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

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Matthew 5: 25:

King James Bible
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Christian Standard Bible
Reach a settlement quickly with your adversary while you're on the way with him to the court, or your adversary will hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you will be thrown into prison.

Reaching a settlement is exactly what they seem to be trying to do.

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Recordings can be very problematic as evidence. Even when done by law enforcement agencies. If it is anything like the jurisdiction I last read up a case like this the recording may not be even be admissible.

 

To be clear I do think he did something horrible and, if I am right, I hope she sues him out of everything he owns though I am not sure if that will happen. I am less sure the church organization is financially culpable.

What is admissible in an American court of law, as opposed to what is admissible in a Bishop's Court of Love are different things.

I'm not an attorney--several here ARE, or have been. But licensure for my job has at times entailed review of what might or might not be admissible in court. 

The exclusionary rule as I understand it, is a late development even in American law. It was adapted by courts mainly because police departments consistently failed to discipline officers who used illicit efforts to obtain efforts. The courts adopted the exclusionary rule as a constitutional measure to protect defendants from being railroaded.

Time was when such evidence would be excluded as evidence only if defense could establish reason to believe a recording might be tampered with. Otherwise, it was objective evidence of a crime. Courts, however, have to concern themselves with broader civil rights issues, AND the risk that illicitly obtained evidence might be tainted.

For a bishop's council,  the interest is in privately and quietly establishing if a transgression took place. If the transgressor will not confess, but the objective facts convince those within the council that it did: then disciplinary action is permissible. 

Membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a civil right. 

And, viewing things with the eye of faith, while one wants the church disciplinary system as fair as possible to ensure confidence: any miscarriage in mortality,  we Saints trust, will be made right in Eternity. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

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

My distrust for church leaders speaking under claims of inspiration from God occurred way earlier than that when I was just off my mission and I was told to marry a woman and if I did, I was promised in the name of God that I would no longer be gay.  Yeah.  God made no such promise.  They claimed inspiration/revelation from something that never happened.  This whole mess just confirms to me that church leaders do not have some kind of power of discernment or revelation from God.  Those claims should stop, or they should be demonstrable.  So which is it.

"Those claims should stop, or they should be demonstrable"   The problem with that claim is that it is a logical category mistake.  Science requires that all experiments be demonstrable, measurable, etc.  Religion makes no such claim, even if idiots make absurd claims in the name of God from time to time.  I can easily understand how you can be frosted with such claims, and rightly annoyed.  Faith claims are not demonstrable by nature.  I have never seen a Holy Spirit Meter, have you?

[Tacenda]

I probably missed it on the thread as I haven't read each post, but does this mean each member has a dossier on them from say age 8, or whenever they became members?

I had no idea if it is so, I'm not too worried though except I now have a good idea why I've been left alone for so long since stating to my former bishop turned stake president a few years ago that I wasn't sure I had a testimony anymore since learning things in history that I didn't know of. 

I'd love to read what is said about me, and if they got it wrong or not. This is bothersome on so many levels. It's like we all have a file in the church. Like we're being watched. It really seems like the Scientology church with their members' files. I was oblivious to all of this. I wonder if when someone confesses it's put into a file. Which I guess is important if they abused someone. 

I don't like how the church lawyers cc'd Bishop's son about this woman's church records, is it true now that her name has been leaked because of it? It just seems so onesided, Bishop's side, not hers. I guess she was just a thorn in the church's side all these years? IMO. ETA: Out of posts for now, in case someone responds...

Edited April 2, 2018 by Tacenda

[Guest]

On March 31, 2018 at 2:13 AM, sunstoned said:

If this information is true,  I will be shocked. This is what you would expect from a cut throat for profit corporation. Not a christian church. 
 

 

http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive-documents-reveal-how-the-lds-church-responded-to-mtc-sex-scandal

Is this kind of written language necessary, especially on this website, to use your comment. This is what you would expect from a cut throat for profit corporation.

So often on websites devoted to undermining all things LDS, posters refer to our President, but using such language such as our, "LD$ Profit", in an effort to undermine any who see it. It is even more upsetting to see anything akin to it here. Having said this, the man who did this to this young lady, in a place where she was preparing to surve a mission, and whatever GA who did not take action, are worthy of Hell, and deserve none of the Church's blessing. God may forgive them, and I would leave that to his infinite wisdom. But, he who did this should be excommunicated, and the GA whom she reported it too. Regardless, even the GA , did not believe it, he still should have investigated it, and to see if this room existed, and if so, he should have taken immediate action. However to put it simply, some may escape punishment in this mortal life, but none escape judgement when they stand before God. Any of these men, will face death with abject horror. They should confess to their a Priesthood leaders, and then publicly confess where all can here, and face ny criminal punishment coming. Then, they MIGHT, be able to find peace, and die peacefully, and also be willing to face civil lawsuits.   

