Ask the bishop about his special phone number for sensitive issues.

As a counselor I did temple worthiness interviews and youth interviews.  I was not given a phone number though it’s possible the bishop had one.  Of course, if someone reported to me an accusation about the bishop, it might be tough to ask him for the number (he’d obviously want an explanation). 

And there was never any training regarding interviewing youth or adults nor how to deal with cases of sexual abuse. 

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You could be right to some degree.  On here though, the people that grabbed on to it seemed to do so because 1) it was reported by someone who knew him 2) it seemed plausible having read the transcript and 3) also seemed plausible compared to their personal experiences dealing with someone with dementia (which is perfectly logical).  

Speaking for myself, I always reminded people that my concerns about his possibly dementia had not been proven or supported and were just concerns if that possibility ended up being true.

Even when his own son doesn’t mention it?  Because his own son was looking for an excuse with the whole medical drug thing. He didn’t mention dementia   

If someone who knew a general authority made a claim that one of them who was 85 had dementia would those same people go on for pages assuming that was true?  Or would they say, who are you going to believe, a son or some unidentifiable stranger?   

[Thinking]

The subtle jabs at this woman need to stop. In the official statement from the church, the anonymous author writes

Quote

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. (emphasis mine)

Washing its hands of the matter doesn't make the Church look good IMO.

Quote

The Church, as a religious organization, does not have the investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies. Nor can the Church substitute for the courts in adjudicating legal claims. The Church has great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims.

The Church does have the resources to hire somebody with those tools. This statement makes it sound like the Church will wait for the legal system to reach its conclusion.

In the updated statement (after it learned of the second woman),

Quote

The Church is looking into all aspects of the assertions on the recording of Joseph Bishop. This includes the work of outside legal counsel, who are interviewing priesthood leaders, family members, law enforcement officials and others with knowledge of these incidents.

Apparently the Church does have the necessary investigative tools.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I think Smac spoke to that earlier, if it had passed it wasn't retroactive and wouldn't take affect until May or something. Where does he get the idea there was a NDA agreement?

Thanks Duncan, sometimes I jump on things without really looking, well not even sometimes!  I did notice that you mentioned something to Bill on FB too. Which is fine by me, but Bill had a point about the future. But I'm glad he edited the post.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Duncan, sometimes I jump on things without really looking, well not even sometimes!  I did notice that you mentioned something to Bill on FB too. Which is fine by me, but Bill had a point about the future. But I'm glad he edited the post.

was that the FB post about KFC running out of chicken and how it better not happen in Canada, or the Mob thing and how my mission friend from Wyoming wants to be in it? 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

But what your case is requires tithing dollars to have been the only source that ever paid for anything, otherwise at least a percentage of the source money was not tithing and there some of the money produced these days is ultimately not from tithing dollars.

Consecrated funds are not the same as tithing, imo.  If you wish to debate the problem of using anything consecrated, that is imo, something different.

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Perhaps, in a perfect world where everyone acts with 20/20 hindsight. But when do "multiple allegations" merely become an echo chamber of rumours involving a perfectly innocent individual.  I have personal experience with the rumour mill.

If so then there were multiple points where such a thing could have happened, should have happened, but didn’t. That is the breakdown to apologize for. 

Let's agree to disagree.  Sometimes the medicine is more deadly than the disease.  The church gave a description on what we did do.  Tell us exactly why we need to make an apology beyond giving a brief narrative of the facts.

The world is still waiting for an apology for polygamy, and blacks and the priesthood.

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

[Brian 2.0]

13 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The church gave a description on what we did do.  Tell us exactly why we need to make an apology beyond giving a brief narrative of the facts.

I’ll try this tactic on my wife when the kids break something of value under my watch after she’s mentioned to me to be careful around it. I’ll tell you how that goes. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Even when his own son doesn’t mention it?  Because his own son was looking for an excuse with the whole medical drug thing. He didn’t mention dementia   

If someone who knew a general authority made a claim that one of them who was 85 had dementia would those same people go on for pages assuming that was true?  Or would they say, who are you going to believe, a son or some unidentifiable stranger?   

Most of the concerns about dementia were posted before the son had made any statements at all or before the poster was aware of his statements.  This topic was discussed for almost a whole day before other statements came out.

When unsubstantiated rumors about Monson having dementia started going around a couple of years ago, most of the posters on here didn't struggle with it being true. 

[cdowis]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As a counselor I did temple worthiness interviews and youth interviews.  I was not given a phone number though it’s possible the bishop had one.  Of course, if someone reported to me an accusation about the bishop, it might be tough to ask him for the number (he’d obviously want an explanation). 

And there was never any training regarding interviewing youth or adults nor how to deal with cases of sexual abuse. 

What does the Handbook say about who conducts youth interviews?  Let me give you some basic training -- if you are interviewing someone and serious sin is indicated, this is something that the Bishop should handle.  That is beyond you purview as a counselor and that is why you were not trained.  The bishop is the common judge and must handle all such matters.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Brian 2.0 said:

I’ll try this tactic on my wife when the kids break something of value under my watch after she’s mentioned to me to be careful around it. I’ll tell you how that goes. 

you might want to invest in a good couch and clean the garage or borrow one

[Brian 2.0]

17 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Sometimes the medicine is more deadly than the disease.

Please explain to me the devistating side effects of the church institution apologizing for abuse that happened at the hands of one of its leaders.