LDS Church May Be Facing More Lawsuits Over Sexual Abuse And Inaction

[smac97]

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think in the context of what he is saying in the interview, the claim of "in the 1970s and 1980s" is legit. 

I'm not so sure.

Quote

He says, he confessed, while a mission president (starting in 1979) "all" that he had done, the context of all that he had done is molesting girls/women. 

The "context" is rather muddled.  We don't know to what he "confessed," except that he felt they were his "sins" (p. 26).  But the "context" appears to be a confession to Elder Wells while he was a mission president, which was years before he became president of the MTC.  And yet on p. 33 we get this exchange:

Quote

Denson: So did you, when you talked to Brother Wells and you repented, did you talk about this?

Bishop: Yes.

Denson: You talked about what you did with me and other women?

Bishop: Yes.

Now contrast the above "confession" with the allegations in the lawsuit:

Quote

The lawsuit claims while serving as president of the Buenos Aries North Argentina Mission in 1978, Bishop confessed sins and improprieties to Robert E. Wells, who was then a general authority over the region.

It looks like Denson has created a real problem in her narrative.  She says in the lawsuit that "Bishop confessed sins and improprieties to Robert E. Wells" in 1978, but in the recording she has Bishop admitting that his confession to Wells included his (Bishop's) abuse of Denson, which happened years after 1978.

In other words, the recording appears to include . . . a false confession.  Bishop purportedly confesses in 1978 to abuse of Denson which did not occur until 1984.

What are your thoughts about this?  Am I missing something?  I am open to correction.

Quote

And that he did it, after having confessed for years before--he did it as a mission president because he wanted to make sure his confession was covered.

I don't understand what you are sayin ghere.

Quote

I get you want to doubt his admissions and comments in the interview,

No, you don't get that.  Because that's not what I want.

I am evaluating the evidence, and trying to be dispassionate about it.

Quote

because to you he was being lead or was not very clear,

I think a dispassionate analysis of the evidence gives rise to some very real questions, yes.

Quote

but that does not mean there is no reason to think the confessions did not happen during those decades. 

Okay.  But confessions about what?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Then why try and settle?

Plenty of reasons.  Settlement is often, very often, preferable to litigation.  For everyone.  

Keep in mind that it was Denson who initiated private settlement efforts.

12 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

If it’s so tenuous and unlikely, why were highly paid Church lawyers burning the midnight oil to try and pay his victim off?

It's a legal dispute, not a bribe or extortion.  Your characterization of settlement efforts is way off.

Again, Denson approached the LDS Church and initiated settlement negotiations.  And the Church then . . . hired lawyers to represent it in a legal dispute.

Are you seriously asking why the LDS Church would retain lawyers to respond to Denson's attorneys?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not so sure.

The "context" is rather muddled.  We don't know to what he "confessed," except that he felt they were his "sins" (p. 26).  But the "context" appears to be a confession to Elder Wells while he was a mission president, which was years before he became president of the MTC.  And yet on p. 33 we get this exchange:

Now contrast the above "confession" with the allegations in the lawsuit:

It looks like Denson has created a real problem in her narrative.  She says in the lawsuit that "Bishop confessed sins and improprieties to Robert E. Wells" in 1978, but in the recording she has Bishop admitting that his confession to Wells included his (Bishop's) abuse of Denson, which happened years after 1978.

In other words, the recording appears to include . . . a false confession.  Bishop admits to confessing in 1978 to abuse of Denson which did not occur until 1984.

What are your thoughts about this?  Am I missing something?  I am open to correction.

