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

[Exiled]

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

A long time ago, churches used to do their own trials and punishment.  They called it the Inquisition.

Although we all have fond memories of it and  a good time was generally  had by all, It was decided later that it would be better to have the police power be reserved to the government and have the government do all of the investigating and punishing of criminals.

This was probably why the BYU police dept. reported its findings to the district attorneys office instead of Salt Lake. 

I guess we don't know if lying for the lord is happening or not .... I think HQ would want to know what goes on at its university but of course it's possible that in this case HQ had to wait around, conveniently, like everyone else. This isn't how I heard it goes down based on lawyers I have known at Kirton and having a brother and friend who worked for the church P.R. dept., but anything is possible.

[sunstoned]

16 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.

 

I have read many of the nes articles too. I do not rcall a news article that stated The LDS Church was in possession of the Police report. Yes BYU Police Department was in possession of the report, the report was turned over to the County Attorney, but I do not recall that the LDS Church was in possession of.

It is an important clarification to be accurate about. So that is all I am asking is the reference that shows The LDS Church was in possession of the report.

Seriously?  BYU is owned by the church.  This information has been public for some time.   This article states the BYU police and Chruch leaders knew of two victims of the MTC president.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/03/23/mormon-leaders-knew-of-two-alleged-victims-of-former-missionary-training-center-president-in-2010/

[Marginal Gains]

On 31/03/2018 at 2:51 PM, Gray said:

There's been a lot of talk about the confidentiality of the confessional. I've always been skeptical about that because this stuff tends to leak out at the ward level. Looks like there's even more reason to be skeptical about that.

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/

 

Confidentiality of the confessional is a myth within the LDS Church. When needs must in the pursuit of saving money or face your Church record is neither sacred nor secret.

[provoman]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Seriously?  BYU is owned by the church.  This information has been public for some time.   This article states the BYU police and Chruch leaders knew of two victims of the MTC president.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/03/23/mormon-leaders-knew-of-two-alleged-victims-of-former-missionary-training-center-president-in-2010/

 

The article provided DOES NOT support your claim the Church “already knew Bishop was guilty”

 

Also, that article DOES NOT support your claim that the Church had in its possession the Dec 2017 police report at the time that the out-side legal counsel was gathering the information on the victim.

 

BYU Police Department DOES NOT equal The Church.

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

BYU Police Department DOES NOT equal The Church.

Unfortunately we won't know what the church knew and when, unless someone leaks something additional. It seems obvious that the BYU police dept. would be in communication with HQ regarding this explosive issue. I wonder why page 6 of 9 was blacked out so much in the first report and not the second. That page has the part confession on it by Bishop. Was the BYU police dept. instructed by someone to redact the most important part? Keep in mind that the reports were from a foia request by KUTV. Maybe someone from the BYU police dept contacted HQ to see how to respond? 

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/03/31/mormonleaks-releases-byu-police-report-obtained-prior-to-joseph-bishop-audio-leak/

Edited April 4, 2018 by Exiled

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

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/

Confidentiality of the confessional is a myth within the LDS Church.

No, it's not.  It is very much real.

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

When needs must in the pursuit of saving money or face your Church record is neither sacred nor secret.

Malarky.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

So you think the Church should use their centralized legal team to investigate every local claim of abuse or crime rather than turning over to the local police where allowed?

To collect dossiers in each and every case even if there is no legal implication for the Church?  Because that would be the necessary starting point, imo.  You need to confirm dates, places, and times of people's actions and you can't do that without investigating the people.

What about confidentiality?  Should an investigation be done even if the only evidence is a confidential interview or two conflicting reports if that means dossiers on all involved will be made as part of the investigation?

 

Did I ever state that? Not even close.

I was showing how the church's statement that it doesn't have the resources to investigate Bishop was an inaccurate, dishonest, or at least "inconsistent" position to take, considering that they are proven to have the resources to investigate the victim. It appears it was more important for them to investigate the victim so she could be discredited, than it was for them to investigate the abuser and hold him accountable. It seems very likely to me that the church now has a dossier on Bishop as well, even though they initially claimed they didn't have resources to do such things. Clearly they do when they want to. Should they do it in every case? Of course not. But I would think in a situation like an MTC President being accused of abuse it would rise to a level that they would want to investigate more thoroughly. In this case, they either didn't care enough to investigate (which is damning) or they secretly did investigate because they were concerned with the accusations, yet claim they didn't have the resources to investigate (which would be dishonest). This is a lose/lose situation for the church. They've bungled it badly. Nothing they do now can change that. The best we can hope for is that they make adjustments so this doesn't happen in the future.

This is an interesting side-update about this whole dossier fiasco. 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/

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

So you think the Church should use their centralized legal team to investigate every local claim of abuse or crime rather than turning over to the local police where allowed?

