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

[Calm]

That is weird.  Can any lawyer or those who follow such things speculate why Bishop is not a co-defendant?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Duh- thanks.

I don't know why I did not notice that.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours 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. 

Yes I know who she is- I just missed that that portion was a quote.  

[provoman]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is weird.  Can any lawyer or those who follow such things speculate why Bishop is not a co-defendant?

Weird indeed, especially given that Bishop is a named defendant on the filing

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Duh- thanks.

I don't know why I did not notice that.

Quotemarks are our friends.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, provoman said:

Weird indeed, especially given that Bishop is a named defendant on the filing

So he was dropped?  My memory is an inconsistent thing.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

So he was dropped?  My memory is an inconsistent thing.

 

It is weird, because I figured that someone from sltrib saw the actual filing. Fox13 has the filing posted on its website, and clear as day is Bishop listed as a defendant. So I am not sure how sltrib could have gotten that one wrong.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

It is weird, because I figured that someone from sltrib saw the actual filing. Fox13 has the filing posted on its website, and clear as day is Bishop listed as a defendant. So I am not sure how sltrib could have gotten that one wrong.

Well, we should know tomorrow if everyone has gone home as it will be corrected if wrong.  Unless it is right and no one explains that.

News conference tomorrow by Vernon.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Calm

[Gray]

6 hours 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.

Something to explore, certainly

[Gray]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

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

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).

What makes you think those matters are the exclusive province of civil law enforcement. Lots of companies provide internal investigations of wrong-doing alongside investigations conducted by law enforcement.

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

How does one forensically determine that apostasy has occurred? Why should apostasy have a lower evidentiary bar to clear than rape when it comes to church discipline? You're describing a system that treats people who have abandoned the faith more harshly than sexual predators.

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

No one was suggesting anything of the sort, as you should know.

[Calm]

"How does one forensically determine that apostasy has occurred? Why should apostasy have a lower evidentiary bar to clear than rape when it comes to church discipline? You're describing a system that treats people who have abandoned the faith more harshly than sexual predators."

I doubt if foresenics are employed in investigating apostasy.  Probably the only way is to examine what a person has written and said.  

Apostasy is a different type of behaviour than rape.  It is the expression of ideas primarily, while rape is a physical act.  Why would you apply the same investigative tools to two very different behaviours?

Edited April 5, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

A legal response • Jordan “did extraordinary research on this woman … to make it clear that the church was not going to settle,” said Salt Lake City attorney Greg Skordas. “I am sure he did not intend for Greg Bishop to share it [or part of it] with the media.”

But none of the parties did anything “unethical, illegal or improper,” Skordas said. It is reasonable for all three parties — the LDS Church, the accuser’s attorney and the alleged abuser’s lawyer — to share information about the case.

There are various ways of defending against these kinds of allegations, said University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell, a longtime advocate for victims’ rights and a former federal judge.

An attorney for an abuser might go on the offensive and attack the accuser, he said, but an organization, like a church, typically would start by expressing concern and compassion for the victim while it examined the allegations.

Cassell believes the LDS Church’s response, especially its initial statement challenging the Colorado woman’s claims, was done in haste.

“I was surprised to see this maneuver executed so quickly,” he said. “‘Trash the victim’ is the last option an organization would typically employ. It may be the least successful tactic, used only after all other options have been exhausted.”

Once you go there, he said, “you can’t put the cat back into the bag.”

As for naming the adopted daughter in the investigative papers?

“There is no reason,” Cassell said, “to make unnecessary enemies through collateral damage.”

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/

The naming of the daughter is just weird and wrong.  Don't get that reasoning at all.  

As far as the "trash the victim", I wonder if Jordan chose that route because of the extortion and false rape claims.  That is such a potentially big hit to her credibility, he thought it would draw a quick conclusion to the case (see Skordas' comment above) ...and then Bishop released the documents and it looks like it backfired.  It also makes more sense if Jordan only had the redacted report of BYU Police without Bishop's admission to asking her to expose herself iirc.  Once the abuse was confirmed by the police confession as opposed to the vague admissions on the tape, at minimum it is sexual harassment if accepted as consensual and it seems to me that becomes an employee-boss company relationship, which means liability, I believe.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Calm

[Marginal Gains]

Jordan didn’t act in a vacuum. He’s a paid advisor working on behalf of the Church, not an independent person for whom the Church bears no responsibility. When Jordan does something under remit from the Church, it is the Church doing it. So trashing the victim was something the Church chose to do, and Jordan carried it out.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Jordan didn’t act in a vacuum. He’s a paid advisor working on behalf of the Church, not an independent person for whom the Church bears no responsibility. When Jordan does something under remit from the Church, it is the Church doing it. So trashing the victim was something the Church chose to do, and Jordan carried it out.

