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

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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! 

 

 

He is actually quoting Lindsay Park, not making the claims himself.  He needs to put that in a quote box to make that clear.

Park talks about abuse on her blog, iirc, and is pretty well known in blogging circles for that.  She gets sought out and quoted by newspapers a lot and invited to comment on radio shows.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Calm

[flameburns623]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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! 

 

 

A woman named Lindsay Hansen-Parks prepared the timeline, which I coped verbatim. Sorry if that wasn't clear. .

Lindsay is an editor for a journal called Sunstone Magazine, and she is a feminist/ProgMo, but a member of the Church in good standing; whose main claim to fame is a pocast series called "A Year of Polygamy".

She has won the trust of a number of women across the spectrum for her handling of sensitive issues. Hence, SHE received the call, not.

I Iurk a lot. Thanks for the warm greeting but I've been around. Just quiet. 

[Jeanne]

2 hours 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. 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.

I like Smac..envy is knowledge..and yet it seems his eyes are wide shut sometimes..

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I like Smac..envy is knowledge..and yet it seems his eyes are wide shut sometimes..

The feeling is mutual.    Funny, that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 4, 2018 by smac97

[flameburns623]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

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).

I put the quote box into my post, as you suggested.

Lindsay has been correcting this thing since she posted it. Any who are friends with her on Facebook can let her know of any edits. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

A woman named Lindsay Hansen-Parks prepared the timeline, which I coped verbatim. Sorry if that wasn't clear. .

Lindsay is an editor for a journal called Sunstone Magazine, and she is a feminist/ProgMo, but a member of the Church in good standing; whose main claim to fame is a pocast series called "A Year of Polygamy".

She has won the trust of a number of women across the spectrum for her handling of sensitive issues. Hence, SHE received the call, not.

I Iurk a lot. Thanks for the warm greeting but I've been around. Just quiet. 

Forgotten Sunstone...that is what I get for going off memory.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I put the quote box into my post, as you suggested.

Lindsay has been correcting this thing since she posted it. Any who are friends with her on Facebook can let her know of any edits. 

I think a lot of what I disagree with is interpretation, such as "digging up dirt" as opposed to "investigation", the first implies a desire for the negative and bad negatives while the second implies wanting to have the truth, imo.

[Gray]

2 hours 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

Very succinctly (ahem), I'm suggesting a few paid researchers reporting to a board of current church employees, perhaps headed up by a newly hired person who is knowledgeable about applicable laws.

Where crimes are alleged they should of course also be reported to law enforcement.

The church already has something similar in place to investigate apostates, as I understand it. So yes, I do think you are rather over-complicating things and getting hopelessly lost in the weeds.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Gray

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

The church already has something similar in place to investigate apostates, as I understand it.

Explain please.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I think a lot of what I disagree with is interpretation, such as "digging up dirt" as opposed to "investigation", the first implies a desire for the negative and bad negatives while the second implies wanting to have the truth, imo.

I think this point merits some contemplation.  The memo prepared by the attorney reflects an "investigation" by the Church, which is what some critics here are calling on the Church to do.  But then other critics are turning around and complaining that the Church's investigation is a "smear compaign" (an odd accusation in itself, since the memo prepared by the attorney was apparently not intended for public consumption).

Moreover, the plain and simple legal reality here is that the allegations of misconduct are 30+ years old.  This essentially precludes the possibility of locating most types of evidence (forensics, surveillance videos, percipient witnesses, etc.).  That leaves a sole evidentiary source: the survivor.  And the survivor has some substantial credibility issues (previously addressed here). 

The Church is in a legal dispute with this person, which leads to a second legal reality, namely, that the Church has every right to evaluate the merits of the allegations against Joseph Bishop.  We simply cannot let sentiment and sympathy be converted into carte blanche for anyone to come along, make decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct, and demand a huge payday from the Church.  This is why we have a legal system, replete with legal principles such as burdens of proof, statutes of limitation, evidentiary rules governing "character" and "prior bad acts" evidence, and so on.  It therefore seems unreasonable to me to vilify the Church for doing what most folks on this thread have been calling for (investigating the survivor's claims), and then turning around and vilifying the Church for . . . investigating the survivor's claims (which, again, includes her credibility issues).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Explain please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee

Quote

The Strengthening Church Members Committee (SCMC) is a committee of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) who monitor the publications of church members for possible criticism of local and general leaders of the church. If criticism is found, the committee may forward information to local church authorities, who may bring charges of apostasy, which can result in excommunication.

