2PairsofCletes Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Then the church can get rid of the PR department. I agree. It's very large PR department. Like it or not, the church does care about public relations and in a big way.
Calm Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 I believe victims should be informed of discipline to help them heal. I don't think in most cases anyone else should be. 4
Jeanne Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Calm said: I believe victims should be informed of discipline to help them heal. I don't think in most cases anyone else should be. This...Okay..I agree with this...victims don't get apologies...they don't get people as leaders who are trained...they don't get perceived innocent until they go through a certain hell...if ;it is publicized because of a no other way situation..then the members DESERVE to know the punishment...and the innocent. If I have sinned...then let it be silent between the bishop and God..but if I have not received the justice and seek it...then let it be out there..does anyone understand what I mean>? I haven't put my life out there like these women....there is a time when a church..any church..has to step up and acknowledge in public...we screwed up.
Tacenda Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: This...Okay..I agree with this...victims don't get apologies...they don't get people as leaders who are trained...they don't get perceived innocent until they go through a certain hell...if ;it is publicized because of a no other way situation..then the members DESERVE to know the punishment...and the innocent. If I have sinned...then let it be silent between the bishop and God..but if I have not received the justice and seek it...then let it be out there..does anyone understand what I mean>? I haven't put my life out there like these women....there is a time when a church..any church..has to step up and acknowledge in public...we screwed up. You mean like this? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/12/601742861/pope-apologizes-for-serious-mistakes-in-handling-of-chile-s-sex-abuse-scandal
2PairsofCletes Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 33 minutes ago, Tacenda said: You mean like this? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/12/601742861/pope-apologizes-for-serious-mistakes-in-handling-of-chile-s-sex-abuse-scandal Yes. Churches are run by humans, and in the case of the LDS and Catholic churches, men specifically . Mistakes, big mistakes are made. Apologizes and reforms on how things are handled are necessary.
stemelbow Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, smac97 said: You don't see a false confession as a problem? 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? 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. "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?" "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? 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." Yes. But it creates a problem for the narrative no matter which way the litigation goes. 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. 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). 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? 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. 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 Smac, I'm no lawyer and I have no desire to view this with a legal eye. I'm speaking to what I've heard and what it makes me, if I were judging it, think. The case, if it goes to court will no doubt play in all sorts of ways. I do think that Sister Denson's lawyers have their work cut out for them. But so would the Church's. In my mind you are arguing this case from a legal perspective (our old friend consiglieri and you might have a good run in debating the legal aspects of this). I am not interesting in pretending to be a lawyer. I realize you are and you have experience and skills to discuss it from that angle, which is fine. I am commenting on the evidence I see for Bishop's poor behavior, and the apparent coverup the Church undertook. There are, it seems, plenty of things to consider in sight of the Church bearing responsibility for what appears to be a pretty bad failure on those representing the Church. Edited April 12, 2018 by stemelbow
smac97 Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Smac, I'm no lawyer and I have no desire to view this with a legal eye. It's not just "a legal eye." A dispassionate, clear-eyed evaluation of the evidence is a good idea for all of us. 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: In my mind you are arguing this case from a legal perspective (our old friend consiglieri and you might have a good run in debating the legal aspects of this). Not really. You'll note I'm not spending much time discussing the statute of limitations issues. Or the priest/penitent privilege that will make deposing Elder Wells difficult or impossible. Or the Rules of Evidence pertaining to character evidence and the problems Denson may run into given her credibility problems. Or the admissibility issues of the recording. So dispassionate and clear-eyed, yes. Legal technicalities, not right now. 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I am not interesting in pretending to be a lawyer. I'm not asking you to. 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I realize you are and you have experience and skills to discuss it from that angle, which is fine. I am commenting on the evidence I see for Bishop's poor behavior, and the apparent coverup the Church undertook. There are, it seems, plenty of things to consider in sight of the Church bearing responsibility for what appears to be a pretty bad failure on those representing the Church. Okay. Thanks, -Smac
