Robert F. Smith Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 34 minutes ago, DBMormon said: these questions need answered and remember, Questions Are Honored!........................ 2.) church statements indicate that Church leaders have little ability to discern the guilt of a abuser in such cases. Why is the spirit of discernment useless in such cases? When is the Spirit of discernment useful and when is it not? 3.) President Kimball and several other high ranking leaders were involved in calling Bishop to his higher callings. Why was the spirit of discernment not helpful in the extending of these callings? ........................................... 10.) How many good righteous leaders failed at using discernment throughout this entire church journey of Joseph Bishop, including prophet of the Church? .................................................. It is always utterly dishonest to require that Mormons get up on their hind legs and do magic tricks for you, Bill. That's dirty pool. The economy of God is that He requires us to do what we are able, and that He can fill in the blanks if necessary. But there are no guarantees. The lie that Mormons claim constant and uninterrupted streams of Holy Spirit power, sounds like something like the Force out of "Star Wars" and not out of the Bible or Book of Mormon. So your automatic assumption that Mormons are a pack of liars if they cannot prove complete discernment at all times and in all places, no matter what, is an entirely straw man. Why have you sunk to such a low and craven position, Bill? Have you no shame? 4
Popular Post california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 31, 2018 35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The article you cite is a confused mass of very poor quality. The reporter obviously unable to make a coherent and meaningful presentation. The basic info is best gotten first at http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-responds-to-allegations-of-sexual-assault-by-former-mission-president . The ultimate problem is that one cannot wait over 30 years to obtain the facts. The perpetrator is 85. His son is his attorney. They are naturally trying to discredit the victim, who may be impeached based on her actual record. Reconstructing what actually happened at this remove is absurd and impractical. No one gains anything at this point, even if there had been a good case originally. It may explain why Bishop's son is trying to discredit the victim, but it was the church that developed the dirt on the victim even though they knew that the event very likely happened. Second woman, secret room, confession from Bishop, etc. Does not the victim deserve restitution from the church without impunity? Or should she first be dragged through the dirt before her request is addressed. These are the things that I find disgusting about not just the Mormon church and how it has acted, but other churches that have done similar things. And people are wringing their hands wondering why so many are leaving organized religion. For a group that claims to be so close to the voice of God, I find no evidence of that or of trying to do the right thing even when they certainly had enough information to act more appropriately than what was done. This just reinforces my own personal experience with church leaders. 5
Popular Post california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: It is always utterly dishonest to require that Mormons get up on their hind legs and do magic tricks for you, Bill. That's dirty pool. The economy of God is that He requires us to do what we are able, and that He can fill in the blanks if necessary. But there are no guarantees. The lie that Mormons claim constant and uninterrupted streams of Holy Spirit power, sounds like something like the Force out of "Star Wars" and not out of the Bible or Book of Mormon. So your automatic assumption that Mormons are a pack of liars if they cannot prove complete discernment at all times and in all places, no matter what, is an entirely straw man. Why have you sunk to such a low and craven position, Bill? Have you no shame? What is utterly dishonest is claims that leaders use some magical spirit of discernment in making callings and decisions in the church. It is not DBMormon who stated these claims, it is the church, over and over again. Do you believe that such claims should stop immediately Robert? Or should this claim continue and issues like this one swept under the carpet and pretend they never happened. Perhaps the reason we have "sunk to a low and craven position" is because our own lives have been affected by such claims when in fact, they were totally unjustified. We aren't talking about one single incident. We are talking about a string of incidents that went on for 30 plus years, over and over again. I also might add, that list that DBMormon includes much more than just the issue of discernment. Are you going to defend all the other points as well? Should the church be digging up all the dirt it can on the victim that they in all reasonablity knew was telling the truth? At what point is the church going to take responsibility for some of this? Is this really how you want your church to respond to these kinds of events? I am just wondering why you haven't accused the church of sinking to a low and craven position. Instead you attack a person that is asking real questions that absolutely should be answered. Edited March 31, 2018 by california boy 5
Calm Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, california boy said: Does not the victim deserve restitution from the church without impunity? We do not know if she through her lawyer was asking for a reasonable settlement as opposed to a ridiculous amount. If the amount was outside a reasonable limit, then it is intelligent, imo, to collect information that would demonstrate to the mediator or judge why the attorneys and others involved believe she might inflate needs or reasons to receive restitution and that their proposal was the better one. Edited March 31, 2018 by Calm 1
california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Calm said: We do not know if she through her lawyer was asking for a reasonable settlement as opposed to a ridiculous amount. If the amount was outside a reasonable limit, then it is intelligent, imo, to collect information that would demonstrate to the mediator or judge why the attorneys and others involved believe she might inflate needs or reasons to receive restitution and that their proposal was the better one. And that justifies sending the information to Bishop's son? Is the church helping with the legal defense of Bishop? And what does that say about the claim the church made that it does not have investigative resources? Edited March 31, 2018 by california boy 2