No.  I get ya.  I see that.  But I don't see this a problem for Sister Denson's narrative.  This is a problem with Joseph Bishop's.  he says he confessed all when he was a Mission President, and to me, it is without mistake he is talkin in the context of molesting women.  The whole conversation is in regards to his misdeeds and mistreatment of women.  And he suggests he already confessed that to prior to his Mission Presidency to priesthood authorities (that is, as logic would dictate, earlier in the 70s).  To me he's obviously confused his victims and various infidelities and that accounts for him thinking he had confessed to Wells the particular sins he committed upon Sister Denson, just as he seemed to confuse her with another girl who exposed her breasts.  This would prove a problem if her attorneys think they will get Elder Wells to suggest anything about Sister Denson, as if Joseph Bishop did mention her to him.  I think they are wise enough to realize the Bro Wells will likely be a good witness to show that he had confessed to some fo this despicable behavior prior to being put in a Mission  President at the MTC.  Afterall, their whole point is less about going after Bishop and more about trying to effect change in the system.  

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what you are sayin ghere.

No, you don't get that.  Because that's not what I want.

I am evaluating the evidence, and trying to be dispassionate about it.

I think a dispassionate analysis of the evidence gives rise to some very real questions, yes.

Okay.  But confessions about what?

Thanks,

-Smac

Well I've already addressed this.  When he says "yes" he molested someone.  That is a confession to me.  It may be something argued about in court, but I am not court.  When he says, in my mind, that he confessed to many incidents over many years, perhaps many times to priesthood authorities about, as the context would have it, his mistreatment of women...well, that's what I'm talking about.  But again, I realize in terms of the law, there is plenty to hash out on this, plenty to question.  I'm not treating this, nor looking at this with the same perspective as you.  Yet, I feel like I'm being as dispassionate about it as you as well.  

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Keep in mind that it was Denson who initiated private settlement efforts.

 

Are you saying when she sent the video the Church, through her lawyer, they were seeking a settlement and nothing more?   If so, how do you know that was their intent?  Did they say so?  I might have missed that.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

No.  I get ya.  I see that.  But I don't see this a problem for Sister Denson's narrative. 

You don't see a false confession as a problem? 

Quote

This is a problem with Joseph Bishop's.  he says he confessed all when he was a Mission President, and to me, it is without mistake he is talkin in the context of molesting women.

Yes, that's possible.  But it's also possible that he felt coerced.  It's also possible that his mental faculties were not all there (85 years old, recovering from heart surgery two days before).

In any event, Denson still has a problem.  She will have a hard time saying "Yes, judge, I want this court to accept all confessions of Joseph Bishop, except the inconveniently impossible ones.  You can just skip over those."

So far it seems that the recording is problematic because A) it was possibly coerced, B) Bishop doesn't confess to the misconduct Denson is asserting (rape or attempted rape), and C) it includes at least one false confession.

Are you sure this is not a problem for Denson's narrative?

Quote

The whole conversation is in regards to his misdeeds and mistreatment of women. 

But the lawsuit isn't about "his misdeeds and mistreatment of women."  It's about specific allegations of misconduct which took place in 1984.  And Denson appears to have extracted at least one false confession about that alleged misconduct.  

Quote

And he suggests he already confessed that to prior to his Mission Presidency to priesthood authorities (that is, as logic would dictate, earlier in the 70s). 

"That" being "his misdeeds and mistreatment of women?"  How do we know this?  

What he confessed to Wells in 1978 could well have included serious misconduct.  But when did that misconduct happen?  He seems to reference "just the two {women}," and that whatever he did that was wrong with one of them occurred when he was in a bishopric (p. 33).   When was that?

And what if his "confession" amounted to having lustful thoughts?  Would that be reasonably characterized as "misdeeds and mistreatment of women?"

Quote

To me he's obviously confused his victims and various infidelities

"He's obviously confused," yes.  But we still know very little about the scope and extent of his misconduct.

Do you see how Bishop's mental confusion makes the recording less useful as evidence?

Quote

and that accounts for him thinking he had confessed to Wells the particular sins he committed upon Sister Denson, just as he seemed to confuse her with another girl who exposed her breasts. 

Perhaps.  But mental confusion arising from his being 85 years old, or from his recovering from heart surgery, or his feeling coerced and threatened could also account for the muddled "confession."

Quote

This would prove a problem if her attorneys think they will get Elder Wells to suggest anything about Sister Denson, as if Joseph Bishop did mention her to him. 