provoman Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 In some respect I read smac as being dispassionate in others like a lawyer. What seems to be occurring in the discussions about victims situation is the liberties taken to fill the gaps. Opinions are fine as its an opinion. But it seems some opinion is coming across as being fact, those opinions should be dispassionately challenged. And while we can all think what we will, it does not mean or thoughts on a particular issue are the truth of a given matter. 2
Amulek Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Calm said: I believe victims should be informed of discipline to help them heal. I don't think in most cases anyone else should be. I was thinking about this too. I just don't see how it could work though. Once you start telling people about disciplinary actions there is no way you can prevent them from disclosing that information to anyone (everyone) else. 1
ALarson Posted April 12, 2018 Author Posted April 12, 2018 16 minutes ago, Amulek said: I was thinking about this too. I just don't see how it could work though. Once you start telling people about disciplinary actions there is no way you can prevent them from disclosing that information to anyone (everyone) else. Well, the heads of the different auxiliaries and quorums need to be told when there is an excommunication (and even a disfellowshipment). Also if someone is a convicted sex offender, members need to know. So, it's very difficult for that information not to get out (disciplinary actions). Many times, it's the one who has been excommunicated who tells others as well. 1
ksfisher Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Calm said: I believe victims should be informed of discipline to help them heal. I don't think in most cases anyone else should be. What if the disciplinary council comes to a decision that the victim doesn't like? Say if the perpetrator was only disfellowshipped rather than being excommunicated. What effect would this knowledge have on a victim? Also, church discipline is generally kept confidential. Would the victim be expected to maintain confidentiality as well? What is they didn't and the knowledge became public? What effect would this help the repentance process that they sinner is undergoing? While I can appreciate the need that a victim has to heal I believe both parties are best served by the current process. edit: I did just find this in Handbook 1 Disclosure of the identity of others who participated in a transgression may be required when it is necessary to restore or protect persons who have been or may be seriously injured as a result of the transgression. For example, a sexual transgressor who has been exposed or who has exposed others to a sexually transmitted disease must make the disclosures necessary to protect others. Predators may need to be identified to protect potential victims. A transgressor who holds or has held a prominent position of trust may need to be identified to Church leaders for the spiritual protection of members. Edited April 12, 2018 by ksfisher 1
Calm Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 32 minutes ago, Amulek said: I was thinking about this too. I just don't see how it could work though. Once you start telling people about disciplinary actions there is no way you can prevent them from disclosing that information to anyone (everyone) else. That is the risk. However, i see that as a consequence of having sinned. It is very unfortunate for innocents involved like family and that should have weight especially if young children or teens are involved, Still I put any victims' need over the predator's any day even if they have fully repented or even were mentally competent.
Tacenda Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 Mormon Matters has a very good podcast about this case. But they said Bishop asked Denson to expose her breasts, which isn't the case, because that was the other victim. So I'll have to write in to the podcast about that. https://www.mormonmatters.org/podcast-item/471-472-reflections-on-the-recently-revealed-mtc-sexual-abuse-cases/ The podcast includes Judy Dushku, if any one knows about her, here is an article about her. https://www.mormonwomen.com/interview/a-worldwide-sisterhood/
smac97 Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 21 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Mormon Matters has a very good podcast about this case. But they said Bishop asked Denson to expose her breasts, which isn't the case, because that was the other victim. That error likely originated from the BYU Police report, in which Bishop confessed to asking Denson to expose her breasts (p. 6). Except Denson denies that this ever happened, so it appears Bishop may have been admitting to abusing another missionary (though his attorney/son disputes this). Thanks, -Smac
Amulek Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 51 minutes ago, Calm said: That is the risk. However, i see that as a consequence of having sinned. It is very unfortunate for innocents involved like family and that should have weight especially if young children or teens are involved, Still I put any victims' need over the predator's any day even if they have fully repented or even were mentally competent. I understand the sentiment, and I'm sympathetic to the idea that if it would really help a survivor heal and move on with their life then maybe there should be a way to let them know what happened. I'm not quite at the point of saying it should be a blanket policy, but I'm open to the idea of it being a possibility on a case-by-case basis. 1
rongo Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: That error likely originated from the BYU Police report, in which Bishop confessed to asking Denson to expose her breasts (p. 6). Except Denson denies that this ever happened, so it appears Bishop may have been admitting to abusing another missionary (though his attorney/son disputes this). Which further adds to the confusion and conflation from both Bishop and Denson. Man! And people harp on differences between First Vision accounts!