It would be stupid to hire an expert and then refuse to listen to his advice.  You make it sound like it was Church leadership who planned it and Jordan was a brainless robot.

I think it was much more likely it was Jordan's idea, but whoever is working with him from the Church could have said "no", so there is shared responsibility.

[Marginal Gains]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would be stupid to hire an expert and then refuse to listen to his advice.  You make it sound like it was Church leadership who planned it and Jordan was a brainless robot.

I think it was much more likely it was Jordan's idea, but whoever is working with him from the Church could have said "no", so there is shared responsibility.

Shared responsibility was my point, but you expressed it much better than I did. But the overall accountability ultimately stops with the Church as they have right of veto on any and all actions as they are the client and are paying the bills and it is the Church’s bidding that Jordan is carrying out, no matter the latitude that may or may not be allowed.

[toon]

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 2:58 PM, smac97 said:

Yes, there does seem to be a bit of inconsistency in the expectations of what the Church is supposed to do.  There seems to be an ongoing implied expectation that the Church is supposed to be some sort of investigative and/or law enforcement agency.  Either that, or the Church is supposed to reflexively and unquestionably accept each and every allegation of misconduct, presume the guilt of the person accused, and discipline the individual accordingly.

Are those the only options? Perhaps it's an expectation that the Church would want to maintain a safe and conducive environment where members are free from sexual assault and harassment when engaging in Church activities and that, as part of that effort, it would take allegations of assault and harassment seriously and investigate as appropriate.

Employers who have nowhere near the resources of the Church conduct harassment thorough investigations all the time.  And yes, while this may because they have a legal obligation to maintain a harassment free workplace, many also recognize that this just the right thing to do.

Are you seriously claiming that the Church should not be expected to conduct a thorough investigation when one of its agents (a mission president) is accused by a member of sexual assault on Church property while engaged in Church activities? Employers don't get to say, "No need to report and investigate because I could never believe so-and-so would do that." And regardless of differing legal standards, why should an employer need to investigate and the Church not?

That said, I get that this happened and was first reported in the '80s. And while it may not be excuse, harassment wasn't taken as seriously back then as it is now. Both employers and the Church have come a long ways since then in how they deal with allegations of sexual assault and harassment. But it doesn't follow that the Church now can say it doesn't have the capacity or resources to investigate this type of claim.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, toon said:

Quote

Yes, there does seem to be a bit of inconsistency in the expectations of what the Church is supposed to do.  There seems to be an ongoing implied expectation that the Church is supposed to be some sort of investigative and/or law enforcement agency.  Either that, or the Church is supposed to reflexively and unquestionably accept each and every allegation of misconduct, presume the guilt of the person accused, and discipline the individual accordingly.

Are those the only options?

Nope.  But those are the two options, broadly speaking, which are being bandied about.

Quote

Perhaps it's an expectation that the Church would want to maintain a safe and conducive environment where members are free from sexual assault and harassment when engaging in Church activities and that, as part of that effort, it would take allegations of assault and harassment seriously and investigate as appropriate.

Take allegations of assault and harassment seriously?  Absolutely.  Unequivocally.  Full stop.  Yes.

"Investigate as appropriate?"  Again, absolutely.  Yes.

But what does "investigate as appropriate" mean?  Does it mean "that the Church is supposed to be some sort of investigative and/or law enforcement agency?"  I think . . . not.

Quote

Employers who have nowhere near the resources of the Church conduct harassment thorough investigations all the time. 

Really?  What "resources" are you thinking of here?

Quote

And yes, while this may because they have a legal obligation to maintain a harassment free workplace, many also recognize that this just the right thing to do.

The LDS Church is in this category.

Quote

Are you seriously claiming that the Church should not be expected to conduct a thorough investigation when one of its agents (a mission president) is accused by a member of sexual assault on Church property while engaged in Church activities?

No, I am not claiming that.  "Principal/Agent"-type scenarios are, I think, a different category.  The Church should investigate such claims to some extent, but should also refer such claims to law enforcement.  The Church's investigation should be careful not to impede or disrupt investigation by law enforcement.

The vast majority of abuse claims are in a separate category, and relate to non-"Principal/Agent"-type scenarios.  That is, a member of the ward meets with the bishop and accuses her husband, or a neighbor, or some such of abusing her child.  The Church's "investigation" of this category of claims is, I think, necessarily more narrow, particularly if the accused denies the allegations.  The Church's "investigation" would involve conferring with the attorneys on the bishops' helpline to determine the bishop's legal obligations of disclosure and non-disclosure, and also the scope of the bishop's "investigation" (if any at all).  And again, the Church's efforts should not impede or disrupt investigation by law enforcement.

