KUTV report reveals how the LDS Church responded to MTC sex scandal

[provoman]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I absolutely want the church to investigate misconduct done by their agents while they are fulfilling their church obligations. Same as any employer.  Same as the Catholic Church.  

To what extent and to what end?

The present case tends to show what is done, both parties are talked to about the allegatio, there was a denial, religious discipline was not taken.

 Do you demand that religious discipline placed on all who are accused?

Do you demand that a religious court be held against all who are accused and reasonable doubt is the standard by which guilt will be determined? 

 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

You are diluting the term to the point of absurdity.

Once again, the church does not have to own something in order for it to be one of their resources.

They do not have to own the law firm in order for it to be used as a church resource.

The attorneys that the church hire are one of their resources.

Do you disagree with any of those statements?

Again, this is absurd.  By your reasoning, the LDS Church has for-profit enterprises.  Those for-profit enterprises pay taxes.  Those taxes are used by the federal government to, in part, pay for the construction, deployment and use of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.

By your reasoning, then, the the U.S. Naval fleet is part of the LDS Church's "resources." 

By your reasoning, it could be said that the LDS Church has the "resources" to deploy a carrier battle group to the Strait of Taiwan.

China must be quaking in their boots at the thought!

-Smac

 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By your reasoning, then, the the U.S. Naval fleet is part of the LDS Church's "resources." 

If the church hired a U.S. Naval fleet and paid them to do work for them, then....yes....they would be a resource for the church.

There are attorneys who work for the church, they are a church resource.  I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to acknowledge.

I have attorneys who do work for me (I have retained them and pay them to do work for me).  They are definitely one of my resources.

You are pushing this point way past what is ridiculous.  I'm done here.

Edited April 4, 2018 by ALarson

[Gray]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who does this interviewing?  Bishops?  Stake presidents?  Should the Church hire a team of investigators?

Who identifies and tracks down these potential witnesses and persuaded them to be interviewed?

Where do these interviews take place?

What if a potential witness declines to be interviewed?  Should the Church threaten to sue? 

If the witness is a member of the Church and declines to be interviewed, should the Church apply pressure?  Threaten to discipline the witness unless they comply?  Withhold a temple recommend, perhaps?

Under what auspices are such interviews held?  Are they compulsory or voluntary?

Regarding interviewing the accused, how do you propose to handle the priest/penitent privilege (assuming an ecclesiastical leader is involved)?

What if the interviews yield conflicting information (the accuser says X happened, and the accused denies that X happened)?  What happens then?  Another round of interviews?  Lit detectors?

What if the the interviews yield a straightforward he said / she said scenario (the accuser accuses, and the accused denies)?  What should the Church do with that?

Who does this soliciting?  

Is the soliciting done in person?  By email?  Telephone?

I am not trying to pick a fight.  Honest.  I just would like to grasp what folks like you have in mind.  To me, it sounds like you want the Church to either train bishops in law enforcement and investigative techniques, or else you want the Church to create an in-house investigative agency.  I am trying to wrap my head around what it is you want and how you propose it be done.

Thanks,

-Smac

You seem to be performing some kind of maneuver where you try to overwhelm people with an inordinate number of questions in order to discourage them from continuing. Maybe you're just letting work bleed into the forums.

It's not complicated and I'm not going to follow up on every single question you have, as it would take the better part of the day. The concept is simple. Appoint a group of people to follow up on reports of abuse by clergy. Try to solicit as much information from known and likely witnesses or other potential victims. In this case it would be people who served under bishop, and other female missionaries in the MTC at the time, as far as can be determined.  The researchers report findings to a board, who review the information and make recommendations to top leadership on how to proceed.

It's not up to me to write up the charter for this group, which is essentially what you've asked for.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Gray

[Calm]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

It seems to me that abuse that is allegedly conducted as part of someone’s role as a church leader should be treated differently than “every local claim of abuse”.

If at work I reported my supervisor for harassment, and my employer’s response was limited to talking to my supervisor and listening to him/her deny it, I’d say they did not meet their obligations.

It seems to me that the church should maintain and advertise a hotline for members to use to report ecclesiastical abuse. That the church should investigate all claims of ecclesiastical abuse by talking to peers, talking to other potential victims, and taking appropriate response when needed. 

I don't disagree.  

