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

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Unfortunately we had to discuss this today in our Bishop meeting.  My Bishop is not happy regarding some of the feedback and comments he's received about this case."

I am trying to think of what this means in regards to victim shaming...has the bishop been told stories by victims who have been shut down by shaming or fear of shaming or does this mean something else?

 

I just want to point an aspect of your post, and perhaps an error of mine.

Victim shaming discussions could tend to shut down other victims in their own crisis.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, rpn said:

But so far I haven't seen any evidence that Elder Wells was ever serving as his bishop or stake president, which would clearly be within clergy/penitent rules because both determine worthiness and issue recommends.   Elder Wells apparently was a long time friend, who also recommended him to others for church leadership roles. 

You raise a fair point.  I had been operating with the understanding that Elder Wells received Bishop's confession in his (Wells') capacity as a General Authority.  Per his Wikipedia bio, he was a Seventy from 1976 to 1997, and was out of the country from 1998-2001 (serving as a temple president in Chile Argentina).  Also, a brief review of the transcript of the recording indicates that Elder Wells was over Bro. Bishop when he (Bishop) was a mission president (p. 24).  I had understood that whatever Bishop-to-Wells confession took place (see p. 26 - "I confessed all of my sins to Elder Wells when I was in the mission") when Bishop was serving either as mission president in Argentina (1978-1981) or the MTC (1983-1986).  If the confession was during Bishop's tenure in Argentina, then it predated Denson's claims and would therefore be irrelevant.  Consequently, Mr. Vernon probably suspects the confession was when he (Bishop) was at the MTC.

So was Elder Wells a Seventy in the 1983-1986 timeframe?  Yes.  Did he have some sort of ecclesiastical stewardship over the MTC, including its president (Bishop) during that period?  That's the big question.  If yes, then the priest/penitent privilege will likely apply.  

Quote

Just because you work for the church, or just because you are discussing religious issues, neither are enough to evoke the privilege that what you say in that conversation should be private;

I quite agree.  That's why I quoted, chapter and verse, the evidentiary rule that probably governs this issue.

Quote

and since the only one who can actually resolve the disciplinary matter except your bishop and stake president,

Well, I'm not sure about that.  I think General Authorities could assert the priest/penitent privilege as well (as could penitents conferring with a General Authority).

Quote

how could you claim that any other conversation is the kind that the privilege is created for?

See above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 9, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

Quote

then it predated Denson's claims and would therefore be irrelevant. 

It is relevant because Bishop allegedly confessed to Wells due to being in fear for his soul to inappropriate interactions with a woman in Florida when in a bishopric (pretty vague, but as far as I can tell she flirted with him while in a swimsuit, possibly revealing) and something inappropriate with a girl when a young missionary (iirc there was something about seeing her on a swing, but no details about what he did) and a sister missionary iirc while MP in Argentina, no details.

It is relevant because if any of those events were abusive or even consensual,  but sexual interaction (as opposed to lustful thoughts) especially the last where he was MP and the woman was a sister missionary, for him to be called to be the MTC President with a history of sexually inappropriate relationships with women...that can be said to be putting the sisters at the MTC at risk,

provoman posted this earlier on another thread from the filing:

Quote

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants held BISHOP out to the public and members of the Church, including prospective sister missionaries, as a safe, honorable, trustworthy and respected leader of the Church. Defendant COP taught DENSON and other sister missionaries that a man called to be the President of the MTC, like BISHOP, would be a beacon of faith, morality and religious leadership. Furthermore, Defendants also held the Provo, Utah MTC, and its premises, out as a safe, healthy, and trustworthy location and environment. Defendants taught DENSON and other sister missionaries to trust, respect, and obey BISHOP and his position as President of the MTC. ... Defendants failed to disclose to DENSON that BISHOP was just the opposite - a sexual predator with a sexual addiction that posed an unreasonable risk of harm to DENSON and other sister missionaries in the Church’s MTC. As a result of Defendants’ concealment or failure to disclose, DENSON trusted BISHOP and went to his secret room inside the Church’s MTC, where she was sexually assaulted and raped.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/LDS-Sexual-Assault-COMPLAINT.pdf

also

Quote

During his tenure as Mission President in Argentina, BISHOP counseled one of his sister missionaries who was “besieged with evil spirits.” According to BISHOP, those evil spirits then attacked him. Frightened, and in an effort to “save his soul,” he decided to confess or disclose all of his previous sins. BISHOP met with Elder Wells and disclosed to Elder Wells every indiscretion, sin, or other misdeed that had occurred up to that point in his life, including his sexual addiction and previous instances of sexual predation against women. Elder Wells gave BISHOP a blessing. BISHOP believes he was forgiven after fully confessing all his past red flag sexual improprieties to Elder Wells. As evidence of this, BISHOP claims that the baptisms in the Argentina mission, over which he presided, went from 70 to over 400 per month, following this disclosure.