Quote

Employers don't get to say, "No need to report and investigate because I could never believe so-and-so would do that."

Agreed.

Quote

And regardless of differing legal standards,

Nope.  Not going to entertain blithe dismissals of "differing legal standards."  Not gonna do it.

You are playing with fire here.  Accusations of sexual misconduct are extremely serious.  As soon as we start having discussions about how private persons and entities (such as the LDS Church) should approach such a serious issue, and as soon as we preface such discussions with disturbing and uninformed statements like "regardless of differing legal standards," then I'm going to say "Hold up!  We're headed into some treacherous waters!"

Quote

why should an employer need to investigate and the Church not?

The question is what is meant by "investigate."  What does that mean?  Who does the investigating for the Church?  In which circumstances?  What training is there?  Will such investigations disrupt or impede law enforcement inquiries into the matter?  What about priest/penitent privilege?  And what does the Church do with whatever information it receives by way of its investigation?  Does it keep such information in-house, or turn it over to law enforcement?  Do we really want untrained bishops running around playing playing "Bishop John Q. McMormon, Private Investigator?"  Do we want the bishops of the Church to become extensions of law enforcement?  How does a bishop effectively investigate claims against a member of his ward?  Or claims made by a member of his ward against a member in another ward?  Or a non-member?  What is the scope of the bishop's investigative duties?  How is D&C 134:10 implicated?  What if law enforcement wants the Church to stay out of the matter?  Does the Church disregard that and conduct interviews and investigations anyway?  

I have literally dozens of additional questions in my mind about this topic.  It frankly boggles the mind that man of the people who are calling for such a thing - critics and opponents of the Church - elsehwere gripe about how intrusive the LDS Church is in the lives of its members.  But turning the Church into a law enforcement/investigative agency would be like that intrusive effect going on steroids.

If the Church receives allegations of abuse, it should follow the laws of the land.  It should conduct some investigation, at least sufficient so as to allow those trained in this area - attorneys who are on retainer with the Church and who confer with bishops and such via the helpline - to have sufficient information to figure out how to proceed.  Under the law, there are times when the Church is constrained from reporting a confession of abuse to law enforcement.  There are also times when the Church is required to report allegations of abuse to law enforcement.  There are also plenty of situations in the "gray area" where the Church may neither have an obligation to disclose or not disclose.  Hence the helpline, which has been in place for quite a few years now.

And you know what?  That helpline works.  It really does.  It's not foolproof.  It's not an absolute guarantee that allegations of abuse will be perfectly handled each and every time.  But it works.  Over and over and over again, the Church's bishops hear about allegations of abuse, call the helpline, get confidential legal guidance from licensed attorneys who are extensively trained and experienced in this area of law.  See, for example, this recent news item:

Quote

An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.

...

The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . Kirton & McConkie.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

Sadly, there are still bad people in the world who will work to circumvest these safeguards.  That is the nature of the world we live in.  So can the Church improve?  I think so.  Further training for bishops would be helpful.  Perhaps much more stringent oversight of "bishop interviews" and such (putting windows into the doors of the bishops' offices, installing surveillance cameras in bishops' offices, etc.).  

But at the end of the day, the Church already has some rather good safeguards in place.  The Law of Chastity.  Clear policies for when priesthood leaders are meeting with youth or women (they are to be chaperoned).  A published-to-the-world "zero tolerance" policy for abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.  A helpline staffed with lawyers to help local leaders navigate legal complexities that can arise.  These efforts are working.  I therefore think radical proposals, like having the LDS Church - a private religious entity - creating an in-house quasi-law enforcement/investigative department, are deeply problematic, even absurd.

Quote

That said, I get that this happened and was first reported in the '80s.

Possibly to Elder Asay.  We just don't know.

And definitely to a YSA bishop.  And he failed to report the allegations to either law enforcement or the Church.  That was an extremely serious error in judgment on his part, but I don't think the Church had in place the resources it has now.

Quote

And while it may not be excuse, harassment wasn't taken as seriously back then as it is now.

Possibly.

Quote

Both employers and the Church have come a long ways since then in how they deal with allegations of sexual assault and harassment. But it doesn't follow that the Church now can say it doesn't have the capacity or resources to investigate this type of claim.

In the main, the LDS Church does not and should not have the "capacity or resources" to function as a law enforcement/investigative entity.  If a violent or sex-related crime is committed, the Church should contact law enforcement and let them investigate (provided that the priest/penitent privilege is preserved).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 5, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

"How does one forensically determine that apostasy has occurred? Why should apostasy have a lower evidentiary bar to clear than rape when it comes to church discipline? You're describing a system that treats people who have abandoned the faith more harshly than sexual predators."

