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

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."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.  

 

Then what is the priesthood for...do you earn it...is it ever taken away??  What about all the men who have not had it restored because of be exed..?  Do they still have it?  Whatever is the point of saving a soul?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have read these already.

Meanwhile, you may want to read my post here:

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

As I see it, Denson didn't confuse anything as you allege.  He's the one who claimed he thinks he confessed his misdeeds with her to Elder Wells, not she.  She corrected him.  This shows clearly to me, that he had many problems that strung out over many years with many women.  This clearly shows he also confessed some sins with women, likely including his mistreatment of women, to authorities before he ever was a mission president.  It's likely he got confused at this point because to him his misdeeds blend a little in his memory.  To him, his confession of some likely could have included his misdeeds with another.  I think we'll have to see if that plays out in court if that happens, though.  I think it's some pretty damning stuff.  I'm not sure why you think it's so problematic.  Your argument here makes little sense to me.  

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You sound like Hillary 

I’m sure it makes a difference to those who were possibly his victims.

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

If you are like me Julie..it matters..for all the men who have had to walk out of the church being exed...it matters..in coming back to the church and being rebaptized..the priesthood has to be restored...surely it means something and it makes a difference.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As I see it, Denson didn't confuse anything as you allege. 

Perhaps you are correct.  But she did extract a false confession from Bishop.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He's the one who claimed he thinks he confessed his misdeeds with her to Elder Wells, not she. 

She prompted him with a leading question, and he responded "yes."

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

She corrected him. 

Apparently so.  But the false confession still happened.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This shows clearly to me, that he had many problems that strung out over many years with many women. 

"Clearly?"  Really?

I think it could show that.  Or it could "show" that his memory was compromised during the interview/interrogation, or that he was confused by Denson's manipulative (and possibly coercive) questioning.

It could "show" a lot of things, so "clearly" doesn't enter into the picture, IMO.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This clearly shows he also confessed some sins with women,

"Sins with women?"  What does that mean?  Adultery?  Rape?  Exploitation?  Lustful thoughts?

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

likely including his mistreatment of women,

"Likely?"

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

to authorities before he ever was a mission president. 

I think what he disclosed to Elder Wells is rather not "clear."

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's likely

There's that word again.  "Cleary" and "likely" don't play well together.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

he got confused at this point because to him his misdeeds blend a little in his memory. 

That's pure guesswork.  What "misdeeds?"  And how would blended misdeeds necessarily amount to Bishop falsely admitting that he "confessed" his purported 1984 abuse of Denson to Elder Wells six years before the abuse happened?

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To him, his confession of some likely could have included his misdeeds with another. 

There's that word again.  "Likely."

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think we'll have to see if that plays out in court if that happens, though. 

Maybe not.  I am not sure if the recording constitutes competent, probative, admissible evidence.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's some pretty damning stuff. 

When viewed dispassionately, not really.  I think it's evidence of serious misconduct, but rape or attempted rape?  Nope.  

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure why you think it's so problematic.  Your argument here makes little sense to me.  

Ah, well.  I've explained it as best I can (albeit across multiple posts).

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As I see it, Denson didn't confuse anything as you allege.  He's the one who claimed he thinks he confessed his misdeeds with her to Elder Wells, not she.  She corrected him.  This shows clearly to me, that he had many problems that strung out over many years with many women.  This clearly shows he also confessed some sins with women, likely including his mistreatment of women, to authorities before he ever was a mission president.  It's likely he got confused at this point because to him his misdeeds blend a little in his memory.  To him, his confession of some likely could have included his misdeeds with another.  I think we'll have to see if that plays out in court if that happens, though.  I think it's some pretty damning stuff.  I'm not sure why you think it's so problematic.  Your argument here makes little sense to me.  

Perfectly stated.  Rep point from me!!! 

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's difficult because I'm so torn, I feel for this man's family.

Same here.