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Very succinctly (ahem), I'm suggesting a few paid researchers reporting to a board of current church employees, perhaps headed up by a newly hired person who is knowledgeable about applicable laws.

"A few?"  For a church with 16 million members?  28,000+ bishops?  

What would these "few paid researchers" do that law enforcement would not?

Would these "few paid researchers" ever turn over their findings to law enforcement?  Or would this be a strictly in-house kind of thing?

Quote

Where crimes are alleged they should of course also be reported to law enforcement.

The Church is already reporting allegations of abuse to law enforcement (where allowed/mandated by law).

But you are suggesting that the Church first investigate such allegations and then report them to law enforcement.  Is that correct?

Quote

The church already has something similar in place to investigate apostates, as I understand it.

CFR, please.

Also, do you see a difference between the Church investigating ecclesiastical/doctrinal misconduct (apostasy) and criminal misconduct?  The former seems to be the proper and exclusive province of the Church, whereas the latter is the proper and exclusive provincre of law enforcement.  And ne'er the twain shall meet...

Quote

So yes, I do think you are rather over-complicating things and getting hopelessly lost in the weeds.

I think you are over-simplifying things.  And massively so.

You are the one proposing that the Church formally entangle itself in criminal investigations on a large scale, rather than refer such matters over to civil law enforcement authorities which - unlike the LDS Church - have both the means and the mandate to investigate such matters.  Those are the weeds, my friend.  And you want the Church to wade right into 'em.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 4, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

Just now, smac97 said:

"A few?"  For a church with 16 million members?  28,000+ bishops?  

What would these "few paid researchers" do that law enforcement would not?

Just how many clergy do you think are being accused of sexual misconduct?

 

Just now, smac97 said:

Would these "few paid researchers" ever turn over their findings to law enforcement?  Or would this be a strictly in-house kind of thing?

Asked and answered

 

Just now, smac97 said:

The Church is already reporting allegations of abuse to law enforcement (where allowed/mandated by law).

But you are suggesting that the Church first investigate such allegations and then report them to law enforcement.  Is that correct?

No, I didn't say anything resembling that. Objection, badgering the witness.

 

Just now, smac97 said:

CFR, please.

See my response to Calm.

 

Just now, smac97 said:

Also, do you see a difference between the Church investigating ecclesiastical/doctrinal misconduct (apostasy) and criminal misconduct?  The former seems to be the proper and exclusive province of the Church, whereas the latter is the proper and exclusive provincre of law enforcement.  And ne'er the twain shall meet...

 

In this case, they are one and the same. Unless you don't think raping sister missionaries is ecclesiastical misconduct? Do people only lose their callings or membership when they do things that aren't illegal? Last time I checked rape is a serious sin.

 

Just now, smac97 said:

I think you are over-simplifying things.  And massively so.

You are the one proposing that the Church formally entangle itself in criminal investigations on a large scale, rather than refer such matters over to civil law enforcement authorities which - unlike the LDS Church - have both the means and the mandate to investigate such matters.  Those are the weeds, my friend.

Thanks,

-Smac

As usual, you misrepresent, and continue to try to drag the conversation down into the weeds will irrelevant tangents.

The defense calls for a mistrial, your honor.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee

 

That is poorly written.  Should be "headed by General Authorities" as somehow I doubt GAs are spending their time googling (or in the past read newspapers).

Thank you for clarifying, btw.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

"Just how many clergy do you think are being accused of sexual misconduct?"

There probably are quite a few if "clergy" is defined as either any Priesthood holder or anyone Priesthood leader, I have seen both (for example a former missionary was said to be clergy in one article I read quite sometime ago).  Not sure if you mean that or those who are bishops or upline.

Also are you talking solely about sexual misconduct in the role of clergy or any sexual misconduct at all? Tacenda has for example brought up abuse that occurred in professional settings.  The latter are probably high in numbers even if not percentages (hopefully).

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is poorly written.  Should be "headed by General Authorities" as somehow I doubt GAs are spending their time googling (or in the past read newspapers).

Thank you for clarifying, btw.

Thanks! Yes, I'm sure they have a team of researchers looking for anti-Mormon stuff, and reporting up to GAs. I would envision something similar to handle of allegations of ecclesiastical misconduct.