 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I probably missed it on the thread as I haven't read each post, but does this mean each member has a dossier on them from say age 8, or whenever they became members?

I had no idea if it is so, I'm not too worried though except I now have a good idea why I've been left alone for so long since stating to my former bishop turned stake president a few years ago that I wasn't sure I had a testimony anymore since learning things in history that I didn't know of. 

I'd love to read what is said about me, and if they got it wrong or not. This is bothersome on so many levels. It's like we all have a file in the church. Like we're being watched. It really seems like the Scientology church with their members' files. I was oblivious to all of this. I wonder if when someone confesses it's put into a file. Which I guess is important if they abused someone. 

I don't like how the church lawyers cc'd Bishop's son about this woman's church records, is it true now that her name has been leaked because of it? It just seems so onesided, Bishop's side, not hers. I guess she was just a thorn in the church's side all these years? IMO. ETA: Out of posts for now, in case someone responds...

All I want to know is..if anything is going to happen to Bishop??  Is anything being done to show explicit desire to remove him from the church?  I don't like much of any of this...

[HappyJackWagon]

There seems to be a wide divide between what we expect from the church in how they would handle something like this.

IF I think of the church as a large corporation then it makes perfect sense to me that they would do their discovery and create a dossier on anyone they consider to be a potential financial threat. If they are in negotiations for a settlement, it makes sense that they understand who they are dealing with. It makes sense that they would limit their financial losses by playing hardball with an accuser.

IF I think of the church as a Church and the epitome of Christian ideals, then it makes less sense.

Quote

Matthew 5

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

If I expect the church to exemplify this philosophy then I am more likely to be disappointed. It's hard (for me at least) to approve of the church, when sued at the law for their coat, try to destroy the accuser instead of giving the cloak also. Some will suggest that it is unrealistic/idealistic to expect the church to behave in the way the scripture states and I agree that it's unrealistic for a business to behave that way but the church should set the example. The way the church is attempting to protect itself by minimizing the accuser, despite an apparent knowledge that the accusations have merit (confession of accused, supporting statements about MTC room, etc) doesn't appear to be Christian in any way, shape or form. It seems like they are siding with the abuser instead of the victim.

The church employs attorneys. They are legal agents for the church. If the attorneys do something wrong, it reflects badly on the church as well. We can claim the church had nothing to do with the dossier or leaking it to the abuser's legal team and family, but we don't really have any way of knowing that. All we know is that the church's legal team either purposely, or accidentally shared information aimed at minimizing and harming the accuser. If the church doesn't like the way its legal agent acted, they should take action and hold their legal team accountable.

Some will say it is hypocritical to expect the church to behave in accordance with this scripture, yet not hold the accuser to the same standard. Perhaps. But then I don't have expectations that the individual will be an example of these Christian ideal. I do expect that from the church. I feel it is right to expect more of a church that claims to be God's organization on the earth. His "one, true, and living church". Maybe that's an unfair expectation, but if I don't have that expectation then I don't see much value in the church at all. If it can't be an example in how to treat others, then it loses credibility and value.

[Calm]

"leaking it to the abuser's legal team"

It wasn't a leak according to lawyers here and elsewhere, but required by law to share what evidence one has if one intends to use it with the parties involved.

You may see it as wrong to collect a dossier, but before it is collected it can be viewed as likely to help the person's credibility as hurt it.  It is pretty much the only way to learn where one stands.  Do you think it is wise or kind to enter into such a discussion without any knowledge about the person you are talking to?

If the dossier had only contained nice things about the victim, things that would help the Church know what suggestions to make to maximize the benefit of anything they ended up giving her (such as paying for any therapy she takes as long as she lives or maybe specifying Rehab if she had an addiction problem rather than just handing money over to her that might end up in an overdose or stolen from her, would you feel bad about that?

And personally I think it is important that someone know if the person they are involved in negotiation is a known extortionist (which apparently she is) no matter how compassionate they want to be.  Criminally ripping people off is not a healthy way to live and ignoring it won't help her as a victim.  Sexual history may be irrelevant to the act of a lawsuit, but extortion? Including a lawsuit based on an alleged claim of assault?  I am not sure why this is being ignored.

