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

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Such as?  Do you have a quote for something he agreed to that "can't possibly be true"?  (Sincere question as I have not read the complete transcript).

He appears to state that he confessed to Elder Wells in 1978 to sexually molesting Denson (which would have taken place in 1984 when she was in the MTC).  See here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mrmarklin]

Totally Gaga at this point. 

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

But she says that so casually and it doesn't affect him in the least from his tone of voice or comment...she could have followed it up easily if it was an intent to threaten him rather than just trying to see if he knew about the threat (given the police came and talked to her about it, it is a reasonable assumption).  He just is curious if she had biker friends and she dismisses that as ludicrous.  (Another time she refers to it, she instantly follows up by saying she wasn't serious, it appears to me she is simply using it to show how frustrated she was, language gets bad to at times for the same reason, other times I think she is doing it for effect...she didn't talk that way at the press conference for sure.)

That part of the conversation starts around 45 minutes on the audio tape if you want to hear the tone of voices.

Yes, they were made voluntarily.  He continues to go on and on, giving information about his life, complaining about his wife, his hardships, etc. He even starts to tell her why she won't get any money from him and how much his interest rate on his home is. She is an avid listener as much as a contributor to the conversation and I think he eats that up.  When he finally says he needs to leave, has to go to the bathroom, she instantly responses to call whomever he came with to take him.

He could have done that at any time, said he wanted to go.  Lots of pauses he could have said "I have had enough, I feel sick, etc."  Lots of noise of people around.  He never even hinted at it, he never expressed any desire to end the conversation, he expresses several times the idea that he wants to accomplish something by having that conversation with her, to move her forward, to resolve his own issues; he just kept going on and on explaining why he did what he did without adding any significant details (except once with masturbation) to make himself look bad (just bad boy because of my bad thoughts and oh, how I have struggled and suffered because of those) while making sure she knew he was special in other ways (baptisms went up from 70 to 400, women found him attractive and flirted with him without him doing anything, all the special blessings and moments he had with church leaders, including one where apparently Pres. Kimball just read his mind while in the middle of a crowd and a week later he was called, how he was so traumatized by his concern over the sisters with problems and stood up to Elder Asay and demanded help for them).  He spent a lot of time making sure she knew others weren't good to him (my first wife didn't love me, my second wife was crazy from her first marriage, but she adores me now, a girl I danced with in high school was mean to me, the sister missionary labeled with Green wanted a back rub, the Florida woman was into some sort of bad stuff, Elder Asay and Elder Packer wouldn't pay money to get a counselor for troubled sister missionaries).

So yeah, I think it was voluntary.  He is even chuckling at times when she gets a little dramatic in her speech (1:05:53) He was so eager to be interviewed, to be seen as a special man with special words (he was even divorced and his second wife in so much pain just so he could get his life saved by having an expert surgeon operate on him).  He enjoyed being flattered and returned the favor (you are a great writer--practically before she has said anything, you should have your own book just like me).  And when it turned dark, he got monotoned (yes, no, I don't remember, but I am sorry) to begin with, but got into it pretty quickly.  He starts going off on how special he is yet again even while he was admitting he had caused her severe pain:  "Well you think that that kind of thing doesn't affect me also. Because you had been bouncing, I'm telling you some very deep spiritualexperiences that have happened to me".

He gets quiet when she goes off on a long explanation or passionate speech, but he always comes back after a few slow starts with his own story, his own version of forcefulness, more persuasion, more appealing to her compassionate nature.

It is all about him for him, he loves talking about himself even if he is being accused of rape.

add-on:  he also stops and says nothing for long, long pauses after she goes off on him from time to time.  He at times is obviously choosing his words carefully, other times it comes across as he knows silence is better because anything he says will upset her, it is possible that some of them are he is just too confused to respond, but it comes across as more likely in those cases that he has gotten lost from his own train of thought so he tries to find something to bring it back to a positive thing for himself...like him starting to tell the story about his divorced three times, now in Costa Rica son and how he is trying to help his son have faith...good,caring dad, not one that should be destroyed, right?

Did you listen to the audio, sounds like you did. Don't you think it makes all the difference. So much more to pick up on?

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He appears to state that he confessed to Elder Wells in 1978 to sexually molesting Denson (which would have taken place in 1984 when she was in the MTC).  See here.

You need to stop trying to make this point.  Read what Calm has posted regarding this....you are mistaken.

(Read over on the Revelations thread as well for more input on this.  Denson corrected him.)

Edited April 13, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

51 minutes ago, rongo said:

I haven't, either. I'm relying on smac's analysis, and now, Calm's analysis. 