I'm also torn in a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I kind of way.  I consider myself an upright and honorable person.  I respect women, and I go out of my way to demonstrate that.  I also go to great lengths to avoid not only the risk of impropriety, but even the risk of the appearance of impropriety.  That necessarily means that I materially constrain my in-person interactions with women.  I keep discussions very polite and very brief.  

I'm also generally repulsed by the Trial-by-Media tactics being used by Denson's attorneys.  Sexual assault is a serious topic, and Denson certainly deserves justice for whatever wrongs that have been inflicted upon her.  But she is really screwing things up here.

Quote

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.

I don't think we have a fair measure of the man.  He may well be a Harvey Weinstein kind of person.  Or he could be a Richard Jewell kind of person.  

Quote

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 think his admissions in the recording are vague, confused, and - to some extent - possibly coerced.  And yes, he may well have been a jerk in the 70s, but being a jerk is a far cry from being a rapist.

Quote

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. 

Again, I am torn about this as well.  I started out somewhat skeptical about this story when the recording was published, then more stuff came out (particularly A) the BYU police report, B) the verification of the basement room and its contents, and C) the second survivor), which altered my assessment quite quite a bit.  But then we find out more about Denson's substantial credibility problems (her fraudulent claims against her former employer, her lying/misleading the public about the recording being "leaked," her husband's remarks about her, etc.).  And the more I analyze the recording the less I find it to be competent or probative (including, but not limited to, the existence in it of at least one false confession).

Quote

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.

Yep.  Is he more like Harvey Weinstein, or Richard Jewell?  Really hard to say at this point.

Quote

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. 

Yes.

Quote

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 wonder if it might be better to abstain from judging Bishop, at least for the time being and not definitively.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

I think that people's desired legal and ecclesiastical outcomes with this are completely independent from "what the evidence clearly  shows." On both sides, and in both directions. I include myself in that. I think that I am being objective and fair, but I also acknowledge that my inherent conservatism and loyalty to the Church is an unavoidable factor. I also think that some people's inherent liberalism (which puts them in tension with Church doctrines, policies, practices, and culture) and knee-jerk criticism of the Church also predisposes them with this, despite their efforts to be objective. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

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. 

Danzo, brain dead here. What do you mean with this comment, not comprehending. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by Tacenda

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think that people's desired legal and ecclesiastical outcomes with this are completely independent from "what the evidence clearly  shows."

And that's a sad thing, really.  It is disappointing that people want particular outcomes regardless of what the evidence shows ("clearly" or otherwise).

The evidence should be a front-and-center consideration.

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

On both sides, and in both directions. I include myself in that. I think that I am being objective and fair, but I also acknowledge that my inherent conservatism and loyalty to the Church is an unavoidable factor.

I've been examining that same factor in myself.  I see the Church as sort of a victim in this mess.  If Bishop is guilty of the misconduct, then he betrayed the Church by abusing sister missionaries entrusted to his care.

I've spent the last fourteen years practicing as a litigating attorney in Utah and Salt Lake Counties.  I often see the Saints at their worst.  But then, I also have plenty of opportunities to see them at their best, too.

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I also think that some people's inherent liberalism (which puts them in tension with Church doctrines, policies, practices, and culture) and knee-jerk criticism of the Church also predisposes them with this, despite their efforts to be objective. 

Yeah, I'm seeing that also.

In the end, we're all flawed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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.

If you look at it that way, you must be constantly amazed.  There are probably people in your own ward boundary who deserve to be excommunicated but aren't

If you go through our ward (and most wards that I have been in) you will find countless examples of people living in sin who haven't been formally disciplined.  Most of these are less actives.  Plenty of Homosexuals in that list.

It just takes too much time go around excommunicating people who don't want to come in and participate.  

I don't know about your ward, but my ward just doesn't have the time to set up an inquisition to find out if anyone in the ward is doing something bad.  Most church discipline comes from people voluntarily coming in and confessing things. 

That is just how it is.

Perhaps if we can get more people to come in and participate we can finally create an inquisition to deal with the people like Bishop that are in our area.  Until then, church "justice" will be probably be limited.