They shouldn't need a criminal conviction. If there is a disturbing pattern of multiple independent reports about a church leader, as with Bishop, that should be enough to 1) immediately terminate the person's calling and 2) recommend local disciplinary proceedings.

[Gray]

Just now, Calm said:

"Just how many clergy do you think are being accused of sexual misconduct?"

There probably are quite a few if "clergy" is defined as either any Priesthood holder or anyone Priesthood leader, I have seen both (for example a former missionary was said to be clergy in one article I read quite sometime ago).  Not sure if you mean that or those who are bishops or upline.

Also are you talking solely about sexual misconduct in the role of clergy or any sexual misconduct at all? Tacenda has for example brought up abuse that occurred in professional settings.  The latter are probably high in numbers even if not percentages (hopefully).

I'm thinking Bishops, mission presidents, stake presidents, and General Authorities. I didn't have the local Sunday School teacher in mind.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

If there is a disturbing pattern of multiple independent reports about a church leader, as with Bishop

I don't think we know if they were independent with Bishop,  The fact they were reported in the same year 25 years after it happened and the first victim knew the second victim makes me wonder how independent they were.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm thinking Bishops, mission presidents, stake presidents, and General Authorities. I didn't have the local Sunday School teacher in mind.

I think of clergy that way as well.  Numbers of reports made to the Church even if including outside of church conduct hopefully is not that high.  I say made to the Church, though I include accusations stumbled across, but I don't think it is appropriate for the Church to be doing google or criminal database searches without a reason for suspicion.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Just how many clergy do you think are being accused of sexual misconduct?

Oh, so your proposal is to have a special investigative team for when "clergy" (bishopric and SP members, mission presidents, MTC leaders, etc.) are accused of misconduct?  That changes things a bit, I guess.

Or not.  Again, if the Church receives allegations of misconduct, why not simply refer such matters to law enforcement in compliance with the law?

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

Also, do you see a difference between the Church investigating ecclesiastical/doctrinal misconduct (apostasy) and criminal misconduct?  The former seems to be the proper and exclusive province of the Church, whereas the latter is the proper and exclusive provincre of law enforcement.  And ne'er the twain shall meet...

In this case, they are one and the same.

Yes, criminal misconduct can be grounds for both Church and civil discipline.  But apostasy cannot.  Do you see the difference?

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Unless you don't think raping sister missionaries is ecclesiastical misconduct?

Certainly it is.  You are missing or dodging or ignoring my point.  The Church can and should "investigate" matters within its province (like apostasy), but not matters that are the exclusive province of civil law enforcement (sex crimes).

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do people only lose their callings or membership when they do things that aren't illegal? Last time I checked rape is a serious sin.

I agree.  But rape is not a matter that the Church is equipped to investigate.  It doesn't have forensic labs, or access to search warrants, or the authority to interrogate suspects, or any of the other investigative tools which belong exclusively to civil law enforcement.  

Apostasy is plainly - and exclusively - within the Church's bailiwick.  Rape is not.  The Church should refer such matters to law enforcement.

I continue to be nonplussed at the utterly strange notion that the LDS Church, a private religious entity, should involve itself in criminal investigations on a large scale, rather than refer such matters over to civil law enforcement authorities.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think we know if they were independent with Bishop,  The fact they were reported in the same year 25 years after it happened and the first victim knew the second victim makes me wonder how independent they were.

I concur.  That said, I am disturbed that the bishop back in the 80s failed to report the allegations, either to the Church or to law enforcement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 I am disturbed that the bishop back in the 80s failed to report the allegations, either to the Church or to law enforcement.

Oh yeah.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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?

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.

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

Wow.  Now you are all over the map.

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.

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

What I am  getting out of your stance is that the victim should talk to the bishop and report the crime to the police.  The church should then call the priesthood leader accused of sexual misconduct.  If he says no, then church leaders should drop the issue because the church has no ability to do any investigation.  

If the victim wants the church to investigate the matter then the best way to motivate the church to look deeper into the situation is to sue the church.  Then the church hires attorneys and is able to diligently investigate the matter.  

I guess as long as everyone understands the recourse process, that should work fine.

[provoman]

....................

Edited April 5, 2018 by provoman

[mfbukowski]

Messed this one up too

Time to get some sleep oder etwas zu essen.

Mucho trabajo poco denaro .

Oh wait this is supposed to be Ingles. 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by mfbukowski