I can also see given the time that had passed (25 years) why someone else might not see it the same way. If given the chance, I wouldn't criticize but would push for a change to choosing to investigate all claims of substantial ecclesiastical abuse as long as either alleged victim and/or alleged perpetrator were living and mentally competent/accountable.  By substantial, I mean sexual or financial (and possibly other) impropriety where foreseeable longterm damage is involved.  I don't think a bishop asking too intimate and explicit questions or pushing for his company to be chosen for a contract while in a bishop's interview, but doing nothing else qualifies for anything other than being told what isn't appropriate (and if still in the calling followed up to ensure he ceases) even if I see it as a form of ecclesiastical abuse.  Where the line is drawn in my view would take up too much space and likely no one is interested, I just wanted to make the point that minor abuse needs to be stopped, but if not with the intent to move to major abuse legal investigation is likely unwarranted.

We also do not know (and should not know) if Bishop's Church record was annotated so as not to allow him in positions of authority where he would be interviewing others on a one to one basis or other situations of increasing the risk of abuse attempts or abuse.  I don't know what the Church's position is where claims are made, but not substantiated at least as "probable, but unconfirmed".

I think there is a lot of information that could be made public to relieve the concerns of membership that we as the public not only have no right to, but should be kept private and confidential (Greg Bishop releasing anything that was not public record was wrong, given there was no evidence the woman or her lawyer was behind the release of the tape that made the accusations of Joseph Bishop public, I think the release of public records to the media or anyone not involved in the legal aspects was wrong; if the woman had released the tape while hiding her own identity, I think Bishop had a right to challenge the credibility of her claims in public by demonstrating related behaviour, as in extortion and identity theft, not sexual history).  I don't believe that just because lawyers have access to information we should as well.  I am not saying anyone is claiming that, but some seem to be feeling they should be reassured by evidence that reasonable steps were taken as opposed to statements saying they were.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

You seem to be performing some kind of maneuver where you try to overwhelm people with an inordinate number of questions in order to discourage them from continuing.

Nope.  I'm just trying to understand what I feel is a manifestly weird and unreasonable proposition (that the LDS Church should convert itself into some sort of investigative agency, rather than refer allegations of misconduct to law enforcement).

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not complicated

Actually, it's quite complicated.  Converting a private religious entity into a law enforcement or investigative agency presents all sorts of practical, legal, and logistical questions and hurdles and concerns.

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

and I'm not going to follow up on every single question you have, as it would take the better part of the day. The concept is simple. Appoint a group of people to follow up on reports of abuse by clergy.

But that's not simple at all.  What "people?"  Employees?  Volunteers?  How many?  Are they paid?  Do they have ecclesiastical authority?  What sort of training would they get?  How much overlap would their function have with law enforcement?  Why not have law enforcement "follow up on reports of abuse by clergy?"

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Try to solicit as much information from known and likely witnesses or other potential victims. In this case it would be people who served under bishop, and other female missionaries in the MTC at the time, as far as can be determined.  The researchers report findings to a board, who review the information and make recommendations to top leadership on how to proceed.

Make recommendations about allegations of criminal misconduct to . . . the Church?  Not to the police?  Not to the county attorney or state AG's office or the FBI or the DOJ?

Why?

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not up to me to write up the charter for this group, which is essentially what you've asked for.

You are the one proposing something as crazy as having the LDS Church create a quasi-law enforcement/investigative agency.  So yes, it's incumbent upon you to be a bit more forthcoming on the details.  Unless, of course, you don't want to be taken seriously at all.  In which case you can throw out a wild idea and then back away from any attempt to justify or rationalize it.

Which appears to be just what you are doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If the church hired a U.S. Naval fleet and paid them to do work for them, then....yes....they would be a resource for the church.

Wow.

Quote

There are attorneys who work for the church, they are a church resource.  I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to acknowledge.

I have attorneys who do work for me (I have retained them and pay them to do work for me).  They are definitely one of my resources.

You are pushing this point way past what is ridiculous.  I'm done here.

I'm glad of that.  We've both had our say.  Let's move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 4, 2018 by smac97

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No one says they should investigate everything. However I believe they have the moral obligation to investigate every instance of clergy abuse. 

Seems reasonable. To my knowledge, however, the church does investigate allegations of abuse - at least, to the extent it is able. The church's ability to do so is limited though so, when necessary, they turn things over to civil authorities for further investigation / prosecution. What else do you think they should be doing?

 

Quote

Would you buy the same excuse from your employer if you reported your boss for sexual harassment? What’s the point of talking to other potential victims? What’s the most they can do? Fire someone? The church only holds the keys to our eternal salvation...