To collect dossiers in each and every case even if there is no legal implication for the Church?  Because that would be the necessary starting point, imo.  You need to confirm dates, places, and times of people's actions and you can't do that without investigating the people.

What about confidentiality?  Should an investigation be done even if the only evidence is a confidential interview or two conflicting reports if that means dossiers on all involved will be made as part of the investigation?

 

 

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

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

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

Edited April 4, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Yes, you misread something because I am stating that the legal teams working on behalf of the church is the same thing as the church. It has also been stated that ecclesiastical records were included in the dossier which could only have come from church administration.

If the church is capable of having their legal team investigate, then the church has the ability to investigate. Claiming otherwise is inconsistent with what has reportedly been done in this case.

So you think the Church should use their centralized legal team to investigate every local claim of abuse or crime rather than turning over to the local police where allowed?

I hope HJW is not calling for such a thing.  That is a patently unreasonable expectation of a private religious organization.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

To collect dossiers in each and every case even if there is no legal implication for the Church?  Because that would be the necessary starting point, imo.  You need to confirm dates, places, and times of people's actions and you can't do that without investigating the people.

Yep.  And again, the "dossier" in this matter was compiled by an attorney representing the Church in a legal dispute.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Greg Bishop stated that the second woman was not at the MTC at the same time as the first woman claims (she was there in 84, the second woman was there in 85).  He may be saying this from his own memory, but it would be easily checked with the women's church records so I wonder.

Yes, this matter is, factually, very messy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Exiled said:

I guess we don't know if lying for the lord is happening or not ....

"Lying for the Lord?"  What is that?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I was showing how the church's statement that it doesn't have the resources to investigate Bishop was an inaccurate, dishonest, or at least "inconsistent" position to take, considering that they are proven to have the resources to investigate the victim.

"The Church" didn't "investigate" the accuser.  An attorney, retained by the Church in a legal dispute, did.

The resulting report was a litigation document, not an ecclesiastical one.

Do you see the difference between A) the Church hiring an attorney in a litigated matter, which attorney then proceeds to research factual and legal issues in the litigated matter, and B) the Church having "resources" to "investigate" allegations of misconduct in any systematic, widespread way?

Quote

It appears it was more important for them to investigate the victim so she could be discredited, than it was for them to investigate the abuser and hold him accountable.

"Could be discredited?"  By a memo that was leaked?  A memo prepared by an attorney in a litigation matter?

Quote

It seems very likely to me that the church now has a dossier on Bishop as well, even though they initially claimed they didn't have resources to do such things.

"Do such things?"  What does that mean?  What "things?"

Quote

Clearly they do when they want to.

Nonsense.  The Church retained an attorney to address legal claims asserted against it.  To suggest that this somehow means that the Church therefore has "resources" to scale out "investigations" in a Church with membership in the millions and spread around the world is absurd.

Quote

Should they do it in every case? Of course not.

I'm glad you are conceding this.  Really.

Quote

But I would think in a situation like an MTC President being accused of abuse it would rise to a level that they would want to investigate more thoroughly.

Okay.  What do you have in mind?  What do you think the Church should have done?  And when?  And by what means?

Quote

In this case, they either didn't care enough to investigate (which is damning) or they secretly did investigate because they were concerned with the accusations, yet claim they didn't have the resources to investigate (which would be dishonest). This is a lose/lose situation for the church.

Indeed.  False dilemmas are designed to produce "lose/lose" results.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 4, 2018 by smac97

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, it's not.  It is very much real.

Malarky.

Thanks,

-Smac

You and I must have differing interpretations of the term ‘confidentiality’. Because I’m pretty sure there’s an expectation that what’s said to the Bishop stays with the Bishop except where abuse is suspected, at which point the Bishop has a confidential hotline. I don’t think many members would have an expectation that their confessional can and will be used in evidence against them, even when they are the victim. Yet it turns out the Church, without seeking your consent, will hand your records over to a third party, who will in turn hand those records over to a fourth party who may in turn share details of your confessional with the press.

Or do you think this is the one and only time the Church has ever handed member records over to lawyers?

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Lying for the Lord?"  What is that?

 

As an example, it’s what Paul H Dunn did. And it’s what the essays attempted to put right. The 1890 declaration about Polygamy is another example.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

As an example, it’s what Paul H Dunn did.

Okay.  Are you suggesting that "what Paul H. Dunn did" was endorsed or encouraged or mandated by the Church?

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

And it’s what the essays attempted to put right.

I don't understand.  Which essays address "lying?"  Lying about what?

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The 1890 declaration about Polygamy is another example.

Example of "lying for the Lord?"  How so?  What does "lying for the Lord" mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You and I must have differing interpretations of the term ‘confidentiality’.

Maybe we do.  My interpretation is based on the basic dictionary definition.  What are you using?