Calm Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, california boy said: And that justifies sending the information to Bishop's son? And what does that say about the claim the church maid that it does not have investigative resources? I am solely speaking to gathering the information in the first place. Attorneys hiring private investigators for lawsuits I can feel comfortable with. Not sure I feel comfortable with Church leadership hiring similar investigators when it is a church discipline issue. If they do not investigate to that level, I do think they should err on the side of caution in terms of safety. Edited March 31, 2018 by Calm
The Nehor Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 2 hours ago, cinepro said: But in all seriousness, this is an utter disaster for the Church. Ever since this first came to light on the 21st, literally nothing has come out that has made the Church look competent, let alone "good." In a normal organization, the CEO by now would have become the public face of the situation, and I suspect privately people would be losing their jobs. I'm extremely disappointed that President Nelson hasn't called a press conference and said "Here's what happened (as far as we know), we're sorry, and here's what we're going to do..." That would be a very dumb thing to do with litigation pending.
juliann Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 26 minutes ago, california boy said: I also might add, that list that DBMormon includes much more than just the issue of discernment. Are you going to defend all the other points as well? Should the church be digging up all the dirt it can on the victim that they in all reasonablity knew was telling the truth? At what point is the church going to take responsibility for some of this? Is this really how you want your church to respond to these kinds of events? Are you completely unfamiliar with the legal system? 1
juliann Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, california boy said: And that justifies sending the information to Bishop's son? Is the church helping with the legal defense of Bishop? And what does that say about the claim the church made that it does not have investigative resources? From what I read, it was a lawyer who copied the son. Again, the church and Bishop have competing interests. Bishop would be stupid to think the church would set aside its own interests to defend him. Oh, wait..... 2
california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 1 minute ago, juliann said: Are you completely unfamiliar with the legal system? Yes I am familiar with the legal system. Is it now a requirement for VICTIMS to be dragged through the mud? Dig up all the dirt you can, send it to third parties and leak it to the press to sway public opinion,
california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Calm said: I am solely speaking to gathering the information in the first place. Well I am not. It is one thing to sit down in a private conference room and put all the facts on the table. Quite another to start deciminating all the dirt they could dig up to others who then leak it to the press. Tell me one reason why the church had to send the information to Bishops son. This kind of dirt should have been handled with the UPMOST care if the lawyers for the church are trying to be ethical at all. It was not. Edited March 31, 2018 by california boy
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: The article you cite is a confused mass of very poor quality. The reporter obviously unable to make a coherent and meaningful presentation. The basic info is best gotten first at http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-responds-to-allegations-of-sexual-assault-by-former-mission-president . The ultimate problem is that one cannot wait over 30 years to obtain the facts. The perpetrator is 85. His son is his attorney. They are naturally trying to discredit the victim, who may be impeached based on her actual record. Reconstructing what actually happened at this remove is absurd and impractical. No one gains anything at this point, even if there had been a good case originally. I wonder how hard it would be send all the sister missionaries that served during his tenure an email. Certainly seems just as easy as hiring counsel to dig dirt up on the victim. 1
The Nehor Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 43 minutes ago, california boy said: It may explain why Bishop's son is trying to discredit the victim, but it was the church that developed the dirt on the victim even though they knew that the event very likely happened. Second woman, secret room, confession from Bishop, etc. Does not the victim deserve restitution from the church without impunity? Or should she first be dragged through the dirt before her request is addressed. These are the things that I find disgusting about not just the Mormon church and how it has acted, but other churches that have done similar things. And people are wringing their hands wondering why so many are leaving organized religion. For a group that claims to be so close to the voice of God, I find no evidence of that or of trying to do the right thing even when they certainly had enough information to act more appropriately than what was done. This just reinforces my own personal experience with church leaders. Technically I suspect that the lawyers put the dossier together but undoubtedly used whatever the church had to help compile it. Most likely the victim would have got recompense if the lawyers could reach a settlement. Bishop's idiot son releasing the dossier may have torpedoed that. The lawyers meet and basically lay some (but not all) of their cards on the table. They reach a dollar figure and go back and see if clients agree. Repeat until settlement is reached or they have to go to court. Usually nothing is revealed from the settlement deal. Now who knows what will happen? The purpose of the dossier was not to humiliate her (it would never have been released) but to present a case to protect the church's assets and negotiate. I am still trying to figure out what responsibility the Church is morally obligated to take at this point.