If someone doesn't participate in an HR investigation, you can fire them (at least, in my state you can). If someone refuses to participate in a church investigation, you can...do what, exactly? Stop sending them ministering brothers and sisters? Sounds like threatening the kid who skipped school with out of school suspension, if you ask me. 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

1. Yep. They knew he was lying yet they let him continue giving the talks. It’s well documented, I’m surprised you’re even questioning it.

I guess I am.  From Wikipedia:

Quote

When confronted with evidence that several of his stories were either completely falsified or substantially embellished, Dunn admitted that the stories were not completely true, yet continued to defend his use of the stories: "I haven't purposely tried to embellish or rewrite history. I've tried to illustrate points that would create interest. [I was] simply putting history in little finer packages."^[2][6] Dunn compared his stories to the parables of Jesus—although they were not true stories, they were nevertheless valuable means of teaching gospel principles.^[2]

In 1991, Dunn asked the church's First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for permission to issue an open letter to all Latter-day Saints. The church agreed, and on October 26 the following letter was published in the Church News, a supplement section of the Deseret News, a newspaper owned by the LDS Church:

"October 23, 1991
"I have been accused of various activities unbecoming a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"I confess that I have not always been accurate in my public talks and writings. Furthermore, I have indulged in other activities inconsistent with the high and sacred office which I have held.
"For all of these I feel a deep sense of remorse, and ask forgiveness of any whom I may have offended.
"My brethren of the General Authorities, over a long period of time, have conducted in-depth investigations of the charges made against me. They have weighed the evidence. They have censured me and placed a heavy penalty upon me.
"I accept their censure and the imposed penalty, and pledge to conduct my life in such a way as to merit their confidence and full fellowship.
"In making these acknowledgements, I plead for the understanding of my brethren and sisters throughout the Church and give assurance of my determination so to live as to bring added respect to the cause I deeply love, and honor to the Lord who is my Redeemer.
"Sincerely, Paul H. Dunn"^[1]

The exact nature of this "heavy penalty" imposed upon Dunn is unclear. It is clear that Dunn was not excommunicated from the church, though it is not known whether or not he was placed under some other form of church discipline, such as disfellowshipment or probation.

Sounds like things came to a head in 1991, and he was disciplined around that time.  What am I missing?

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

2. The essays address the things the Church already knew, but which members had to find out about from the internet. Again, well documented.

Yes, members of the Church are generally responsible for their own study.

The essays do an excellent job of summarizing information about controversial topics, but there is very little about them that is "new."

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

3. The 1890 declaration said that plural marriages had ended, yet the Presidency that issued that declaration went on to solemnise plural marriages up to 1914. Yet again, well documented.

This is addressed in the Church's essay on the subject.  FAIR also has some good information about it.  The Church was under an existential threat at the time, as summarized by Gregory Smith:

Quote

We note again that the Church and its members were in an impossible position–the government showed no concern for the women and children who would be left without support if government policies were obeyed. Members and leaders again had agonizing choices to make, in which all their moral duties simply could not be honored. Joseph F. Smith wrote to a member who faced just this dilemma, “The whole thing in a nut shell is this, you should keep your covenants with your family and you should also not violate the law. Now if you can comprehend it–you will grasp the situation.”

The situation–which critics and many modern members have not grasped–is that it was impossible to do both. A choice had to be made, the Saints chose whatever was most important, and most seem to have chosen support for families over being straightforward with the government. 

President Woodruff continued similar tactics throughout the remainder of his administration. By July 1892 he had granted a few recommends for plural marriages in Mexico, and in June 1897 marriages sanctioned by the First Presidency were performed at sea, on the Great Lakes, and in Mexico. There is circumstantial evidence that President Woodruff himself married a plural wife at sea in September 1897. At times, President Woodruff seems to have maintained some “plausible deniability” by declining to personally approve a polygamous marriage, while referring the potential polygamists to his counselor, George Q. Cannon, for a recommend.

I neither condone nor condemn the "prevarication" surrounding the cessation of polygamy.  It was a Sophie's Choice type of scenario which we are unlikely to face.

The LDS Church teaches that we should be honest, and is overwhelmingly good and exemplifying that virtue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The LDS Church teaches that we should be honest, and is overwhelmingly good and exemplifying that virtue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Compare this statement from the Church about the Bishops confessional...

Quote

Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/12/statement-from-the-lds-church-on-mormon-bishops-interviews/

...with the knowledge that the information Church leaders received during a Bishops interview with a member was passed to attorney’s to be used against her even though she was the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of an MTC President. In that situation have Church Leaders upheld their solemn responsibility to keep confidential all the information they received from her in her confessions and interviews?