Bishops regularly keep confidences, both as a point of doctrine and pursuant to the priest/penitent privilege.  Confidentiality is not, as you falsely claim, "a myth within the LDS Church."

14 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Because I’m pretty sure there’s an expectation that what’s said to the Bishop stays with the Bishop except where abuse is suspected, at which point the Bishop has a confidential hotline.

That is a facile, and hence substantively inaccurate, summary.  Confessions of abuse (by the abuser) are substantively different from allegations of abuse (by the victim).

Moreover, an individual's subjective expectation of confidentiality is not exactly the lodestar we go by.

14 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I don’t think many members would have an expectation that their confessional can and will be used in evidence against them, even when they are the victim.

The priest/penitent privilege is observed in the LDS Church.

As for "confessional" statements being "used in evidence" against a "victim," I don't know what you mean by that.

14 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Yet it turns out the Church, without seeking your consent, will hand your records over to a third party, who will in turn hand those records over to a fourth party who may in turn share details of your confessional with the press.

What are you talking about?

14 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Or do you think this is the one and only time the Church has ever handed member records over to lawyers?

You are all over the place.  You originally stated: "Confidentiality of the confessional is a myth within the LDS Church."  This is a substantively false statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Lying for the Lord?"  What is that?

"The Church" didn't "investigate" the accuser.  An attorney, retained by the Church in a legal dispute, did.

The resulting report was a litigation document, not an ecclesiastical one.

Do you see the difference between A) the Church hiring an attorney in a litigated matter, which attorney then proceeds to research factual and legal issues in the litigated matter, and B) the Church having "resources" to "investigate" allegations of misconduct in any systematic, widespread way?

"Could be discredited?"  By a memo that was leaked?  A memo prepared by an attorney in a litigation matter?

"Do such things?"  What does that mean?  What "things?"

Nonsense.  The Church retained an attorney to address legal claims asserted against it.  To suggest that this somehow means that the Church therefore has "resources" to scale out "investigations" in a Church with membership in the millions and spread around the world is absurd.

I'm glad you are conceding this.  Really.

Okay.  What do you have in mind?  What do you think the Church should have done?  And when?  And by what means?

Indeed.  False dilemmas are designed to produce "lose/lose" results.

Thanks,

-Smac

Honestly, I don't see a difference between an employee or volunteer working on the church's behalf and an attorney working on the church's behalf. In both cases, the agent is acting for the church. Therefore the church is the beneficiary and bears responsibility just as my employer bears responsibility for my actions when I work on its behalf. An organization cannot divorce themselves from the actions of its agents. They are responsible. Usually, the employer will hold the employee responsible, but that doesn't mean the employer doesn't still have liability.

No I don't see a difference when the church claims it doesn't have resources to investigate but then uses its resources to hire someone to investigate. Therefore, the employee of the church is acting on the church's behalf, so clearly the church has the resources if it chooses to use them.

The lose/lose result is a natural consequence of the situation the church has helped to create. It cannot change the past, only improve the present, and the future. If it does make those changes they will have a win/win.

Edited April 4, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Honestly, I don't see a difference between an employee or volunteer working on the church's behalf and an attorney working on the church's behalf. In both cases, the agent is acting for the church. Therefore the church is the beneficiary and bears responsibility.

No I don't see a difference when the church claims it doesn't have resources to investigate but then uses its resources to hire someone to investigate. Therefore, the employee of the church is acting on the church's behalf, so clearly the church has the resources if it chooses to use them.

The lose/lose result is a natural consequence of the situation the church has helped to create. It cannot change the past, only improve the present, and the future. If it does make those changes they will have a win/win.

It is all a matter or words and perception.

The Church does not have an investigative arm.

The Church enters into a very specific issue based fee for service  contract with an attorney/Law Firm that does have “investigators”....aaaaand poof, the Church is dishonest about not having an investigative arm.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

It is all a matter or words and perception.

The Church does not have an investigative arm.

The Church enters into a very specific issue based fee for service  contract with an attorney/Law Firm that does have “investigators”....aaaaand poof, the Church is dishonest about not having an investigative arm.

The church didn't say it doesn't have an "investigative arm". I would agree with that. I never said they did have an investigative arm.

They said they don't have the resources to investigate. That is false. When they hire an attorney to investigate, they are hiring an investigative arm. That investigative arm then works on behalf of the church to accomplish the church's goals.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, provoman said:

The Church does not have an investigative arm.

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

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Honestly, I don't see a difference between an employee or volunteer working on the church's behalf and an attorney working on the church's behalf.

Okay.  I propose you give the matter some further thought.  The Church responding to a particular threat of litigation by hiring an attorney, who in turn does . . . what lawyers do (research, investigate, analyze, etc.), is a vastly different circumstance from the Church creating some sort of quasi-law enforcement agency to research / investigate / analyze allegations of misconduct by any of the many millions of members of the Church.