I doubt if foresenics are employed in investigating apostasy.  Probably the only way is to examine what a person has written and said.  

Yes, that was the first half of my point.  "Apostasy" as a form of misconduct is materially and substantively different from a sex crime.

The other half of my point is that law enforcement has no interest in "investigating apostasy."  The police simply don't care about such things, and are in fact legally precluded from intruding into such matters (it's called the "Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine").  So investigating "apostasy" is exclusively the province of the Church.  Investigating a sex crime, on the other hand, is - I think - almost exclusively the province of civil law enforcement.  There could be circumstances where the Church would want to be more involved in investigating such a claim (such as when an agent of the Church is the accused), but even then it must tread lightly so as not to interfere with or impede the investigative efforts by law enforcement.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Apostasy is a different type of behaviour than rape.  It is the expression of ideas primarily, while rape is a physical act.  Why would you apply the same investigative tools to two very different behaviours?

Because this thread is currently a hot venue for crazy talk?  That's what I think.  Nothing else accounts for the bizarre phenomenon of watching critics and opponents of the LDS Church demand that the LDS Church create its own internal law enforcement/investigative agency.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Jordan didn’t act in a vacuum. He’s a paid advisor working on behalf of the Church, not an independent person for whom the Church bears no responsibility. When Jordan does something under remit from the Church, it is the Church doing it. So trashing the victim was something the Church chose to do, and Jordan carried it out.

As I understand it, Jordan's document was not intended for public consumption.  Ergo no intent to "trash the victim."  Ergo your accusation seems unfair.

I am an attorney.  I am privy to all sorts of warts-and-all information about opposing parties.  That's what litigation is for.  But virtually none of those "warts" are aired at all.  We need have a "lay of the land," but not because we want to "trash" the other side.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that was the first half of my point.  "Apostasy" as a form of misconduct is materially and substantively different from a sex crime.

The other half of my point is that law enforcement has no interest in "investigating apostasy."  The police simply don't care about such things, and are in fact legally precluded from intruding into such matters (it's called the "Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine").  So investigating "apostasy" is exclusively the province of the Church.  Investigating a sex crime, on the other hand, is - I think - almost exclusively the province of civil law enforcement.  There could be circumstances where the Church would want to be more involved in investigating such a claim (such as when an agent of the Church is the accused), but even then it must tread lightly so as not to interfere with or impede the investigative efforts by law enforcement.

Because this thread is currently a hot venue for crazy talk?  That's what I think.  Nothing else accounts for the bizarre phenomenon of watching critics and opponents of the LDS Church demand that the LDS Church create its own internal law enforcement/investigative agency.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac - When you speak of "...the Church want[ing] to be more involved in investigating such a claim..." what would you have in mind regards to the scope of such an investigation?

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Smac - When you speak of "...the Church want[ing] to be more involved in investigating such a claim..." what would you have in mind regards to the scope of such an investigation?

Depending on the circumstances, the Church may want to retain a law firm.  

But the notion of having bishops or other unqualified folks running around playing Magnum P.I. just doesn't work for me, nor does having the Church set up an in-house law enforcement/investigative agency.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Depending on the circumstances, the Church may want to retain a law firm.  

But the notion of having bishops or other unqualified folks running around playing Magnum P.I. just doesn't work for me, nor does having the Church set up an in-house law enforcement/investigative agency.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your post seemed to suggest that while (not instead of) civil authorities were involved the Church could also investigate as long as they "...tread[ed] lightly so as not to interfere with or impeded the investigative efforts by law enforcement." In that context, do you have any thoughts on what that might look like? It stands to reason there are instances when the Church should investigate an allegation though not of the "Magnum PI" variety.

Note: I've just started watching Tom Seleck in "Blue Bloods". So far so good. My parents love it and there isn't too much by way of objectionable material. ; )

[CA Steve]

10 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Note: I've just started watching Tom Seleck in "Blue Bloods". So far so good. My parents love it and there isn't too much by way of objectionable material. ; )

I have always enjoyed Blue Bloods, especially because they end each episode with a family dinner, something I understand Tom Selleck insisted be in the show.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Depending on the circumstances, the Church may want to retain a law firm.  

But the notion of having bishops or other unqualified folks running around playing Magnum P.I. just doesn't work for me, nor does having the Church set up an in-house law enforcement/investigative agency.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll do it if they give me a Ferrari.

[ALarson]

I hope everyone will take the time to watch the press conference from today.  It helped clear up some of the questions I had and gave me a chance to actually hear from Mckenna in person.  

I think the entire conference is on the video here:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/04/05/woman-accusing-missionary-training-center-president-of-rape-stands-in-front-of-cameras-to-say-she-is-a-victim/