There was a second woman, and the church knew

[cdowis]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

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. 

Why don't you start a thread.

[provoman]

19 minutes 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?   

I think it is  evident that no one is CURRENTLY pushing a demntia agenda. Bluebell’s response have summed up the mentions of dementia in a thread that has been closed for 2 days or more now. 

I have not read in these threads that anyone is pushing a dementia agenda as details in from the recorded discussion have been confirmed by other sources...former MTC employee about a room with bed and video tapes, former bishop statement about bed video tapes, second womans report, police report documenting misconduct, claims from the transcript have been corroberated...the only one left mentioning dementia is you. It seems to me any discussion about dementia is long abandoned by those that every mentioned it.

Edited March 24, 2018 by provoman

[cdowis]

1 minute ago, Brian 2.0 said:

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. 

I have no interest in arguing with you.  Individual church leaders do not represent the church institution and that is why we excommunicate them.

[cdowis]

9 minutes 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. 

Nit interested in your relationship with your wife.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

The victim has released a statement saying that the Mormonleaks leak did not damage her and probably helped. I still find what they did without getting the permission of a woman victim is disgusting.

It was a good thing to see she was able to see the positive in the action.  I also agree with you that doesn't change the fact that they published the info without her permission is completely wrong.

I found the woman's statement to be quite down to earth and open about her own situation.  It impressed me.

[Brian 2.0]

10 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I have no interest in arguing with you.  Individual church leaders do not represent the church institution and that is why we excommunicate them.

well... sometimes only after 2 separate victims, 4 separate attempts to report it, 3 confession to Elder Well/BYU Police/on tape, 31 years of time passing since the first allegetion, and the tape leaking to the public do we excommunicate then... or at the very least pull their books from Deseret Book. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Brian 2.0

[Calm]

1 hour 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  

I was the one pushing the possibility of dementia the most and I have never, ever held the belief the 15 are immune from being mentally diminished by age.

I have lost track of where I read stuff, but there were ex Mormons who didn't believe in discernment, those who were halfway in doubt/belief who expressed their opinion dementia could be involved.

There are those who take the position the higher levels of church leadership can never in their impact on others be wrong.  That is a very different set from what I read of those who were or are relatively certain Bishop has dementia.  I don't think it is wise to mix the two.  The general competency of men over 80 can definitely be discussed, but that is significantly different from a decision that someone had dementia based on their behaviour (I still think Bishop has dementia, the impact looks like it is primarily at the same level as being hard of hearing, if one took time to speak slowly and in short phrases that gave him time to absorb what is being said and then gave him plenty of time to speak, the conversational content would likely be coherent and answers would directly follow from questions or comments).

Dementia does not equate to either innocence or incompetence.  It can interfere with the quickness of thought and the ability to recall things at mild levels, but even a significant amount of dementia can exist with competency to make decisions clearly once the ideas are properly conveyed.  Those who start out at higher levels of education and intelligence can function at competent levels for longer than those who do not (I posted a link from the Alzheimer's Association iirc describing this).  It can also make them better at hiding their disability.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Calm

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

well... sometimes only after 2 separate victims, 4 separate attempts to report it, 3 confession to Elder Well/BYU Police/on tape, 31 years of time passing since the first allegetion, and the tape leaking to the public do we excommunicate then... or at the very least pull their books from Deseret Book. 

as I say I would be really interested in what Elder Wells has to say, mind you he's like 90 or 91 so they better act fast!

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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? 

Okay, this is just enough to make my day, lol!

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, this is just enough to make my day, lol!

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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

Depends on what you mean by a "coverup."  The victim should be our first consideration.  If the victim wants confidentiality, that must be honored and enforced.  Not every event of this kind is made public.  However, many of these cases are publicly known, with names, dates, places, and the results of the lawsuits.  Most Mormons have no idea of the extent of it.

[Calm]

1 hour 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.  

There was also the transcript.  If there were some claiming dementia without reading it and without personally knowing those who made the claim of dementia, that is problematic.  But I don't remember talking/reading anyone who did that.  Most used specific examples at least once from the transcript to explain why they thought it might be involved.

[cdowis]

17 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

well... sometimes only after 2 separate victims, 4 separate attempts to report it, 3 confession to Elder Well/BYU Police/on tape, 31 years of time passing since the first allegetion, and the tape leaking to the public do we excommunicate then... or at the very least pull their books from Deseret Book. 

I guess it comes down to trust.  The church recently ex'd a Seventy so they are not shy about doing what has to  done, but the church respects privacy so it does not normally announce the details of their decisions.

[Calm]

1 hour 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?   

The discussion about dementia started a day or more before the son spoke to reporters.

add-on:  what bluebell said

Edited March 24, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, provoman said:

I think it is  evident that no one is CURRENTLY pushing a demntia agenda. Bluebell’s response have summed up the mentions of dementia in a thread that has been closed for 2 days or more now. 