Yes.  But it creates a problem for the narrative no matter which way the litigation goes.

Quote

I think they are wise enough to realize the Bro Wells will likely be a good witness to show that he had confessed to some fo this despicable behavior prior to being put in a Mission  President at the MTC. 

You are just guessing here.  We don't know what Bishop confessed to in 1978.  And there's a good chance we never will.  The priest/penitent privilege is a fairly significant obstacle for Denson's attorneys to overcome.  Moreover, Elder Wells is 90 years old.  Mr. Vernon (Denson's attorney) proposes to depose him about a confession from forty years ago.  

Quote

Afterall, their whole point is less about going after Bishop and more about trying to effect change in the system.

The point of the lawsuit is to present sufficient evidence to impose liability on Bishop and the LDS Church.

And c'mon, "trying to effect change in the system" is not "the whole point."  Denson's attorneys were trying to work out a confidential settlement which would have included money damages to Denson.  Denson then blew up those negotiations when she "leaked" the recording (and the repeatedly lied/misled the public about the "leak").  That was Plan A.  "Trying to effect change in the system" was most decidedly Plan B.  Her attorney even admitted as much, saying that MormonLeaks "forced {their} hand" (by publishing the recording which Denson had "leaked," which destroyed settlement negotations, which forced Vernon to pursue litigation, which includes a "trying to effect change in the system" that was not at all part of Plan A).

Quote

Well I've already addressed this.  When he says "yes" he molested someone.  That is a confession to me. 

And when he says "Yes" to "Did you confess to your 1984 molestation of me in your 1978 interview with Elder Wells," that's not a confession.  

So we accept "Yes" from Joseph Bishop sometimes, but not at others.  How do you differentiate?  How do you know when Bishop was "confused" and when he was lucid?  Which confessions of his are legitimate, and which are not?

Quote

It may be something argued about in court, but I am not court. 

I understand that.  And if you want to pass your own private judgment against Joseph Bishop, I won't try to stop you.

But a dispassionate assessment of the evidence is what the Court is going to do.  And it should be what we should aspire to pursue. 

Quote

When he says, in my mind, that he confessed to many incidents over many years, perhaps many times to priesthood authorities about, as the context would have it, his mistreatment of women...well, that's what I'm talking about.  But again, I realize in terms of the law, there is plenty to hash out on this, plenty to question.  I'm not treating this, nor looking at this with the same perspective as you.  Yet, I feel like I'm being as dispassionate about it as you as well.  

You are accepting "Yes" from Bishop when it conforms to your expectations and resentments, but rejecting "Yes" from Bishop when it does not.  That's not dispassionate.

Putting "dispassionate" aside, I am disgusted with Joseph Bishop.  His confession to the BYU police is pretty damning.  The second survivor coming forward is pretty damning.  Denson's awareness of the basement room and its contents is highly suspicious.  Some of his remarks in the recording are very, very troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 12, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Marginal Gains: Then why try and settle?

Quote

Smac: 

Plenty of reasons.  Settlement is often, very often, preferable to litigation.  For everyone.  

Keep in mind that it was Denson who initiated private settlement efforts.

...

It's a legal dispute, not a bribe or extortion.  Your characterization of settlement efforts is way off.

Again, Denson approached the LDS Church and initiated settlement negotiations.  And the Church then . . . hired lawyers to represent it in a legal dispute.

Are you seriously asking why the LDS Church would retain lawyers to respond to Denson's attorneys?  

Are you saying when she sent the video the Church, through her lawyer, they were seeking a settlement and nothing more?

That is what I suspect, yes.  Settlement negotiations are usually confidential, so I doubt we'll ever know.

Quote

If so, how do you know that was their intent?  Did they say so?  I might have missed that.

Money damages is pretty much the only thing attorneys could pursue in litigation. 

I suppose it's possible that Mr. Vernon also said something like "We also want the LDS Church to implement procedures to reduce the risk of such misconduct by church representatives."  But what would that look like?  What would they want?