I rely on what Calm has stated (her's is much more thorough and accurate).  Smac's one accusation of a false confession is not correct and Calm shows that.

Do you have anything specific to back up your specific claim that Bishop agreed to things that "can't possibly be true"?  

Edited April 13, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I rely on what Calm has stated (her's is much more thorough and accurate).  Smac's one accusation of a false confession is not correct and Calm shows that.

Do you have anything specific to back up your specific claim that Bishop agreed to things that "can't possibly be true"?  

I actually found Calm and smac to be in agreement on that point. I'm open to being proven wrong on that (Calm saying "I disagree with smac on that" would suffice).

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you listen to the audio, sounds like you did. Don't you think it makes all the difference. So much more to pick up on?

I agree.  Audio is superior to transcript.  And video with sound would have been superior to audio.

As it is, however, there is much lost.  Demeanor, facial expressions, body language, and so on.  All opaque.

We are operating at an ignorance level of about 95%.  We know virtually nothing of Joseph Bishop except for what has been reported about him consequent to the recording.  And what we do know is about 100% negative.  And not only that, our ignorance is complicated by unvetted allegations of sexual assault that at present are being adjudicated in the court of public opinion, at the height of the guilty-until-proven-innocent-and-possibly-even-after-that-because-#MeToo phase of Americal social consciousness.  And "Exhibit A" in this farce is a deeply problematic recording that was possibly coercive, and which includes at least one false confession.

I am not really defending Joseph Bishop.  I don't know the man.  And based on what evidence we have it seems clear that he did some very disturbing things while in positions of trust and authority within the LDS Church.  He may well be a Harvey Weinstein-type figure, a man who abused his position of authority for a long time and got away with it for a long time.  Or he could be someone who has done some very wrong and disturbing things, but is being overcharged (rape or attempted rape).  Or he could be a Richard Jewell-type figure, someone that was condemned in a trial by media / media circus.  

What a mess.  I am hopeful that the Courts can sort this out.

-Smac

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You need to stop trying to make this point. 

Explain how my point is incorrect, and I certainly will.  

Quote

Read what Calm has posted regarding this....you are mistaken.

How so?

Quote

(Read over on the Revelations thread as well for more input on this.  Denson corrected him.)

"Denson corrected" what?  It seems that she corrected . . . a false confession.

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I actually found Calm and smac to be in agreement on that point.

You might want to read it again then.  Calm's posts show that Denson was understandably confused at first because Bishop was giving incorrect dates and information.  When she realized what he was stating, she corrected him:

Quote

 

Joseph Bishop:  They attacked me. So in this process trying to save my soul, 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.

Denson:  You couldn’t have ’cause you were MTC president after Argentina.

 

 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

How so?

"Denson corrected" what?  It seems that she corrected . . . a false confession.

-Smac

You need to read all that Calm has posted.  Denson did not force Bishop to make a false confession.  He was confused about the timing of his confessions to Wells and she corrected him (see my post above).  

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Quote

I rely on what Calm has stated (her's is much more thorough and accurate).  Smac's one accusation of a false confession is not correct and Calm shows that.

Do you have anything specific to back up your specific claim that Bishop agreed to things that "can't possibly be true"?  

I actually found Calm and smac to be in agreement on that point.

I sort of thought that as well.

The recording appears to include a false confession.  Bishop purportedly admits to confessing in 1978 to abuse of Denson which did not occur until 1984.

So which part of this is incorrect?  The date?  The content of the confession?  Something's gotta give.

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm open to being proven wrong on that (Calm saying "I disagree with smac on that" would suffice).

I am open to correction as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You might want to read it again then. 

I've read the transcript many times.

Quote

Calm's posts show that Denson was understandably confused at first because Bishop was giving incorrect dates and information. 

Right.  He gave . . . a false confession.  He says he confessed to molesting Denson in 1978 or so, despite not having met her until 1984.

"Giving incorrect dates and information" during what amounted to an interrogation under false pretenses by an interested party sounds rather like a "false confession."

Quote

When she realized what he was stating, she corrected him:

Again, "she corrected" what?  A confession that he had disclosed his abuse of Denson (which, if it occurred, took place in 1984) to Elder Wells.  Except that he "confessed" to Elder Wells in 1978. 

So did he disclose his abuse of Denson to Wells, or not?  We don't know.

Did he disclose abuse of Denson at all, at any time?  We don't know.

Did Denson, in interrogating Bishop, extract a false confession from him?  It appears so.

Does that mean that Bishop is exonerated?  Nope.  It just means that the recording is not very good evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You need to read all that Calm has posted.  Denson did not force Bishop to make a false confession. 