21. Following this disclosure to Elder Wells, there is no indication that the Church took any action to investigate these possible crimes or investigate whether, under its own internal policies, BISHOP would be subject to Church discipline. Any of these actions could have alerted DENSON and other vulnerable women to BISHOP’S dangerous propensities.

22. In an epic institutional betrayal of trust, just the opposite occurred; BISHOP was called to be the President of the MTC in Provo, Utah. There, instead of having access to hundreds of young missionaries, the Church elevated him to a position of power over thousands of young women who were training to be missionaries.

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Btw, I find the below is a false claim since discipline and even excommunications generally aren't publicized:

Quote

Following this disclosure to Elder Wells, there is no indication that the Church took any action to investigate these possible crimes or investigate whether, under its own internal policies, BISHOP would be subject to Church discipline. Any of these actions could have alerted DENSON and other vulnerable women to BISHOP’S dangerous propensities.

New info for me from the filing:

Quote

In approximately December of 2017, DENSON again, as she had done approximately ten times in the past, disclosed the sexual assault to church leaders. 

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Calm

[rpn]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Btw, I find the below is a false claim since discipline and even excommunications generally aren't publicized:

 

But doesn't the handbook says they are supposed to be when necessary to protect innocents.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

That someone was anonymous in the paper.  I just haven't been able to get in the mindset to finish listening to the press conference yet.  Do they have his identity (likely since he appeared to have employment papars...got to wonder why after 30 years, but maybe he kept them for personal history)and has he stated he is willing to testify?

Iirc, Elder Wells received the confession in Argentina when Bishop was an MP there....however, it is not a part of the tape he is most with it, quite vague and imprecise.  He talks about confessing about her to Wells when if the timing is right, obviously he couldn't because that came before the MTC.

Quote

You were never disfellowshipped, had a counsel?

Bishop:  I felt I'd repented. I'd confessed.
Oh.
Bishop:  That time.

You confessed about me?
Bishop:  l don't know about I confessed all of my sins to Elder Wells when I was in the mission. But anyway, let me apologize. ...

You were never called into a church council, church court, even after you confessed to Elder Wells, there was never a fellowship, nothing?

Bishop:  No I hadn't confessed all those things before Elder Wells, but wanted to redo it. I struggled to make sure that everything was taken care of. ...

Bishop:  Yeah. Years and years ago. And she had made the same thing you had done. I confessed. She had her problems, too. Poor [Green] But. Mine was the big problem....

Bishop:  When I confessed to Elder Wells in the mission field....

Bishop:  So in this process trying to save my soul [from the evil spirits that had latched on to him after he tried to save a sister missionary possessed by them], I said, "Okay, well, I need to tell you everything." And I went back as far back as memory could ... I think I talked about you.

You couldn't have 'cause you were MTC president after Argentina.

Bishop:  I think I...
Okay. 

 

Wow.  So Mr. Vernon wants to depose Bro. Bishop about a confession made that, chronologically-speaking, could not have included any reference to Denson?  

Thanks,

Smac

[Storm Rider]

There is so much that does not make sense to me in this case. Our stake president, a wonderfully spiritual man, served a long time.  He was our stake president when I left on my mission and he was there when I returned.  While serving as the Stake President he was excommunicated.  The only thing I ever heard about this excommunication is that there was another woman and nothing else. This is the NW Florida where it is very, very rural and everyone knows everyone.  However, in this situation there was no gossip.  

I have heard of other bishops and stake presidents that have likewise been excommunicated.  We have even had an apostle excommunicated.  When leaders of the Church are so proactive to excommunicate these other men, how or why are they supposedly so completely reticent to exert any form of disciple for this brother?  It just does not square with what I have seen, heard, and read about.  

Is it possible?  I suppose anything is possible; but is there a pattern of this kind of behavior.  That is what I would like to know.  If so, what do we do with all of those that were excommunicated for their sins?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

But doesn't the handbook says they are supposed to be when necessary to protect innocents.

I have never heard of public announcements of excommunocations of abusers, have you?