The we're-on-a-crusade meme was necessarily Plan B.  Plan A was confidential settlement terms.  "Trying to effect change in the system" is pandering to the cameras.

"The system" the Church had in place in 1984 is quite different from "the system" in 2018.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 12, 2018 by smac97

[Tacenda]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/25/jehovahs-witnesses-accused-of-silencing-victims-of-child-abuse-uk?CMP=share_btn_tw

I wonder if these people are following the 'metoo' movement as well. Makes me sad/angry that religion is a part of it. 

[Jeanne]

When will we know what is going to happen with Mr. Bishop?  All else aside..a trial or not...negotiations or not...will there be anything from the church from which penalties will  be upon this man?  Though I want justice for the women in this huge mess...it is important to me that the church is vocal and informative and even media wise in this case.  Will they be silent on the outcome of Mr. Bishop?

[2PairsofCletes]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

When will we know what is going to happen with Mr. Bishop?  All else aside..a trial or not...negotiations or not...will there be anything from the church from which penalties will  be upon this man?  Though I want justice for the women in this huge mess...it is important to me that the church is vocal and informative and even media wise in this case.  Will they be silent on the outcome of Mr. Bishop?

I hope there is transparency in all of this. If the church comes off as even having the appearance to protecting itself, that will be bad

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

When will we know what is going to happen with Mr. Bishop? 

From a legal standpoint, probably nothing.  The statute of limitations has long since lapsed for criminal charges.  I also think Denson's civil claims are a long shot, for a variety of reasons (including the statute of limitations, but also substantial evidentiary problems).

From a church standpoint, the Church will likely pursue discipline (it's mandatory according to the handbook), but we don't know if the results will be published.  

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

All else aside..a trial or not...negotiations or not...will there be anything from the church from which penalties will  be upon this man? 

The "penalties" the Church can mete out are quite limited.  See D&C 134:10.  

And if penalties are imposed, there's a chance they would not be publicized.

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Though I want justice for the women in this huge mess...it is important to me that the church is vocal and informative and even media wise in this case.  Will they be silent on the outcome of Mr. Bishop?

The Church hasn't been "silent."  The Church has made several public statements about this matter.

I don't know if the Church will publicize any discipline against Bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From a legal standpoint, probably nothing.  The statute of limitations has long since lapsed for criminal charges.  I also think Denson's civil claims are a long shot, for a variety of reasons (including the statute of limitations, but also substantial evidentiary problems).

From a church standpoint, the Church will likely pursue discipline (it's mandatory according to the handbook), but we don't know if the results will be published.  

The "penalties" the Church can mete out are quite limited.  See D&C 134:10.  

And if penalties are imposed, there's a chance they would not be publicized.

The Church hasn't been "silent."  The Church has made several public statements about this matter.

I don't know if the Church will publicize any discipline against Bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh my heck???? Why not would they not publicize any discipline...do they not care for their own appearance?  I mean to me...(IMO)...this is what has given Bishop his promotions...the  appearance of this church!!

Edited April 12, 2018 by Jeanne

[smac97]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Oh my heck???? Why not would they not publicize any discipline...do they not care for their own appearance? 

The Church generally does not publicize disciplinary actions.  Surely you can agree to the wisdom of that.  Public humiliation does not seem like a useful tool to persuade the individual to repent.

There are exceptions, of course.  Elder Hamula, for example, was excommunicated last year, and that excommunication was publicized.

Yes, the Church cares for its own appearance.  But it cares more for the welfare of the individual and the safety and the welfare of the Saints.  This is why publicizing discipline is the exception, not the rule.

None of us is in a position to know what the Church will do.  The Church may very well end up publicizing the discipline.  We just don't know.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

Just now, smac97 said:

The Church generally does not publicize disciplinary actions.  Surely you can agree to the wisdom of that.  Public humiliation does not seem like a useful tool to persuade the individual to repent.

There are exceptions, of course.  Elder Hamula, for example, was excommunicated last year, and that excommunication was publicized.