Think about that, the Church is defending its right for Bishops to interview minors about personally intrusive sexual matters and reassuring the world that it’s okay because Church Leaders have a solemn duty to keep it all confidential, whilst simultaneously using information given during such interviews against the person the Bishop was interviewing...

Where does that knowledge leave the statement from the First Presidency (via Hawkins) in terms of its honesty and virtue?

Edited April 4, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What of the strengthening church members committee? Or the efforts gone through to figure out who newnamenoah was during the Romney election?

Can you explain how either of those cases could provide the information about the abuse since it was not public knowledge?  

In the case of NNN, the person who did the 'undercover work' stated his supervisor told him not to lie, iirc.  He more or less 'read their minds' and personally believed that they really wanted him too and justified that belief because they accepted the info he gave them even there is no indication they believed he got it by lying.  Without attempting a sting on Bishop, what information could be supplied that googling did not come up with (there is nothing to suggest church leaders don't google to see if any allegations of abuse are floating around the internet in specific cases, given the willingness of some to post false accusations as evidenced by some of the claims out there, not sure how useful in determining the truth it would be.

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When these allegations first came to light, it would have been very easy and simple for the church to send an email to every sister missionary who served under Bishop. His name wouldn’t even need to be used. Something along the lines of, “Allegations of sexual misconduct have been brought forward that occurred while you served in the mtc. We would like to hear from you if you have any information about this.” Employees at the MTC could have been contacted as well. This is not rocket science. It’s not hard. And it doesn’t take a lot of resources. 

I doubt every former sister missionary or former MTC employee has an email registered with the Church (I also highly doubt there is a record that I was employed by BYU to clean the Varsity Theater and surrounding rooms in 1980 and possibly no record I was employed at all by BYU being a partimer, though likely a record of my boss working though not necessarily that he was in charge of the Wilkinson Center crew, many MTC employees were likely just listed as BYU and there was a huge number of them), exmembers or inactives would not (and I think abuse or knowledge of abuse by such a leader would increase likelihood of losing faith in the Church, so I think it would likely take more than just an email, but one could limit it to easily found addresses and get a significant percentage probably.

I assume with 2000 missionaries, there would have been around 200 sisters to track down.  I am wondering how this would be done, assume the Church record has a slot for time of mission and location, but does it have any info on whether or not someone was sent to the Provo MTC (were there other MTCs at the time?).  Even more issues with tracking down employees I mentioned above, especially when it comes to physical facilities workers.  Even secretaries...though they are probably listed by department so much better chance assuming BYU has an employee database of present and past employees searchable by department.

I am ambivalent about the process though.  Tracking down a significant number of sisters and employees is in my opinion more difficult than suggested, but not undoable and even if a partial list was used, it might provide information where there was none.  Such a communication might have helped a great deal.  Otoh, it likely would have started rumors, rumors that might have caused others besides Bishop issues, including speculation they were predators or victims and even causing false accusations.  Also, is it wise to send out such communications to potential victims where there would be no reasonable way to ensure followup if it triggered difficulties for victims?  I feel more comfortable with an in person approach so one can see reactions and personally offer support from the Church if needed, but even there...I think it best if this decision was made by professionals to balance out potential harm with potential good.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Compare this statement from the Church about the Bishops confessional...

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/12/statement-from-the-lds-church-on-mormon-bishops-interviews/

...with the knowledge that the information Church leaders received during a Bishops interview with a member was passed to attorney’s to be used against her even though she was the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of an MTC President. In that situation have Church Leaders upheld their solemn responsibility to keep confidential all the information they received from her in her confessions and interviews?

Where does that knowledge leave the statement from the First Presidency (via Hawkins) in terms of its honesty?

The woman was seeking legal compensation.  Solemn responsibility means taking it seriously, not refusing to share any information at any time (which I believe is the Catholic stance on confessions save for possibly a priest sharing confessional information with the person they confess to...I have no clue if this is true, but it has been used as a plot point in some mysteries I have watched).

Havent seen the dossier or read all the reports on it.  What evidence is there that "information ... received during a Bishops interview with a member" was on the record shared?  If adoption was thru Family Services, that would not be "confessional" information (I think the fact of adoption being in the records shared is iffy, that the identity of the child appears to have been shared I can see no justification for).

Edited April 4, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Compare this statement from the Church about the Bishops confessional...

Quote

Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/12/statement-from-the-lds-church-on-mormon-bishops-interviews/

Yes.  And?  I don't see a conflict between the above and my previous statement..

19 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

...with the knowledge that the information Church leaders received during a Bishops interview with a member was passed to attorney’s to be used against her even though she was the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of an MTC President.