I take comfort that  whatever "system of justice" in our ward a stake will be supplemented perfectly by Heavenly Father in the world to come.  

 

[Calm]

3 hours 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?

All the difference in what way?

"Did anyone else have a slight feeling of similarity between this and Martha Beck interrogating/accusing Hugh Nibley in a hotel room near the end of his life? I'm not saying that Bishop is as innocent as Nibley, or the Denson was holding him there by force like Beck, but the tone and the intent and all that seem slightly similar."

I have no sense of familiarity with Beck, I don't remember a recording from her, just someone hiding in the closet so I have no tone and intonation to compare it to.  Plus for the majority of the tape so far, Bishop's tone when he says anything of length sounds to me he wants to be there.  At times he is eager to say his piece.  And it is not in a closed in, isolating hotel room.  It is obvious a place where lots of people are walking by at times as the voices can be heard.  He talks about making an effort not to be alone with her, something she didn't noticed at the beginning.  Perhaps leaving two doors or curtains open.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

 It also makes a difference for Bishop as far as his repentance process.

I think people sometimes get a little confused about the whole repentance thing.  

People go through the repentance process by confessing their own sins.   Confessing Bishop's (or anyone elses) sins doesn't count.

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Danzo, brain dead here. What do you mean with this comment, not comprehending. 

I seems people think that if someone is called to a calling they have to lose the ability to sin.  Somehow someone being called to a high callings should prevent them from sinning. If they sin, then somehow it is evidence that either they should not have been called or that the church leaders who called this person were not inspired.  These people have their agency.

I don't believe that has ever been the case.  Leaders do not lose their ability to be tempted and commit sin.  If they sin, it is for the same reason all of us sin. They were tempted and made unwise choices.  

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Did anyone else have a slight feeling of similarity between this and Martha Beck interrogating/accusing Hugh Nibley in a hotel room near the end of his life? I'm not saying that Bishop is as innocent as Nibley, or the Denson was holding him there by force like Beck, but the tone and the intent and all that seem slightly similar."

I have no sense of familiarity with Beck, I don't remember a recording from her, just someone hiding in the closet so I have no tone and intonation to compare it to.  Plus for the majority of the tape so far, Bishop's tone when he says anything of length sounds to me he wants to be there.  At times he is eager to say his piece.  And it is not in a closed in, isolating hotel room.  It is obvious a place where lots of people are walking by at times as the voices can be heard.  He talks about making an effort not to be alone with her, something she didn't noticed at the beginning.  Perhaps leaving two doors or curtains open.

I meant solely tone in writing (as it comes out in the transcript) with Beck's written account of the Nibley kidnapping and interrogation. As you point out, there aren't great similarities other than purpose (both wanted to elicit confessions), superficial background (confessions about sexual assault), and false pretenses to initiate the "interviews." But I still find these similarities to be significant.

[Danzo]

 

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

What about all the men who have not had it restored because of be exed..?  Do they still have it? 

 

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Whatever is the point of saving a soul?

 

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

 

Then what is the priesthood for...do you earn it...is it ever taken away??

 

Probably best to start a new thread for these questions. Each of these questions would take a long time to explain. They don't have one paragraph answers.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Danzo

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps you are correct.  But she did extract a false confession from Bishop.

She prompted him with a leading question, and he responded "yes."

Apparently so.  But the false confession still happened.

"Clearly?"  Really?

I think it could show that.  Or it could "show" that his memory was compromised during the interview/interrogation, or that he was confused by Denson's manipulative (and possibly coercive) questioning.

It could "show" a lot of things, so "clearly" doesn't enter into the picture, IMO.

"Sins with women?"  What does that mean?  Adultery?  Rape?  Exploitation?  Lustful thoughts?

"Likely?"

I think what he disclosed to Elder Wells is rather not "clear."

There's that word again.  "Cleary" and "likely" don't play well together.