Right.  No "force."  She just used false pretenses to lure an 85-year old man, two days out of heart surgery, into a private, one-on-one discussion.

Was Bishop lucid during this interview/interrogation?  Sorta yes, sorta no.  He talks a lot, but he was clearly confused about a number of things, including important things.  He confuses Denson with someone else.  He is vague in many of his statements.  He is flatly incorrect in some of his statements (thus needing to be - as you put it - "corrected" by Denson).  

We he under medication?

What is his mental competency?  His memory? 

Is there any risk of errors in his recollection?  Obviously, necessarily yes, whether due to the coercive/manipulative questioning methods used by Denson, or him being not fully recovered from heart surgery, or him having memory problems incident to his age, or him feeling coerced/threatened, or other factors, or some combination of these.

Quote

He was confused about the timing of his confessions to Wells and she corrected him (see my post above).  

Right.  Bishop was "confused."  And Denson was "confused."  And from this "confused" discussion we are supposed to extract reliable evidence of wrongdoing?

You say that Denson corrected him about his false confession.  I agree.  That's my point.  That a false confession was made and needed correction is my point.

It also does not exonerate Bishop.  It just demonstrates that the recording is a muddled mess, and not likely to be considered as competent, probative, admissible evidence in court.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  He gave . . . a false confession.  He says he confessed to molesting Denson in 1978 or so, despite not having met her until 1984.

You should read through what Calm has posted on this on the other thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70418-new-revelations-and-the-future/?do=findComment&comment=1209810725

And here on this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70419-lds-church-may-be-facing-more-lawsuits-over-sexual-abuse-and-inaction/?do=findComment&comment=1209810857

 

You are making a lot of wrong assumptions and accusations regarding this.  Denson corrects Bishop when he becomes confused....she is not attempting to coerce him into a false confession that he confessed about her to Wells.  That's unfair of you to portray it that way.

Edited April 13, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You should read through what Calm has posted on this on the other thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70418-new-revelations-and-the-future/?do=findComment&comment=1209810725

And here on this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70419-lds-church-may-be-facing-more-lawsuits-over-sexual-abuse-and-inaction/?do=findComment&comment=1209810857

I have read these already.

Meanwhile, you may want to read my post here:

Quote

On 4/12/2018 at 8:35 AM, 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.

You seem to be dismissing the existence of the false confession by arguing that Denson was incorrect about the dates.  You very well could be right (that Denson was incorrect about the dates).  But here's the thing: Denson's confusion about dates yielded the false confession from Bishop.  

The false confession exists.  It's right there in the recording.  That the falsity of it arose because of Denson doesn't ameliorate that.  If anything, it gives rise to serious concerns about much of the rest of the recording.  If Denson used false information (the timing of Bishop's confession to Elder Wells) to extract a false confession on page 33, could that have happened elsewhere?  

Bishop may well be guilty of rape or attempted rape.  Or he may be guilty of serious sexual misconduct not amounting to rape or attempted rape.  Or he may be guilty of having less serious things (lustful thoughts, etc.).  

The point is, the recording is poor evidence of his culpability.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You are making a lot of wrong assumptions and accusations regarding this.  Denson corrects Bishop when he becomes confused....she is not attempting to coerce him into a false confession that he confessed about her to Wells.  That's unfair of you to portray it that way.

He's not saying that Denson is trying to coerce him into confessing to confessing to Wells about her. She is trying to get him to confess to raping her. On his own, Bishop states that he confessed to Wells in 1978 about his rape of Denson in 1984, and she corrects him that that wasn't possible. 

So far, so good.

The problem is that (and this isn't the only instance), it shows that Bishop gets things (important things --- deposing Wells is a keystone of their strategy) completely wrong. It calls into question his memory and relevance in shedding light on the truth. That Denson corrects this anachronism is good, but it doesn't then make him reliable. He's still a muddled mess. 

I think you're hammering away on smac focusing on Denson trying to get him to say he confessed to Wells about Denson (which everyone acknowledges is an impossibility), when smac's focus is simply on the fact that Bishop's "confessions" to Denson aren't reliable or useful. Period. This anachronism, and other things, support that. Secondarily, he emphasizes that Denson lured him there under the pretense of wanting to talk to him about his books, and then sprang the "trap" (a la Martha Beck, and with similar allegations of rape). That is a troubling subtext as background, but isn't directly relevant to his false confession (confession that didn't happen) or Denson's correction of the impossibility of it. 

Doesn't this greatly diminish Wells' importance as a witness regarding Bishop's rape of Denson?

Edited April 13, 2018 by rongo

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be dismissing the existence of the false confession by arguing that Denson was incorrect about the dates. 