What "information" are you referencing here?

19 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

In that situation have Church Leaders upheld their solemn responsibility to keep confidential all the information they received from her in her confessions and interviews?

You'll have to be mroe specific.

19 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Think about that, the Church is defending its right for Bishops to interview minors about personally intrusive sexual matters and reassuring the world that it’s okay because Church Leaders have a solemn duty to keep it all confidential, whilst simultaneously using information given during such interviews against the person the Bishop was interviewing...

Where does that knowledge leave the statement from the First Presidency (via Hawkins) in terms of its honesty and virtue?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

The woman was seeking legal compensation.  Solemn responsibility means taking it seriously, not refusing to share any information at any time (which I believe is the Catholic stance on confessions save for possibly a priest sharing confessional information with the person they confess to...I have no clue if this is true, but it has been used as a plot point in some mysteries I have watched).

Havent seen the dossier or read all the reports on it.  What evidence is there that "information ... received during a Bishops interview with a member" was on the record shared?  If adoption was thru Family Services, that would not be "confessional" information (I think the fact of adoption being in the records shared is iffy, that the identity of the child appears to have been shared I can see no justification for).

I don’t understand how a victim of sexual abuse seeking legal compensation is somehow an excuse for Church Leaders breaking what they claim is a solemn responsibility to keep all information confidential. The information in her records was passed from attorney to abusers brother to the media. If that is suddenly acceptable practice, then members need to be told up front that what they say to the Bishop can and will be used in evidence against them, and the practice of interviewing minors needs to be ended. Members would do well to plead the fifth in response to all the questions in their next temple recommend interview.

Eric Hawkins confirms the attorneys had access.

 

Quote

 

For its part, the LDS Church said its “work to address this matter has included the work of outside legal counsel to interview and investigate the facts and allegations.”

“This requires access to membership information,” church spokesman Eric Hawkins said. “During this process, it is customary and acceptable for outside counsel to correspond with the attorneys representing other parties, including sharing information that may support or refute their claims.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/04/04/a-woman-was-shocked-to-see-her-name-in-a-mormon-church-compiled-dossier-which-she-says-was-designed-to-discredit-her-birth-mother/

[Marginal Gains]

I think this breaching of confidentiality adds further argument in favour of barring Bishops from interviewing minors.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I don’t understand how a victim of sexual abuse seeking legal compensation is somehow an excuse for Church Leaders breaking what they claim is a solemn responsibility to keep all information confidential.

What "information" was not kept "confidential?"

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The information in her records was passed from attorney to abusers brother to the media.

Again, what "information" which - according to you - was "received during a Bishops interview with a member" was "passed from attorney to abusers brother to the media?"

And who is this "brothers abuser" you mention?  Are you possibly referencing Joseph Bishop's son, Gregory, who is functioning as his (Joseph Bishop's) attorney?

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

If that is suddenly acceptable practice, then members need to be told up front that what they say to the Bishop can and will be used in evidence against them, and the practice of interviewing minors needs to be ended.

Wow.  You are all over the map here.

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Members would do well to plead the fifth in response to all the questions in their next temple recommend interview.

Yep.  All over the map.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

I think this breaching of confidentiality adds further argument in favour of barring Bishops from interviewing minors.

Again, what breach of confidentiality?

[Calm]

There is a difference between membership information and confessional information.

In this case, information of when she served a mission would have been on her Church record as well as what wards she belonged to.  I assume that her reports of abuse were also on the Church record.  It makes sense for this information to be shared (lawyers would need to contact people that might be able to,confirm or deny her accusations).  Since we do not know all of her claims, we don't know for sure what was relevant, though I do agree it is inappropriate to share the Church record itself rather than limited information from it that was relevant to the settlement with those not responsible to the Church which appears to have been done.  Assuming confessional information is on the Church record is inappropriate without evidence it is there.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  I'm just trying to understand what I feel is a manifestly weird and unreasonable proposition (that the LDS Church should convert itself into some sort of investigative agency, rather than refer allegations of misconduct to law enforcement).

Actually, it's quite complicated.  Converting a private religious entity into a law enforcement or investigative agency presents all sorts of practical, legal, and logistical questions and hurdles and concerns.

But that's not simple at all.  What "people?"  Employees?  Volunteers?  How many?  Are they paid?  Do they have ecclesiastical authority?  What sort of training would they get?  How much overlap would their function have with law enforcement?  Why not have law enforcement "follow up on reports of abuse by clergy?"