The Nehor Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Yes I am familiar with the legal system. Is it now a requirement for VICTIMS to be dragged through the mud? Dig up all the dirt you can, send it to third parties and leak it to the press to sway public opinion, Then blame the leaker who is not the Church's representative. I agree that he is an idiot and has made this worse for everyone. Maybe he thought it would force the church to defend his dad? If so, I doubt it will work.
california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, juliann said: From what I read, it was a lawyer who copied the son. Again, the church and Bishop have competing interests. Bishop would be stupid to think the church would set aside its own interests to defend him. Oh, wait..... A lawyer working for the church. Why was the church having ANY communication with Bishop's son.
juliann Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Yes I am familiar with the legal system. Is it now a requirement for VICTIMS to be dragged through the mud? Dig up all the dirt you can, send it to third parties and leak it to the press to sway public opinion, Come on. It was the church's lawyer who sent it to the son and the son who leaked it. If you discover that the First Prez did all this, get back to me. The outrage has been appropriate but it is now appears to be in that amoral mire we call a legal system. You have never been involved in a lawsuit, I take it. 1
The Nehor Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, california boy said: Well I am not. It is one thing to sit down in a private conference room and put all the facts on the table. Quite another to start deciminating all the dirt they could dig up to others who then leak it to the press. Tell me one reason why the church had to send the information to Bishops son. Because one of the lawyers (hard to tell from the bad reporting but I think it was the victim's lawyer) added him to the email chain. 1
california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Technically I suspect that the lawyers put the dossier together but undoubtedly used whatever the church had to help compile it. Most likely the victim would have got recompense if the lawyers could reach a settlement. Bishop's idiot son releasing the dossier may have torpedoed that. The lawyers meet and basically lay some (but not all) of their cards on the table. They reach a dollar figure and go back and see if clients agree. Repeat until settlement is reached or they have to go to court. Usually nothing is revealed from the settlement deal. Now who knows what will happen? The purpose of the dossier was not to humiliate her (it would never have been released) but to present a case to protect the church's assets and negotiate. I am still trying to figure out what responsibility the Church is morally obligated to take at this point. Yeah I get all of that. Tell me how Bishop's son enters into that conference settlement. Why was he given the dirt the church gathered on the victim?
california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, juliann said: Come on. It was the church's lawyer who sent it to the son and the son who leaked it. If you discover that the First Prez did all this, get back to me. The outrage has been appropriate but it is now appears to be in that amoral mire we call a legal system. You have never been involved in a lawsuit, I take it. So it is standard practice to gather dirt on victims of sexual assault and then send that dirt to third parties? Has the church publicly rebuked it's lawyers for leaking the information to Bishop's son? Have they fired the attorneys for such an egregious act? 1
california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Because one of the lawyers (hard to tell from the bad reporting but I think it was the victim's lawyer) added him to the email chain. I do know this about the legal system and lawyers. Things like this are the kind of things that will trigger a lawsuit against the law firm. The odds of something like this happening are VERY slim. Any lawyer who does something as incompetent as this should be fired immediately.