No, Bishop was incorrect about the dates and Denson corrects him and clarifies.  So, if you want to blame someone here for any false confessions regarding what Bishop states he confessed to Wells, the blame lies with him, not with Denson."

Read this from Calm:

Quote

"In the transcript she corrects him and says he can't have talked to Wells about her because Argentina came before the MTC.  Where is she charging he confessed the rape to Wells?"

And this from Calm:

Quote

 

This was the first comment and it didn't identify which mission he was talking about.  She could have been confused on timing by comments like these:

  Quote

So you were mission president for the MTC in 83-86.
Bishop:  Probably, yeah.
Luckily. And after that you were at the old church for ten years.

Bishop:  Uh-huh.
So ...
Bishop:  Then after that I got a call from Bob Wells. Elder Wells.

Later on, when there has been enough info given by Bishop, she corrects him when he tries to include any action with her in his confession which has been pinned down to Argentina while dealing with the girl possessed with evil spirits which evil spirits then possessed him.

It is an understandable mistake when he is jumping around in the beginning.  She doesn't make it again.

 

 

 

And This:

Quote

"As you can see, he jumps all over, and confuses the timing, but in the last one that has been quoted by ALarson iirc more fully, this is when he is specific about it and when she corrects him iirc.  Thus you can see how it progresses and why she made an error in the beginning when she had less info, but didn't later on when she had more.  Demanding she be precise before she knew the whole story is unreasonable and it is not an anachronism."

 

Calm does an excellent job of proving you are wrong here regarding this being Denson's fault and it being an anachronism.

But continue making your false claims as I'm done.  I think there are enough things wrong with the recording without having to resort to doing this.

Edited April 13, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, Bishop was incorrect about the dates and Denson corrects him and clarifies. 

Bishop "was incorrect" in stating that he confessed his sexual abuse of Denson to Elder Wells in 1978.

So was the date wrong?  Was there some other Bishop/Wells interview during which Bishop confessed to his sexual abuse of Denson to Elder Wells?

Or is that Bishop never confessed to Elder Wells that he had sexually abused Denson?  And if that is the case, then what do we make of page 33 of the recording transcript, in which Denson prompts him into confessing that he did make such a confession to Elder Wells?  

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, if you want to blame someone here for any false confessions regarding what Bishop states he confessed to Wells, the blame lies with him, not with Denson."

"Blame" for what?  For the false confession?  

You are saying we should blame this false confession on Bishop?  The guy whom Denson used false pretenses to lure into a private, one-on-one discussion, then switched gears, accused him of rape, reminded him that she had threatened to kill him, and demanded an apology?

But I digress.  I'm not really interested in assessing "blame."  I'm interested in evaluating the recording for its evidentiary value.  I am suggesting that its value in this regard is low.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Read this from Calm:

And this from Calm:

And This:

Yes, I've read those.  I agree that Denson "corrected" in the second instance the false confession she has extracted from Bishop in the first instance.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Calm does an excellent job of proving you are wrong here regarding this being Denson's fault and it being an anachronism.

Denson used false pretenses and manipulative questioning techniques during her "interview," and possibly even coercion.  And p. 33 of the transcript demonstrates that she prompted the false confession:

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.

In any event, I'm not as interested in allocating fault for the false confession.  I am interested in the existence of the false confession.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But continue making your false claims as I'm done. 

I don't think I'm making a false claim.  And I remain open to correction.

But as you're "done," I will not press the matter.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think there are enough things wrong with the recording without having to resort to doing this.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

You know what?? I have a feeling that Bishop, an old man, will die with his priesthood intact..way before any discipline can be done..sad.  Sad for example for members who have been silent on abuse for many years.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  Audio is superior to transcript.  And video with sound would have been superior to audio.

As it is, however, there is much lost.  Demeanor, facial expressions, body language, and so on.  All opaque.

We are operating at an ignorance level of about 95%.  We know virtually nothing of Joseph Bishop except for what has been reported about him consequent to the recording.  And what we do know is about 100% negative.  And not only that, our ignorance is complicated by unvetted allegations of sexual assault that at present are being adjudicated in the court of public opinion, at the height of the guilty-until-proven-innocent-and-possibly-even-after-that-because-#MeToo phase of Americal social consciousness.  And "Exhibit A" in this farce is a deeply problematic recording that was possibly coercive, and which includes at least one false confession.

I am not really defending Joseph Bishop.  I don't know the man.  And based on what evidence we have it seems clear that he did some very disturbing things while in positions of trust and authority within the LDS Church.  He may well be a Harvey Weinstein-type figure, a man who abused his position of authority for a long time and got away with it for a long time.  Or he could be someone who has done some very wrong and disturbing things, but is being overcharged (rape or attempted rape).  Or he could be a Richard Jewell-type figure, someone that was condemned in a trial by media / media circus.  