Make recommendations about allegations of criminal misconduct to . . . the Church?  Not to the police?  Not to the county attorney or state AG's office or the FBI or the DOJ?

Why?

You are the one proposing something as crazy as having the LDS Church create a quasi-law enforcement/investigative agency.  So yes, it's incumbent upon you to be a bit more forthcoming on the details.  Unless, of course, you don't want to be taken seriously at all.  In which case you can throw out a wild idea and then back away from any attempt to justify or rationalize it.

Which appears to be just what you are doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

It didn't seem all that difficult for the church to dig up all the dirt on the victim when it was faced with a lawsuit and passing that information on to the lawyer of the accused.  

Since virtually every case of this type of conduct is a he said/she said, if the church is not going to do something more than ask the perp if he is guilty and then accept his answer of innocence, do you see any possibility of these types of guys barred from these positions of authority that they use to find victims?  It is pretty obvious their power of discernment angle is useless.  

You seem to be naysaying any suggestions of a new process.  Do you have a suggestion or are you perfectly happy to continue to let these types of situations continue?

Is this guy still in good standing?  

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Is this guy still in good standing?  

I don't think we have a right to know this any more than we would have a right to know if the victim in this case was in good standing if she is still a member (can't remember if she resigned or not) for her apparent criminal behaviour.

[flameburns623]

Timeline preparedd by Lindsay Hansen-Parks, available from her FB page:

A TL:DR run-down of the #MTCabuse scandal for those who are just getting wind of it (anyone correct me if I'm wrong on my timeline):

1. March 19, 2018: Mormon Leaks releases a tape where former MTC president, mission president, and Weber State president Joseph L. Bishop admits to molesting women at the MTC.  
https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/03/19/mormonleaks-releases-of-former-mormon-mission-president-admitting-inappropriate-interactions/

2. Various news organizations begin to report on the emerging facts of the scandal: https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/lds-church-responds-to-allegations-of-sexual-abuse-by-former/article_ebd998f1-473e-5a70-841f-7407ca824e34.html

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/03/22/former-missionary-training-center-president-admits-to-asking-a-young-missionary-to-expose-her-breasts-in-the-80s-byu-police-say/

3. Within hours, Deseret Book takes down any books authored by Joseph Bishop.  

4. I get a phone call from a friend of the daughter of the survivor. I'm going to call the survivor in the story YYY. 
YYY's daughter claims that within 12 hours of the story breaking, church officials and lawyers had contacted her and her siblings to depose them on the character of their mother. YYY warned me that a massive smear campaign was beginning.

5. LDS church responds with a statement: http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-responds-to-allegations-of-sexual-assault-by-former-mission-president
Their original March 20 statement cast aspersions on the credibility of YYY. After more info emerged, the LDS church quietly updated their statement on March 23 to reflect different language.

6. Just as YYY's daughter suggested, the next day news organizations began to report on YYY's troubled past. Fox 13 in particular took the bait and ran (what I believe to be a harmful piece to victims of sexual assault everywhere) this piece: http://fox13now.com/2018/03/21/family-of-former-lds-mission-president-accused-of-sexual-assault-responds-to-allegations/

7. We learned that Joseph Bishop's son, Greg Bishop (who is a lawyer) has compiled a large file to smear the reputation of YYY. Charges included her previous sexual history, her legal troubles, and a history of other accusations. 

8. Greg Bishop allegedly got most, if not all of his information from outside counsel representing the LDS church. What this means is, church lawyers gave the perpetrator's son all the dirt they could find on the YYY to presumably destroy her credibility. Greg Bishop went public with this info, sending this dossier he prepared to various news outlets.

9. There is conflicting info on which news outlets got dossiers with names redacted but we do know that at least some news outlets received the packet without YYY's name or the name of her family members redacted. It is unethical for a victim of sexual assault to have their name released without their consent.

10. YYY's former LDS ward bishop (not to be confused with Joseph Bishop, the alleged offender) speaks to KUTV 2News admitting that 20 years ago, YYY disclosed being taken into the basement of the MTC and abused by Joseph Bishop. http://kutv.com/news/local/woman-who-accused-mtc-president-of-sexual-assault-has-been-telling-her-story-for-3-decades

11. Former MTC employee admits the room in the basement exists. 
http://kutv.com/news/local/former-employee-confirms-odd-mtc-room-with-bed-and-tv

12. BYU police confirm that Joseph Bishop admitted to molesting women in a police report.

13. Second victim is acknowledged by the Deseret News: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013796/lds-church-says-a-second-missionary-made-sexual-abuse-allegation-against-former-mtc-president.html