I believe she was abused by Bishop, possibly even raped as she may have described it as only attempted rape in the tape interview in hopes he would admit to the lesser charge.  I also don't see it as good for her or The Church to ignore criminal behaviour.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

"leaking it to the abuser's legal team"

It wasn't a leak according to lawyers here and elsewhere, but required by law to share what evidence one has if one intends to use it with the parties involved.

I'm trying to remember the wording in the article but it sounded more like a mistake than as a part of discovery.

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Is this kind of written language necessary, especially on this website, to use your comment. This is what you would expect from a cut throat for profit corporation.

So often on websites devoted to undermining all things LDS, posters refer to our President, but using such language such as our, "LD$ Profit", in an effort to undermine any who see it. It is even more upsetting to see anything akin to it here. Having said this, the man who did this to this young lady, in a place where she was preparing to surve a mission, and whatever GA who did not take action, are worthy of Hell, and deserve none of the Church's blessing. God may forgive them, and I would leave that to his infinite wisdom. But, he who did this should be excommunicated, and the GA whom she reported it too. Regardless, even the GA , did not believe it, he still should have investigated it, and to see if this room existed, and if so, he should have taken immediate action. However to put it simply, some may escape punishment in this mortal life, but none escape judgement when they stand before God. Any of these men, will face death with abject horror. They should confess to their a Priesthood leaders, and then publicly confess where all can here, and face ny criminal punishment coming. Then, they MIGHT, be able to find peace, and die peacefully, and also be willing to face civil lawsuits.   

 

I understand where you are coming from.  But what do you call an organization that sets it's resources to digging up dirt on a victim.  A victim that was sexually assaulted as a young 21 year old missionary.  What is worse is that at the time the church was doing this, it already knew Bishop was guilty.  What could the church hope to gain by digging up dirt on this victim?  Anything she did after the assault to the present does not change what happened in the basement of the MTC in 1984.  Yes, I call these actions cut throat.  The church has crossed a line with their handing of this situation.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm trying to remember the wording in the article but it sounded more like a mistake than as a part of discovery.

They never bothered to ask the woman's attorney why he was CC'ing Bishop's attorney that I recall...or at least they didn't report it.

Or Jordan if it was a mistake or not when he sent his response to the same that Vernon had sent...again no report on whether or not they asked.

Why would a journalist neglect such an obvious question?

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I understand where you are coming from.  But what do you call an organization that sets it's resources to digging up dirt on a victim.  A victim that was sexually assaulted as a young 21 year old missionary.  What is worse is that at the time the church was doing this, it already knew Bishop was guilty.  What could the church hope to gain by digging up dirt on this victim?  Anything she did after the assault to the present does not change what happened in the basement of the MTC in 1984.  Yes, I call these actions cut throat.  The church has crossed a line with their handing of this situation.

As my comments already pointed out my feelings for anyone who knew, or covered up any such acts. Or did you read what I wrote? 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I understand where you are coming from.  But what do you call an organization that sets it's resources to digging up dirt on a victim.  A victim that was sexually assaulted as a young 21 year old missionary.  What is worse is that at the time the church was doing this, it already knew Bishop was guilty.  What could the church hope to gain by digging up dirt on this victim?  Anything she did after the assault to the present does not change what happened in the basement of the MTC in 1984.  Yes, I call these actions cut throat.  The church has crossed a line with their handing of this situation.

You state the purpose was to find dirt.  Is this an assumption or knowledge?

Investigating people you are going to be negotiating with, learning their background does not inherently mean "digging up dirt" in my opinion.

They certainly may have been doing it with that intent.  They may have just wanted general knowledge, whether it was good or bad.

From what has been reported, it is not that expensive or time consuming for lawyers to check out people on a standard database that would have this info and would be automatic for any lawsuit.  I can't remember if I read that here or elsewhere.  Will try and find the source. (Pretty sure Danzo)

"Anything she did after the assault to the present does not change what happened in the basement of the MTC in 1984"

The lawsuit probably involves more that just the abuse.  She was definitely looking for more info than just an admission of guilt to that act.  She wanted to know who in Church leadership he had talked to about it (with good reason imo).

Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm trying to remember the wording in the article but it sounded more like a mistake than as a part of discovery.

 

I am not sure how the topic of rhe legal process of Discovery was brought up; but in my experience Discovery is a step of lawsuit - as the victim mentioned that the release of the audio assisted her decision in negotiations or file a suit in the coming weeks, I tend to doubt the legal process of Discovery was happening with regard to the information the Law Firm provided to Greg Bishop - Attorney - and to the victims attorney.