What a mess.  I am hopeful that the Courts can sort this out.

-Smac

It's difficult because I'm so torn, I feel for this man's family. I even feel for this Bishop guy in the context of wondering if he himself was abused, or had an incorrect bringing up, or distorted sense of reality. So many things out there could contribute. But when you read things said that he did, by the woman who worked with him at Weber, it does seem he has some ego problems, etc. 

I wish that whoever felt inspired to call him into those high level callings working with so many people, young people, would have prayed a little harder to know if he was the guy for the job. Because it's obvious that he wasn't. Or perhaps he did some good, and I shouldn't say it was all a wash. 

You're right though, there are so many variables. I remember right when this all hit the fan, I went right to FB to see this man and his family. But it has since been taken down. He had a pic of he and his sons and some with his daughter-in-laws and sons, I believe. How hard this will be on his posterity.

But we can't forget the victim/victims. Just read an article about a girl that was abused and how her life took a turn into some petty crime and drugs etc. She was adorable, and even did really well in school etc. But the abuse she endured, two separate instances, two different people, caused her to have emotional problems. 

I also watched a series called "My 600 lb Life", and both shows I watched had women that had sexual abuse in their lives that they would treat with food. It's pretty bad the things people go through when abused sexually. So we can't let Bishop off easy. 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wish that whoever felt inspired to call him into those high level callings working with so many people, young people, would have prayed a little harder to know if he was the guy for the job.

This scripture, given to Joseph Smith, seems to have some application here.

"But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter."

D&C 10:37

Edited April 13, 2018 by ksfisher

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You know what?? I have a feeling that Bishop, an old man, will die with his priesthood intact..way before any discipline can be done..sad.  Sad for example for members who have been silent on abuse for many years.

what difference does that make?, 

Sincere question, what difference would it make to him?, To you? to anyone else if he died with his priesthood "Intact" whatever that means.

Whether he has the "Priesthood" "Intact" has no affect on whether he has the priesthood or not.  

"the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.  That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

Whether the church "takes" his priesthood away or not is irrelevant.  If he is "covering his sins" then he doesn't have the priesthood anyway.  

 

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wish that whoever felt inspired to call him into those high level callings working with so many people, young people, would have prayed a little harder to know if he was the guy for the job

Being the "guy for the Job" doesn't mean he lost his agency when he was called.   People don't lose their agency before, during, or after a call to whatever position.  To do so would make God evil. 

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's difficult because I'm so torn, I feel for this man's family. I even feel for this Bishop guy in the context of wondering if he himself was abused, or had an incorrect bringing up, or distorted sense of reality. So many things out there could contribute. But when you read things said that he did, by the woman who worked with him at Weber, it does seem he has some ego problems, etc. 

I wish that whoever felt inspired to call him into those high level callings working with so many people, young people, would have prayed a little harder to know if he was the guy for the job. Because it's obvious that he wasn't. Or perhaps he did some good, and I shouldn't say it was all a wash. 

You're right though, there are so many variables. I remember right when this all hit the fan, I went right to FB to see this man and his family. But it has since been taken down. He had a pic of he and his sons and some with his daughter-in-laws and sons, I believe. How hard this will be on his posterity.

But we can't forget the victim/victims. Just read an article about a girl that was abused and how her life took a turn into some petty crime and drugs etc. She was adorable, and even did really well in school etc. But the abuse she endured, two separate instances, two different people, caused her to have emotional problems. 

I also watched a series called "My 600 lb Life", and both shows I watched had women that had sexual abuse in their lives that they would treat with food. It's pretty bad the things people go through when abused sexually. So we can't let Bishop off easy. 

I see where you are coming from Tacenda...your empathy and mine are really the same.  I don't blame Bishop (per church instructions)..as a whole..but under policies and doctrine of the LDS church, there was a chance many times to save his salvation..and it has been ignored due to promotions for heaven's sakes..something is wrong in the lives of people who do this.  I blame authority on all levels.  I feel for this man's family..and for the victims who have to prove...and prove and prove again for something that tries to be fair in a world that is not fair.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Jeanne

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

what difference does that make?

You sound like Hillary 

I’m sure it makes a difference to those who were possibly his victims.  It also makes a difference for Bishop as far as his repentance process.

For a church who will excommunicate members for entering a marriage commitment with someone they love just because it’s a SSM, it seems amazing that Bishop has not been disciplined.

Edited April 13, 2018 by JulieM