14. Before the audio was released the LDS church told the Protect LDS Children movement that their policies regarding bishops was just fine the way they were.  After the audio was released, they updated their policies to allow a parent to be present at bishop interviews. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/03/26/mormon-leaders-update-rules-to-allow-adults-in-the-room-for-interviews-with-children-women/

15. YYY goes on KUTV news to share her story: http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive-the-woman-at-the-center-of-the-mtc-abuse-scandal-shares-her-story

16. KUTV acquires information that shows that the LDS church assisted Greg Bishop in digging up dirt on YYY, including releasing private info from her ecclesiastical interviews: http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive-documents-reveal-how-the-lds-church-responded-to-mtc-sex-scandal

17. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that  YYY's daughter she relinquished for adoption had her private information leaked to the press. Her closed adoption through LDS family services made it's way into the dossier, and her name appeared on the docs Greg Bishop used:  
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/04/04/a-woman-was-shocked-to-see-her-name-in-a-mormon-church-compiled-dossier-which-she-says-was-designed-to-discredit-her-birth-mother/

What did I miss? There's a lot to keep track of.

Edited April 4, 2018 by flameburns623
Put quote in a quote box.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, california boy said:

It didn't seem all that difficult for the church to dig up all the dirt on the victim when it was faced with a lawsuit and passing that information on to the lawyer of the accused.  

The Church hired a law firm to represent it in a legal dispute.

It is patently unreasonable to claim that the Church can scale up the retention of attorneys every time the Church's 28,000+ bishops hear about allegations of abuse.  

Moreover, the Church has no obligation to retain an attorney in such circumstances.

Moreover, the Church should, instead, contact law enforcement as required by law.  As it generally does.

Are we in the Twilight Zone?  This thread has people who are manifestly hostile to the LDS Church proposing that the LDS Church create an internal department or process involving quasi-law enforcement or investigative functions.  Since when do such people want the Church to be "investigating" the lives of people in this way?  Particularly when the manifestly more appropriate course of action is to contact law enforcement?

Quote

Since virtually every case of this type of conduct is a he said/she said, if the church is not going to do something more than ask the perp if he is guilty and then accept his answer of innocence,

I pretty much agree with you here.  And this is because, contrary to the crazy talk in this thread, the Church lacks the ability to meaningfully "investigate" allegations of criminal misconduct, such as sexual abuse.  A bishop can make a few inquiries, but that's about it.  So the proposal that the Church set up some sort of MBI (Mormon Bureau of Investigation) rather than report such allegations to law enforcement is . . . . bizarre.

Quote

do you see any possibility of these types of guys barred from these positions of authority that they use to find victims?  

I don't understand your question.  What "types of guys?"  What "positions of authority?"

Quote

It is pretty obvious their power of discernment angle is useless.  

Wow.  Now you are all over the map.

Quote

You seem to be naysaying any suggestions of a new process.  

A "new process" in which the LDS Church creates its own private investigative agency, rather than report allegations of abuse to law enforcement?

Yeah, I'm naysaying that.  It's a very bad idea.

Quote

Do you have a suggestion or are you perfectly happy to continue to let these types of situations continue?

Yes, a few.  I've posted them elsewhere.

Quote

Is this guy still in good standing?  

Who, Joseph Bishops?  I don't know.  The Church generally doesn't publicize disciplinary matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 4, 2018 by smac97

[Marginal Gains]

IMHO Greg Bishop has mentally/emotionally re-abused the woman his Dad sexually abused in his MTC basement lair 30 years ago. And, IMHO, the Church is complicit in that re-abuse.

 

The evidence about the behaviour of Joseph Bishop, Greg Bishop and the Church is now out there for all to see and form their own opinion.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Timeline preparedd by Lindsay Hansen-Parks, available from her FB page:

A TL:DR run-down of the #MTCabuse scandal for those who are just getting wind of it (anyone correct me if I'm wrong on my timeline):

1. March 19, 2018: Mormon Leaks releases a tape where former MTC president, mission president, and Weber State president Joseph L. Bishop admits to molesting women at the MTC.  
https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/03/19/mormonleaks-releases-of-former-mormon-mission-president-admitting-inappropriate-interactions/

2. Various news organizations begin to report on the emerging facts of the scandal: https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/lds-church-responds-to-allegations-of-sexual-abuse-by-former/article_ebd998f1-473e-5a70-841f-7407ca824e34.html

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/03/22/former-missionary-training-center-president-admits-to-asking-a-young-missionary-to-expose-her-breasts-in-the-80s-byu-police-say/

3. Within hours, Deseret Book takes down any books authored by Joseph Bishop.  

4. I get a phone call from a friend of the daughter of the survivor. I'm going to call the survivor in the story YYY. 
YYY's daughter claims that within 12 hours of the story breaking, church officials and lawyers had contacted her and her siblings to depose them on the character of their mother. YYY warned me that a massive smear campaign was beginning.