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I understand where you are coming from.  But what do you call an organization that sets it's resources to digging up dirt on a victim.  A victim that was sexually assaulted as a young 21 year old missionary.  What is worse is that at the time the church was doing this, it already knew Bishop was guilty.  What could the church hope to gain by digging up dirt on this victim?  Anything she did after the assault to the present does not change what happened in the basement of the MTC in 1984.  Yes, I call these actions cut throat.  The church has crossed a line with their handing of this situation.

I don't think so. A victim's concerns can be resolved either out-of-court (reflecting a win-win attitude by both parties) or in the courts (reflecting a win strategy by each party). Both the plaintiff's and the defendant's lawyers take different approaches respectively, each having advantages and disadvantages as far as stress, timing, expense, publicity and risk with regards to the incentive to build the strongest case possible. Both sides are going to get the most competent lawyers they can find.

[provoman]

32 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I understand where you are coming from.  But what do you call an organization that sets it's resources to digging up dirt on a victim.  A victim that was sexually assaulted as a young 21 year old missionary.  What is worse is that at the time the church was doing this, it already knew Bishop was guilty.  What could the church hope to gain by digging up dirt on this victim?  Anything she did after the assault to the present does not change what happened in the basement of the MTC in 1984.  Yes, I call these actions cut throat.  The church has crossed a line with their handing of this situation.

CFR: “[The Church] already knew Bishop was guilty.”

[Danzo]

 

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I understand where you are coming from.  But what do you call an organization that sets it's resources to digging up dirt on a victim.  A victim that was sexually assaulted as a young 21 year old missionary.  What is worse is that at the time the church was doing this, it already knew Bishop was guilty.  What could the church hope to gain by digging up dirt on this victim?  Anything she did after the assault to the present does not change what happened in the basement of the MTC in 1984.  Yes, I call these actions cut throat.  The church has crossed a line with their handing of this situation.

All it takes is a simple search.

Give me her name and birth date and I could probably find most of the info in a few minutes. It would be public record, most of it.

As far as knowing Bishop was guilty, I don't think the church "knows" he was guilty anymore than you do.  There is a reason people in this country are tried in courts and not on Mormon Discussion boards.

The church imposes discipline on a local level. If the Church started issuing excommunications from salt lake, I guarantee people would be screaming a lot louder.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Danzo

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

 

I am not sure how the topic of rhe legal process of Discovery was brought up; but in my experience Discovery is a step of lawsuit - as the victim mentioned that the release of the audio assisted her decision in negotiations or file a suit in the coming weeks, I tend to doubt the legal process of Discovery was happening with regard to the information the Law Firm provided to Greg Bishop - Attorney - and to the victims attorney.

You are confusing Formal Discovery with informal discovery.

Formal Discovery happens only when informal discovery fails.  

Its much easier to inform the parties when information becomes available than to wait till someone has to issue a subpoena.

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, provoman said:

CFR: “[The Church] already knew Bishop was guilty.”

The Church had the Dec 2017 police report admission of Joseph Bishop's immorality.  They had knowledge of the information on the audio recording that was given to them in January 2018 by the victim where Bishop gives a partial confession.  The church also knew since at least by 2010 there was a second victim,

[Calm]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

The Church had the Dec 2017 police report admission of Joseph Bishop's immorality.  

When?

Quote

The church also knew since at least by 2010 there was a second victim,

They knew there was another woman claiming to be a victim.  There is a big difference.

They probably also knew at that time the first victim had filed a false rape report on her mission, I can't imagine that not being on her Church records as a warning to take care in interviews...a false rape report is a big credibility hit when claiming a rape.  One of the big indicators of false reporting is a history of false reports.  Being violent enough to threatened to kill someone is another credibility hit as it indicates instability.

The first victim says she knew the second victim.  We don't know if there was any contact between them or if there might have appeared to be.  Both appeared to have waited to tell leaders a gap of 25ish years after the attack and then report it around the same time (the Leavitt report was possibly never passed on to anyone else).  We don't know what the abuse report was in regards to the second victim.  We don't know how credible the second woman was at that time.  No details have been provided by the woman or The Church.

I can see the possibility the Church leadership really screwed up more than just one bishop in 87 refusing to pass on her report.  I can also see the possibility that in 2010 the credibility of the two victims might have been very lacking.  We don't know what the Church leadership knew for sure then, what the victims told them, if Bishop shared any info that discredited the victims then as he is doing now (she asked him many times for a backrub).

Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

When?

They knew there was another woman claiming to be a victim.  There is a big difference.