JulieM Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, rongo said: Which further adds to the confusion and conflation from both Bishop and Denson. This didn’t come from Denson. Unless you have a statement from her saying anything different, she has never claimed that was her (who he asked to expose their breasts). That came only from Bishop. Edited April 12, 2018 by JulieM 1
rongo Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, JulieM said: This didn’t come from Denson. Unless you have a statement from her saying anything different, she has never claimed that was her (who he asked to expose their breasts). That came only from Bishop. You're correct, but Denson denying something Bishop confessed to doing to her in his BYU police interrogation calls the reliability of his admissions into question. He's all over the map with these admissions, and many of them seem questionable. I'm not saying he's a paragon of virtue or that there is no fire to go with his smoke, but the more I look at this, the less I think can really be done with it if the Church chooses to let it go to trial. That's a very big if.
JulieM Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, rongo said: You're correct, but Denson denying something Bishop confessed to doing to her in his BYU police interrogation calls the reliability of his admissions into question. He's all over the map with these admissions, and many of them seem questionable. That only makes him look bad though, not her. She can’t help that he’s confessing to other abuses of other girls in the process of this investigation (her’s and the official one). 1
california boy Posted April 12, 2018 Posted April 12, 2018 4 hours ago, 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. You don't think "the right thing" to do is to publicly let the world know that sexual abuse will not be tolerated in the church, nor will it sweep this kind of behavior under the rug. Those that engage in such behavior should expect church discipline. 1
Danzo Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 26 minutes ago, california boy said: You don't think "the right thing" to do is to publicly let the world know that sexual abuse will not be tolerated in the church, nor will it sweep this kind of behavior under the rug. Those that engage in such behavior should expect church discipline. Kind of like this? "These allegations are very serious and deeply disturbing. If the allegations of sexual assault are true, it would be a tragic betrayal of our standards and would result in action by the Church to formally discipline any member who was guilty of such behavior, especially someone in a position of trust." https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018 1
Calm Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 29 minutes ago, california boy said: You don't think "the right thing" to do is to publicly let the world know that sexual abuse will not be tolerated in the church, nor will it sweep this kind of behavior under the rug. Those that engage in such behavior should expect church discipline. I don't believe your interpretation represents what provoman stated at all. He can correct if I am wrong.
Jeanne Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 34 minutes ago, california boy said: You don't think "the right thing" to do is to publicly let the world know that sexual abuse will not be tolerated in the church, nor will it sweep this kind of behavior under the rug. Those that engage in such behavior should expect church discipline. Perhaps they will just give him another blessing.
smac97 Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 3 hours ago, rongo said: Which further adds to the confusion and conflation from both Bishop and Denson. Yep. There are all sorts of things adding to the confusion. The circumstances under which the recording was obtained (false pretenses, possibly coercive) makes the recording problematic. That Bishop admits to doing something that is wrong, but not to rape or attempted rape, in a recording that is presented as evidence of his culpability for rape or attempted rape, is problematic. Denson extracting a false confession from Bishop is problematic. Denson lying or misleading the public about the recording being "leaked" without her consent, apparently to drum up public sympathy, is sort of problematic. And on and on. It seems pretty clear that Bishop did something wrong. It is far less clear that this "something" was rape or attempted rape. -Smac 1
Recommended Posts