5. LDS church responds with a statement: http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-responds-to-allegations-of-sexual-assault-by-former-mission-president
Their original March 20 statement cast aspersions on the credibility of YYY. After more info emerged, the LDS church quietly updated their statement on March 23 to reflect different language.

6. Just as YYY's daughter suggested, the next day news organizations began to report on YYY's troubled past. Fox 13 in particular took the bait and ran (what I believe to be a harmful piece to victims of sexual assault everywhere) this piece: http://fox13now.com/2018/03/21/family-of-former-lds-mission-president-accused-of-sexual-assault-responds-to-allegations/

7. We learned that Joseph Bishop's son, Greg Bishop (who is a lawyer) has compiled a large file to smear the reputation of YYY. Charges included her previous sexual history, her legal troubles, and a history of other accusations. 

8. Greg Bishop allegedly got most, if not all of his information from outside counsel representing the LDS church. What this means is, church lawyers gave the perpetrator's son all the dirt they could find on the YYY to presumably destroy her credibility. Greg Bishop went public with this info, sending this dossier he prepared to various news outlets.

9. There is conflicting info on which news outlets got dossiers with names redacted but we do know that at least some news outlets received the packet without YYY's name or the name of her family members redacted. It is unethical for a victim of sexual assault to have their name released without their consent.

10. YYY's former LDS ward bishop (not to be confused with Joseph Bishop, the alleged offender) speaks to KUTV 2News admitting that 20 years ago, YYY disclosed being taken into the basement of the MTC and abused by Joseph Bishop. http://kutv.com/news/local/woman-who-accused-mtc-president-of-sexual-assault-has-been-telling-her-story-for-3-decades

11. Former MTC employee admits the room in the basement exists. 
http://kutv.com/news/local/former-employee-confirms-odd-mtc-room-with-bed-and-tv

12. BYU police confirm that Joseph Bishop admitted to molesting women in a police report.

13. Second victim is acknowledged by the Deseret News: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013796/lds-church-says-a-second-missionary-made-sexual-abuse-allegation-against-former-mtc-president.html

14. Before the audio was released the LDS church told the Protect LDS Children movement that their policies regarding bishops was just fine the way they were.  After the audio was released, they updated their policies to allow a parent to be present at bishop interviews. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/03/26/mormon-leaders-update-rules-to-allow-adults-in-the-room-for-interviews-with-children-women/

15. YYY goes on KUTV news to share her story: http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive-the-woman-at-the-center-of-the-mtc-abuse-scandal-shares-her-story

16. KUTV acquires information that shows that the LDS church assisted Greg Bishop in digging up dirt on YYY, including releasing private info from her ecclesiastical interviews: http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive-documents-reveal-how-the-lds-church-responded-to-mtc-sex-scandal

17. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that  YYY's daughter she relinquished for adoption had her private information leaked to the press. Her closed adoption through LDS family services made it's way into the dossier, and her name appeared on the docs Greg Bishop used:  
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/04/04/a-woman-was-shocked-to-see-her-name-in-a-mormon-church-compiled-dossier-which-she-says-was-designed-to-discredit-her-birth-mother/

What did I miss? There's a lot to keep track of.

Can you disclose your role in why you would be called?  How much of this is hearsay?

As far as I can tell the timeline is accurate.

I would call this the church acting as represented by lawyers and not necessarily as Christ would, but what else would one expect?  In these matters one goes to lawyers.

Yes Joseph and Brigham were know to do the same sorts of things, and so this is not surprising.  Bowing to political pressure is unfortunately human nature and church leaders are not immune from human nature.

Good to see you by the way! 

 

 

[Calm]

Some of this timeline has inaccurate or incomplete info, I don't know for example if the BYU police interview can qualify as admitting to "molestation" of multiple women when iirc the only thing admitted that qualified as molestation would be asking her to expose her breast.  A back rub that was consensual not molestation unless one assumes it cannot be consensual because of power differential, which I Would in most cases but might not if she actually did ask for a back rub a number of times (though I doubt the honesty of that accusation from Joseph Bishop).

Edited April 4, 2018 by Calm