They probably also knew at that time the first victim had filed a false rape report on her mission, I can't imagine that not being on her Church records as a warning to take care in interviews...a false rape report is a big credibility hit when claiming a rape.  One of the big indicators of false reporting is a history of false reports.  Being violent enough to threatened to kill someone is another credibility hit as it indicates instability.

The first victim says she knew the second victim.  We don't know if there was any contact between them or if there might have appeared to be.  Both appeared to have waited to tell leaders a gap of 25ish years after the attack and then report it around the same time (the Leavitt report was possibly never passed on to anyone else).  We don't know what the abuse report was in regards to the second victim.  We don't know how credible the second woman was at that time.  No details have been provided by the woman or The Church.

I can see the possibility the Church leadership really screwed up more than just one bishop in 87 refusing to pass on her report.  I can also see the possibility that in 2010 the credibility of the two victims might have been very lacking.  We don't know what the Church leadership knew for sure then, what the victims told them, if Bishop shared any info that discredited the victims then as he is doing now (she asked him many times for a backrub).

It's too bad we probably won't know for sure what the church knew and when because it won't say. We are just left to speculate. However, I think we can safely say the church tried to brush this under the rug as it has done with other incidences of abuse. Reputation above victims is the sad order of things.

[Garden Girl]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I probably missed it on the thread as I haven't read each post, but does this mean each member has a dossier on them from say age 8, or whenever they became members?

I had no idea if it is so, I'm not too worried though except I now have a good idea why I've been left alone for so long since stating to my former bishop turned stake president a few years ago that I wasn't sure I had a testimony anymore since learning things in history that I didn't know of. 

I'd love to read what is said about me, and if they got it wrong or not. This is bothersome on so many levels. It's like we all have a file in the church. Like we're being watched. It really seems like the Scientology church with their members' files. I was oblivious to all of this. I wonder if when someone confesses it's put into a file. Which I guess is important if they abused someone. 

 

Hello Tacenda...

Like so often, being eager to criticize the Church, you jump to unwarranted and questionable and/or inaccurate conclusions.  The Church does not have a general "dossier" or "file" on you or any other member... we do, however, keep minimal records of ordinances and callings (and I assume disciplinary actions)... The reason I say this is because as someone who is widowed, alone with no children, aging quickly, with my nearest (non-member) relatives 1200 miles away, I have become concerned that if I suddenly fall over dead on the floor that someone at Church knows who/how to contact my nephew who is my legal representative... So I went to our Ward Clerk and asked if I could provide this info, plus other instructions, that could be kept and available if needed.  I was told there was no file, but in cases such as mine I could provide info for the bishop that he would keep locked up in the bishop's office... so I'm in the process of compiling such info to give to him... the need for this was prompted by the sudden death of my sister in Jan. which made me realize there is no one here that has any idea who to contact in case of my death. 

GG 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Garden Girl

[provoman]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The Church had the Dec 2017 police report admission of Joseph Bishop's immorality.  They had knowledge of the information on the audio recording that was given to them in January 2018 by the victim where Bishop gives a partial confession.  The church also knew since at least by 2010 there was a second victim,

CFR: The Church had the Dec 2017 police report admission of Joseph Bishop's immorality.  

You are claiming that the J Bishop admission to the Police was in the possession of the Church at the time the Law Firm was gathering the background information on the victim; what is your proof/reference for that claim? 

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

CFR: The Church had the Dec 2017 police report admission of Joseph Bishop's immorality.  

You are claiming that the J Bishop admission to the Police was in the possession of the Church at the time the Law Firm was gathering the background information on the victim; what is your proof/reference for that claim? 

I am not claiming anything.  I am just stating that has been reported in the news.  It was the BYU police that made the report.  

Edited April 3, 2018 by sunstoned

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

They never bothered to ask the woman's attorney why he was CC'ing Bishop's attorney that I recall...or at least they didn't report it.

Or Jordan if it was a mistake or not when he sent his response to the same that Vernon had sent...again no report on whether or not they asked.

Why would a journalist neglect such an obvious question?

I don't know but you seem to be changing the question from why would the attorney do it to why wouldn't the reporter report it accurately. Both are good questions. All I have to go on is what I first read which made it sound like copying Bishop's attorney was a mistake/accident. Frankly, I feel much better about it being an accident than the church willfully teaming up with Bishop in a joint defense effort. But still, if it was an accident, there should be some consequences for the legal team.

I'd be curious to know what kind of dossier the church has on Bishop. It would certainly give good insight about what they knew and when. I wonder if the legal team will share that dossier with the accuser's legal team. Well...probably not.

Edited April 3, 2018 by HappyJackWagon