The only case I know of was a mentally handicapped individual who was assigned a Elder to be with him at all times while at Church  and I probably only know that because friend of the family.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  So Mr. Vernon wants to depose Bro. Bishop about a confession made that, chronologically-speaking, could not have included any reference to Denson?  

Thanks,

Smac

I don't understand why you see that as strange.

If the Church leadership knew he had abused a sister missionary and had other inappropriate relationships as they are alleging he confessed prior to calling him as MTC president and they still called him, don't you see that as relevant?

It is similar to performing a background check and still hiring a known thief as an armored car guard, who then rips off your customers' money.  Don't your customers have a right to complain you didn't protect them as you should have?

Edited April 9, 2018 by Calm

[2PairsofCletes]

Hope the leadership does do some cleaning and prevention. Last thing that is needed is another sex abuse scandal by clerics in America. 

[changed]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

And what is most sad about this..is that a person goes on...and to redeem himself/herself in the church..will blame themselves.  What a heavy price this will be above and beyond just a church...but to an entire life affecting so many other things.

It is more than one life - I have seen this stuff go for generation after generation after generation - makes for some painful family history work.

Those who have not experienced it cannot begin to imagine it.

Those who have experienced it - these are the members who need the most love, support, and help.

I have seen Mormons help new mothers, I have seen them organize funerals for children and visit the elderly - we need to learn how to care for victims of sexual abuse too, especially those who have been abused by those called of g-d.  

Edited April 9, 2018 by changed

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, provoman said:

Were some of these comments to the Bishop were unsolicited? As for unsolicited, That people go to their Bishop about things that are not related to their own personal spiritual welfare is befuddling to me.

I didn't say that people were actually going to the Bishop about this case.  I simply stated that this case came up and the Bishop expressed that he did not like hearing some of the comments and feedback he's heard.  He's read some on Facebook and then heard some in conversations regarding the case.  

15 hours ago, provoman said:

As for victim shaming...If they are not communicating with the victim directly or in a manner with which victim is likely to see/read the statement...I do not see it as victim shaming;

Really?  You think the victim actually has to hear or read the shaming or it's not victim shaming?  I disagree.

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  So Mr. Vernon wants to depose Bro. Bishop about a confession made that, chronologically-speaking, could not have included any reference to Denson?  

Thanks,

Smac

Kind of scary to think he confessed all his sins which presumably included his mistreatment of girls and women before he was MTC president and yet the leadership put him in the role as MTC president.  It might be the kind of thing Mr. Vernon is thinking about here.  It may be that he continued his predatory behavior and might have even confessed more later on, but they continued to build him up and give him positions of power over women and girls.  It is precisely the opposite of zero tolerance to put known offenders in positions of power.  That's pretty scary stuff--it's great that Sister Denson is helping to bring this type of crap to light.  

Edited April 9, 2018 by stemelbow

[rpn]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I have never heard of public announcements of excommunocations of abusers, have you?

I've heard across the pulpit of discipline for former sp on financial improprieties that was well known in the community, and  three (by then former) bishops/branch presidents that received discipline.

For a bunch of people for apostasy (mostly in recent years, but not exclusively).

We were told about the recent Seventy's (Hamala) though not what for, and for Seventy George P. Lee though later we learned about the child abuse which was not the know reason for the excommunication.

I think all of the discipline I've heard about for domestic violence or abuse was from newspaper accounts, not across the pulpit, but to be fair, I haven't been in a ward where this was public either.

 

[Danzo]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I have never heard of public announcements of excommunocations of abusers, have you?

The only case I know of was a mentally handicapped individual who was assigned a Elder to be with him at all times while at Church  and I probably only know that because friend of the family.

We just had a man who had been Convicted of Child abuse start attending our ward. The bishop announced that he had been excommunicated. 

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, changed said:

It is more than one life - I have seen this stuff go for generation after generation after generation - makes for some painful family history work.

Those who have not experienced it cannot begin to imagine it.

Those who have experienced it - these are the members who need the most love, support, and help.

I have seen Mormons help new mothers, I have seen them organize funerals for children and visit the elderly - we need to learn how to care for victims of sexual abuse too, especially those who have been abused by those called of g-d.  

I like this..  thank you.

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, rpn said:

We were told about the recent Seventy's (Hamala) though not what for, and for Seventy George P. Lee though later we learned about the child abuse which was not the know reason for the excommunication.

To be fair, as you point out, the statutory rape stuff with George P. Lee was after his excommunication (his mug shot was striking, too. He had gone "tribal," with unkempt, very long hair). He was excommunicated for apostasy and criticism reasons (activism attempting to shame the Brethren and spur them to "doing more" for Indians).