Yes, the Church cares for its own appearance.  But it cares more for the welfare of the individual and the safety and the welfare of the Saints.  This is why publicizing discipline is the exception, not the rule.

None of us is in a position to know what the Church will do.  The Church may very well end up publicizing the discipline.  We just don't know.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have a feeling that this time...they will.  Feel it in my bones.

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Oh my heck???? Why not would they not publicize any discipline...do they not care for their own appearance?  I mean to me...(IMO)...this is what has given Bishop his promotions...the  appearance of this church!!

Do you think the church should maintain a public list of all people excommunicated or otherwise subject to discipline?

 

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Do you think the church should maintain a public list of all people excommunicated or otherwise subject to discipline?

 

In some cases..I do.  Just to show that they are doing the right thing...!

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

In some cases..I do.  Just to show that they are doing the right thing...!

That's a consideration, I suppose.  But then, so is the welfare of the individual, and that individual's family and loved ones.

What you propose would be a "Black List."  A Wall of Shame.  A Scarlet A.  

There are some very isolated instances where publicizing discipline is warranted, but these are - thankfully - few and far between.

As for a "public list of all {or some} people excommunicated or otherwise subject to discipline," I can think of all sorts of downsides to that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[2PairsofCletes]

The welfare of the victim and their loved ones matter, too.

They need to look at what happened to the Catholic church during the their sex abuse scandal. I would even recommend watching the movie "Spotlight" about it. If they church comes off in the slightest way of protecting a sexual predator it will be BAD

[provoman]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

In some cases..I do.  Just to show that they are doing the right thing...!

“The right thing”, which means “the right thing” based on public opinion. 

[provoman]

33 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Do you think the church should maintain a public list of all people excommunicated or otherwise subject to discipline?

 

Between the lines of Denson’s lawsuit, yes Denson is in effect claiming that Church disciplinary records should be public knowledge; keeping those things confidential is the basis of her fraud claim, to wit the Church did not tell me about Bishop’s past sins and therefore I could not make an informed decision about his character but was only left to believe the pedestal he was on was perfect in every way.

Edited April 12, 2018 by provoman

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

“The right thing”, which means “the right thing” based on public opinion. 

I really think that public opinion has really mattered to the church.  Deep down it has mattered.

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a consideration, I suppose.  But then, so is the welfare of the individual, and that individual's family and loved ones.

What you propose would be a "Black List."  A Wall of Shame.  A Scarlet A.  

There are some very isolated instances where publicizing discipline is warranted, but these are - thankfully - few and far between.

As for a "public list of all {or some} people excommunicated or otherwise subject to discipline," I can think of all sorts of downsides to that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well...in the Doctrine and Covenants..there is all matter of public exing and disfellowship...when it counts..it should be noted..especially when it involves the very sin that is next to murder.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Well...in the Doctrine and Covenants..there is all matter of public exing and disfellowship...when it counts..it should be noted..especially when it involves the very sin that is next to murder.

I'm sensing a sort of pound-of-flesh attitude.  Am I wrong?

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I really think that public opinion has really mattered to the church.  Deep down it has mattered.

But “the right thing” is not determined by public opinion, so to make things public just so the public can weigh in and say cast the final stamp of approval, is not the way anything should operate. 

[rongo]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Well...in the Doctrine and Covenants..there is all matter of public exing and disfellowship...when it counts..it should be noted..especially when it involves the very sin that is next to murder.

That was a different time, and many things seem harsh by our standards. We definitely lean more towards "putting away privily" today. 

99%+ of church discipline has to do with the "sin next to murder." I guarantee that all those clamoring for the Church to publicize discipline would freak out if it actually did. Shaming, causing anxiety/depression/judging, you name it. 

I think most think that it is better the way it is now. 

[Jeanne]

Just now, provoman said:

But “the right thing” is not determined by public opinion, so to make things public just so the public can weigh in and say cast the final stamp of approval, is not the way anything should operate. 

Then the church can get rid of the PR department. I agree.