I have not read in these threads that anyone is pushing a dementia agenda as details in from the recorded discussion have been confirmed by other sources...former MTC employee about a room with bed and video tapes, former bishop statement about bed video tapes, second womans report, police report documenting misconduct, claims from the transcript have been corroberated...the only one left mentioning dementia is you. It seems to me any discussion about dementia is long abandoned by those that every mentioned it.

I think I may be the only one who still believes he has it and I never assumed it meant he was innocent or incompetent, just that it affected the reliability of the interview.

[why me]

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

 

Her statement about mormonleaks is in the above link and what happened before the release.

[Brian 2.0]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I guess it comes down to trust.

 

Trust. Ha! We’re not technically supposed to be debating anymore so in won’t saying anything else. But you want to bring the concept of trust into this debate now? On your side of the argument? Classic!

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 Individual church leaders do not represent the church institution and that is why we excommunicate them.

LDS.org is down for maintenance so I can only pull this stuff off google:

"What a tremendous honor it was for the choir to be asked to represent the Church, the state of Utah, the United States, and even the power of humanity and what it can do,”"

"Ten brethren received “licenses,” which were small documents certifying they were authorized to represent the Church (see D&C 20:64–65)."

"And whom do these missionaries represent? First, they represent their parents, carrying the responsibility of keeping their good name unsullied. Second, they represent the Church"

etc...

Members are excommunicated in part so they can no longer represent the Church to others.

[Bernard Gui]

Having been on the receiving end of serious false accusations of racism in which my identity went public, I am sensitive to the processes involved. In my case, the plaintiffs with several other families won a class action suit against the school district. They made tape recordings of their conversation with me regarding their situation with my consent. In my deposition, I was the one who brought up the existence of their tape because I knew it would exonerate me. As far as I know, the tape was never brought into evidence. My student teacher was in the room when the tape was made, but she was never deposed. The complainers won a substantial settlement, in the millions, while I was falsely accused of racism in the newspaper and the whole thing went into my personnel file. Hence, I’m not thoroughly convinced of the efficacy of the process.

Nevertheless, I have also been involved as a bishop who discovered abuse several times in the early 80s, and I was in touch with my stake president who was a lawyer and his 2nd counselor who was the city attorney. At the time in our state religious confessions were protected and confidential by law, but as a school teacher (in one case the child was a student in one of my schools ), I was required to report. Required reporting was contingent on the manner of discovery. Since in my cases I learned of them through confession, I was not legally required to report them but IIRC, I did recommend the parties go to the police and CPS. I have also been personally involved in situations were abused sisters are not believed, which I find unacceptable. So there must be wise and strong provisions in place to protect the rights of the accuser and the accused.

In any case, I think due process through the legal system and following directions for church disciplinary councils are the best ways to go, and I hope it turns out well for the sister. I hope the Church does some needed house cleaning.

We are engaging in a lot of hysterical supposition which I don’t think is healthy or productive. We should also refrain from ascribing malevolent intentions to the victim and to the Church because the situation is very fluid. Details keep emerging sometimes on an hourly basis. A little bit of patience and forbearance can go a long way. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Duncan said:

as I say I would be really interested in what Elder Wells has to say, mind you he's like 90 or 91 so they better act fast!

I am not sure he can be public about the content given it was made to him in a confession.

[juliann]

That is horrible, Bernard. Horrible. I am so sorry.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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. 

AGAIN, that bill allowed for recordings like this!!  Come ON, guys. Debating the bill on its merits is one thing but I've never seen so much false information when it is a short bill that is easy to read and has a fairly long list of exemptions. 

There is enough to complain about without making up a boogeyman. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

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

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),

Apparently the Church does have the necessary investigative tools.

The difference between the Church and the State is being able to compel others to be involved (as well as access to other law enforcement organizations) and having very significant consequences for lying.  This may have been demonstrated by Bishop confessing to BYU police while denying it to his local leaders.

In the case of the Church, to continue to lie even if he was found later was the best approach for Bishop as confessing to anything more than 'undisciplined thoughts' would result in discipline where adding the sin of lying to it now after years of deception wouldn't make much, if any difference imo,

In the case of the State/Police, lying to them now risked a penalty for obstruction of justice I am guessing even if they couldn't charge them for crimes past the statue of limitations.

While excommunication can be very traumatic, jail time and money penalties are a much more concrete, immediate threat.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Calm

[CA Steve]

8 hours ago, drums12 said:

Ummm I assume one or more individuals had the idea (whether inspired or not is a matter of faith), then it was discussed with more individuals, and finally agreed upon by 15 (assuming all were present) individuals.

Terrific. So did they act as one or as individuals? Because if, in the end, they are able to act as one, then I am not sure what your original point was about them being individuals.

Edited March 25, 2018 by CA Steve

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is horrible, Bernard. Horrible. I am so sorry.

Oh, it’s life. At the time it was awful, but now it’s kind of humorous. I survived. The family used their money to build a big box Christian Church which I refer to as The Church Gui Built. Perhaps their ministry is doing some good there.