22 minutes ago, Danzo said:

We just had a man who had been Convicted of Child abuse start attending our ward. The bishop announced that he had been excommunicated. 

I had a disfellowshipped brother who served 12 years for child molestation come to church for the first time yesterday. He met with me, and I ordered his records, but he hasn't come for months. He met with me to let me know about the situation, and to let me know that he knew and expected that I would want to know of his whereabouts at all times when at church (if he got up and left the chapel during sacrament meeting, for example. We have a system in place to follow him to the restroom or wherever).

He got up and sat down in the front to bear his testimony, and I had to get up and sit by him and gently remind him that he isn't allowed to do that (as a disfellowshipped, not reinstated member) while others were bearing their testimonies. Poor guy! I told him that I hope this doesn't scare him away (he has expressed interest in being reinstated). Nobody but the elders quorum president knew who he is, but it had to have looked very odd to the members, and I'm sure many wondered what in the world was going on. He went and sat back down. 

Edited April 9, 2018 by rongo

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Kind of scary to think he confessed all his sins which presumably included his mistreatment of girls and women before he was MTC president and yet the leadership put him in the role as MTC president.  It might be the kind of thing Mr. Vernon is thinking about here.  It may be that he continued his predatory behavior and might have even confessed more later on, but they continued to build him up and give him positions of power over women and girls.  It is precisely the opposite of zero tolerance to put known offenders in positions of power.  That's pretty scary stuff--it's great that Sister Denson is helping to bring this type of crap to light.  

Rep point stem.

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

To be fair, as you point out, the statutory rape stuff with George P. Lee was after his excommunication (his mug shot was striking, too. He had gone "tribal," with unkempt, very long hair).

I had a disfellowshipped brother who served 12 years for child molestation come to church for the first time yesterday. He met with me, and I ordered his records, but he hasn't come for months. He met with me to let me know about the situation, and to let me know that he knew and expected that I would want to know of his whereabouts at all times when at church (if he got up and left the chapel during sacrament meeting, for example. We have a system in place to follow him to the restroom or wherever).

He got up and sat down in the front to bear his testimony, and I had to get up and sit by him and gently remind him that he isn't allowed to do that (as a disfellowshipped, not reinstated member) while others were bearing their testimonies. Poor guy! I told him that I hope this doesn't scare him away (he has expressed interest in being reinstated). Nobody but the elders quorum president knew who he is, but it had to have looked very odd to the members, and I'm sure many wondered what in the world was going on. He went and sat back down. 

This.  Must be the toughest job...but how does one grow in this church..without the bearing of a testimony..I know.  I am so confused where the line is in so many situations..Compassion just does me in sometimes.

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

To be fair, as you point out, the statutory rape stuff with George P. Lee was after his excommunication (his mug shot was striking, too. He had gone "tribal," with unkempt, very long hair). He was excommunicated for apostasy and criticism reasons (activism attempting to shame the Brethren and spur them to "doing more" for Indians).

I had a disfellowshipped brother who served 12 years for child molestation come to church for the first time yesterday. He met with me, and I ordered his records, but he hasn't come for months. He met with me to let me know about the situation, and to let me know that he knew and expected that I would want to know of his whereabouts at all times when at church (if he got up and left the chapel during sacrament meeting, for example. We have a system in place to follow him to the restroom or wherever).

He got up and sat down in the front to bear his testimony, and I had to get up and sit by him and gently remind him that he isn't allowed to do that (as a disfellowshipped, not reinstated member) while others were bearing their testimonies. Poor guy! I told him that I hope this doesn't scare him away (he has expressed interest in being reinstated). Nobody but the elders quorum president knew who he is, but it had to have looked very odd to the members, and I'm sure many wondered what in the world was going on. He went and sat back down. 

I our ward, the bishop had a meeting with all of the parents of children in the ward.  The Bishop explained who the person was and that he had certain restrictions (similar to the ones you mentioned for your guy).  He then told us that he had been excommunicated and that he wanted to come back to the church but even if he were re baptized in the future, there would be an annotation on his record and he would not be allowed to work with youth, etc.  The bishop then had the guy come and answer questions from the group.   I think the bishop did all he could do, but there are some members who refuse to come to church because he is there.  Obviously, in the future there will be members who didn't attend the meeting, or move in after who might be upset because they didn't know right away, but short of branding the guys forehead, I am not sure what else can be done.