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In both cases, the agent is acting for the church.

An attorney acting as an "agent" is a vastly different proposition from the Church reating some sort of quasi-law enforcement agency to research / investigate / analyze allegations of misconduct by any of the many millions of members of the Church.

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Therefore the church is the beneficiary and bears responsibility just as my employer bears responsibility for my actions when I work on its behalf. An organization cannot divorce themselves from the actions of its agents. They are responsible. Usually, the employer will hold the employee responsible, but that doesn't mean the employer doesn't still have liability.

Hmm.  I'm not sure I'm following you.  We were discussing the Church's generalized inability (and/or unwillingness) to be an investigative or law enforcement agency as pertaining to sex abuse allegations the Church receives from its members (usually through bishops).  You are pointing to a document written by an attorney retained by the Church in a litigated matter as evidence that the Church can "investigate" if it wants to.  I am suggesting that this expectation is unreasonable.  You are now shifting over to a discussion about "responsibility" and "liability."

I'm not sure where you are going.

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No I don't see a difference when the church claims it doesn't have resources to investigate but then uses its resources to hire someone to investigate.

It doesn't have resources to investigate.  It hired an attorney to do so.  

The Church also doesn't have resources to construct temples.  It hires contractors to do the actual work.  That doesn't mean that the contractors' ability to construct a temple is somehow transferred to the Church.  The Church also doesn't have resources to transport missionaries from place to place.  It uses airlines, buses, trains, etc. to do so.  That doesn't mean that the ability of airlines, bus companies, etc. to provide transportation services is somehow transferred to the Church.

In contrast, the Church does have some resources to do other things, such as employment centers (to help people find jobs), food production and distribution (bishops' storehouses), distribution of second-hand commodities (Deseret Industries), education (BYU, BYU-H, BYU-I, etc.), and so on.

So the Church has resources to perform some functions, but not others.  Systematic law enforcement / investigative work plainly, obviously falls into the latter category.  The Church has no department or group of employees who can do it.  Local bishops and stake presidents can make very generalized inquiries and hope for voluntary responses, but nothing approaching what an attorney or a law enforcement agency can do.

It seems odd that I actually have to point this out.  It is odd that this is somehow a question to be presented to people who purport to be familiar with the LDS Church.

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Therefore, the employee of the church is acting on the church's behalf, so clearly the church has the resources if it chooses to use them.

In very rare, isolated cases where litigation is threatened, perhaps.  Otherwise, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

Agree, the church has so many ways they can be an investigative entity. They have the money and the resources at their disposal. It's hard to believe this is even on the agenda list of topics to discuss, it's a given. Especially when you look at the past history. The church has suffered persecution and they have now, built in's that will thwart it including ways to keep tabs on their persecuters. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church didn't say it doesn't have an "investigative arm". I would agree with that. I never said they did have an investigative arm.

They said they don't have the resources to investigate. That is false.

It is true.

Quote

When they hire an attorney to investigate, they are hiring an investigative arm. That investigative arm then works on behalf of the church to accomplish the church's goals.

So if the Church buys an airline ticket, does that turn the Church into an airline?

You're really stretching to find fault here.  It's not working.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 4, 2018 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What do you have in mind?  What do you think the Church should have done?  And when?  And by what means

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

I can’t understand why the church does not maintain something similar to an ombudsman to record reports about potential ecclesiastical abuse. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Agree, the church has so many ways they can be an investigative entity. They have the money and the resources at their disposal. It's hard to believe this is even on the agenda list of topics to discuss, it's a given. Especially when you look at the past history. The church has suffered persecution and they have now, built in's that will thwart it including ways to keep tabs on their persecuters. 

There is nothing in the Church's scriptural mandates that includes "be{ing} an investigative entity."

The Church has money and resources that it could, theoretically, utilize to create "an investigative entity."  But nobody wants that, surely?

The Church is constrained by its scriptural mandates.  I think D&C 134:10 pretty much precludes what you are suggesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When these allegations first came to light, it would have been very easy and simple for the church to send an email to every sister missionary who served under Bishop.

Okay.

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

His name wouldn’t even need to be used. Something along the lines of, “Allegations of sexual misconduct have been brought forward that occurred while you served in the mtc. We would like to hear from you if you have any information about this.” Employees at the MTC could have been contacted as well. This is not rocket science. It’s not hard. And it doesn’t take a lot of resources. 

I can’t understand why the church does not maintain something similar to an ombudsman to record reports about potential ecclesiastical abuse. 

Hmm.  Let me think on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is true.

So if the Church buys an airline ticket, does that make it an airline?

You're really stretching to find fault here.  It's not working.

Thanks,

-Smac

No. But clearly they have the resources to get President Nelson to Africa. No one says they are an airline, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the resources to travel.