juliann Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 1 minute ago, california boy said: A lawyer working for the church. Why was the church having ANY communication with Bishop's son. Oh geez. Bishop was an employee. Do you know why it is never a good idea to have your employer or your insurance company represent you? Because they are there to represent themselves. When I sued a contractor, the insurance company had to provide a personal attorney for the contractor. So there were two attorneys. The personal one seemed like a bit of a dufus, I'm not sure how helpful it is when the personal attorney is hired by the insurance company who is protecting its own interests. And it is absurd to think that before this went public that the First Prez was micromanaging so stop "the church" stuff unless you have a reference. The legal system sucks. It took me two lawsuits to finally get that it has nothing to do with right and wrong. You just play the game by its rules. We have expressed our outrage, now it is time to get real and acknowledge that "the church" and the legal system are two different things. 1
Calm Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) "In the last two days, 2News has obtained a letter that was written by David Jordan, a lawyer at the firm, Stoel Rives, acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The document is a response to a letter from the woman’s attorney, Craig Vernon, requesting a settlement from the LDS Church. The document includes everything we saw in Bishop’s email, plus a review of her ecclesiastical church record. At the bottom, the Jordan indicates that he sent the letter to Greg Bishop.... Jordan acknowledged that he wrote the letter and only sent it to Bishop because he had been included in an email chain by the accuser’s attorney." Why did her attorney make Greg Bishop part of the email conversation in the first place? How much of the conversation involved him (how many times did her lawyer, Vernon, send emails to both Church lawyers and Greg Bishop and if the Church lawyers responses included G Bishop, did Vernon ever protest)? It seems reasonable to conclude that Vernon wanted G Bishop to be party to at least some of the discussions of the settlement. Whether it was reasonable or not for Jordan, the attorney representing the Church (not actual church leadership), to assume that it was appropriate to include Bishop again in the continuing conversation that includes sending the dossier to the victim's attorney depends imo on what was said prior to this. Vernon appears to have created the expectation that it was a conversation involving himself, Church attorneys, and Greg Bishop. Edited March 31, 2018 by Calm 2
Calm Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, california boy said: Tell me how Bishop's son enters into that conference settlement. You probably need to ask the victim's lawyer about that since he was apparently the one who included G Bishop first. Edited March 31, 2018 by Calm 1
juliann Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 10 minutes ago, california boy said: I do know this about the legal system and lawyers. Things like this are the kind of things that will trigger a lawsuit against the law firm. The odds of something like this happening are VERY slim. Any lawyer who does something as incompetent as this should be fired immediately.
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, Calm said: "In the last two days, 2News has obtained a letter that was written by David Jordan, a lawyer at the firm, Stoel Rives, acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The document is a response to a letter from the woman’s attorney, Craig Vernon, requesting a settlement from the LDS Church. The document includes everything we saw in Bishop’s email, plus a review of her ecclesiastical church record. At the bottom, the Jordan indicates that he sent the letter to Greg Bishop.... Jordan acknowledged that he wrote the letter and only sent it to Bishop because he had been included in an email chain by the accuser’s attorney." Why did her attorney make Greg Bishop part of the email conversation in the first place? How much of the conversation involved him (how many times did her lawyer, Vernon, send emails to both Church lawyers and Greg Bishop)? It seems reasonable to conclude that Vernon wanted G Bishop to be party to at least some of the discussions of the settlement. Whether it was reasonable or not for Jordan, the attorney representing the Church (not actual church leadership), to assume that it was appropriate to include Bishop again in the continuing conversation that includes sending the dossier to the victim's attorney depends imo on what was said prior to this. Vernon appears to have created the expectation that it was a conversation involving himself, Church attorneys, and Greg Bishop. 4 minutes ago, Calm said: You probably need to ask the victim's lawyer about that since he was apparently the one who included G Bishop first. The church's lawyers are handling this case the way most of these cases are handled. Shame the victim, justify the abuse, smear her name, be loose with who sees the dirt and have information "accidentally" leaked to the press. You want to separate the church entirely from the actions of the lawyer. What I do know about lawsuits is that the person paying for the attorneys are advised on how the case will be litigated and what evidence has been gathered. So. yes, the church is directly involved with what their lawyers do and how it handles its case. I am disappointed with how the church continues to handle this victim of sexual abuse over and over again even when they knew this other woman testified of similar abuse way back in 2010. This is just the end of a long rope of "excused" conduct of church leaders. I personally am outraged. I guess others, not so much. Just another "accident". oops. 1
Recommended Posts