Personally, I think that knowing who he is makes things easier when we deal with him.  Its the ones you don't know about that you have to watch out for.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I our ward, the bishop had a meeting with all of the parents of children in the ward.  The Bishop explained who the person was and that he had certain restrictions (similar to the ones you mentioned for your guy).  He then told us that he had been excommunicated and that he wanted to come back to the church but even if he were re baptized in the future, there would be an annotation on his record and he would not be allowed to work with youth, etc.  The bishop then had the guy come and answer questions from the group.   I think the bishop did all he could do, but there are some members who refuse to come to church because he is there.  Obviously, in the future there will be members who didn't attend the meeting, or move in after who might be upset because they didn't know right away, but short of branding the guys forehead, I am not sure what else can be done.

Personally, I think that knowing who he is makes things easier when we deal with him.  Its the ones you don't know about that you have to watch out for.

Ugh...how difficult for parents and for this person.  But for once I truly believe..your bishop did all he could do.  Because our children rule in our hearts..we will always be cautious..but I hope that this man's hope can be realized in his own world...so that he can be healed in a way that hurts no one and hopefully saves his soul. 

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I our ward, the bishop had a meeting with all of the parents of children in the ward.  The Bishop explained who the person was and that he had certain restrictions (similar to the ones you mentioned for your guy).  He then told us that he had been excommunicated and that he wanted to come back to the church but even if he were re baptized in the future, there would be an annotation on his record and he would not be allowed to work with youth, etc.  The bishop then had the guy come and answer questions from the group.   I think the bishop did all he could do, but there are some members who refuse to come to church because he is there.  Obviously, in the future there will be members who didn't attend the meeting, or move in after who might be upset because they didn't know right away, but short of branding the guys forehead, I am not sure what else can be done.

Personally, I think that knowing who he is makes things easier when we deal with him.  Its the ones you don't know about that you have to watch out for.

We discussed it in depth as a ward council. As I was initially the only person to ever meet with him, and nobody knew who he is (the EQP does now), I felt that we shouldn't make a huge deal out of it and needlessly concern people. He wasn't able to come to church until recently, because he worked all day Sunday, so it was a moot point (he delivers tanks of hazardous chemicals to the mines, in-state trucker, one of the few jobs he can do with his background). Given that, we thought it would do more harm than good to alarm everyone. We ensured that we could "tail" him if and when is there.  

[rpn]

Rongo, I think that if he is attending, then  members should have the opportunity to know:  anything less leaves people wondering about whether leadership has the children's back.   (I'd feel differently if incest (which is fundamentally different in recidivism and application and therefore doesn't have much global risk though I would still assign someone to have him in sight visually at all times), or sexual assault or rape (except in a YSA ward).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

I've heard across the pulpit of discipline for former sp on financial improprieties that was well known in the community, and  three (by then former) bishops/branch presidents that received discipline.

For a bunch of people for apostasy (mostly in recent years, but not exclusively).

We were told about the recent Seventy's (Hamala) though not what for, and for Seventy George P. Lee though later we learned about the child abuse which was not the know reason for the excommunication.

I think all of the discipline I've heard about for domestic violence or abuse was from newspaper accounts, not across the pulpit, but to be fair, I haven't been in a ward where this was public either.

 

I have had two bishops excommunicated for adultery, one serving, one former, and there were no announcements, so it sounds like it is the choice of the leaders to do that...granted everyone knew anyway.

Excommunicated for apostasy if they are attempting to persuade other members to join them ....I hope they would announce it.  There was a member who was excommunicated for apostasy in Canada while we were there and there was no announcement, but he was teaching anti mormon classes at the local Evangelical church, hadn't been going to church for awhile and I heard about that a few years later, so I guess they figured it wasn't having an impact on Church members (and there was tragedy in the family so perhaps they made an exception as they didn't want to add to his pain).

Public announcement of excommunication (in the past or present) people who commit dangerous crimes, I have seen that.  And unless there are ones we don't know about, it does appear excommunication of Seventies or above still is publicly announced.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Public announcement of excommunication (in the past or present) people who commit dangerous crimes, I have seen that.  And unless there are ones we don't know about, it does appear excommunication of Seventies or above still is publicly announced.

I might be wrong but I think public announcements of excommunications ended in the 1970's. I believe some of the changes were prompted by the Sonia Johnson kerfuffle. I had thought there was a lawsuit but I'm not seeing that.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2009/07/the-evolution-of-excommunication/

Edited April 10, 2018 by clarkgoble