That's pure guesswork.  What "misdeeds?"  And how would blended misdeeds necessarily amount to Bishop falsely admitting that he "confessed" his purported 1984 abuse of Denson to Elder Wells six years before the abuse happened?

We talked about this the other day (probably in this very thread), but yes, I think the tape shows he had multiple instance of mistreating women, in some cases assaulting them.  The context of the whole discussion warrants such a conclusion in my mind.  I don't think it's guesswork, I think it's the most likely conclusion.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There's that word again.  "Likely."

Maybe not.  I am not sure if the recording constitutes competent, probative, admissible evidence.

When viewed dispassionately, not really.  I think it's evidence of serious misconduct, but rape or attempted rape?  Nope.  

That's all I've said.  I'm not saying anything beyond that. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Ah, well.  I've explained it as best I can (albeit across multiple posts).

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough.  Thanks. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think that people's desired legal and ecclesiastical outcomes with this are completely independent from "what the evidence clearly  shows." On both sides, and in both directions. I include myself in that. I think that I am being objective and fair, but I also acknowledge that my inherent conservatism and loyalty to the Church is an unavoidable factor. I also think that some people's inherent liberalism (which puts them in tension with Church doctrines, policies, practices, and culture) and knee-jerk criticism of the Church also predisposes them with this, despite their efforts to be objective. 

Well duh...

I'm just playing with ya.  Hopefully we can continue with this in mind without having to say it at some point.  But yes, as objective as we each try to be, there is no doubt some amount of bias and subjectivity coming from each of us.  Good point.  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

We talked about this the other day (probably in this very thread), but yes, I think the tape shows he had multiple instance of mistreating women, in some cases assaulting them. 

I think there are inferences of misconduct, perhaps even serious misconduct.  But there are also a lot of leading questions.

And more to the point, I question the overall viability and probative value of the recording.  A factfinder has to wade through a lot of vague stuff, accusatory questions, misstatements, etc.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

The context of the whole discussion warrants such a conclusion in my mind.  I don't think it's guesswork, I think it's the most likely conclusion.  

I respect that.  

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

When viewed dispassionately, not really.  I think it's evidence of serious misconduct, but rape or attempted rape?  Nope.  

That's all I've said.  I'm not saying anything beyond that. 

Fair enough.  Thanks. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well duh...

I'm just playing with ya.  Hopefully we can continue with this in mind without having to say it at some point.  But yes, as objective as we each try to be, there is no doubt some amount of bias and subjectivity coming from each of us.  Good point.  

For me, I'm not sure my pro-church bias is very much in play.  Rather, it may be more of a what-if-this-were-my-father-or-grandfather-in-the-crosshairs? kind of bias.

I also can't help but run through the other trial-by-media-circus messes we've seen.  Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby come to mind, of course.  But then, so does Richard Jewell (presumed guilty by the media, later proven innocent).  And O.J. Simpson (acquitted in court (with many cheers , and even a "Black Power" salute from a juror), but likely guilty, and later found civilly liable for "wrongful death").  And the allegations against the parents of JonBenét Patricia Ramsey.  And the Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions (along with the numerous other "Day-care sex-abuse hysteria" cases  in the 80s and 90s).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

All the difference in what way?

"Did anyone else have a slight feeling of similarity between this and Martha Beck interrogating/accusing Hugh Nibley in a hotel room near the end of his life? I'm not saying that Bishop is as innocent as Nibley, or the Denson was holding him there by force like Beck, but the tone and the intent and all that seem slightly similar."

I have no sense of familiarity with Beck, I don't remember a recording from her, just someone hiding in the closet so I have no tone and intonation to compare it to.  Plus for the majority of the tape so far, Bishop's tone when he says anything of length sounds to me he wants to be there.  At times he is eager to say his piece.  And it is not in a closed in, isolating hotel room.  It is obvious a place where lots of people are walking by at times as the voices can be heard.  He talks about making an effort not to be alone with her, something she didn't noticed at the beginning.  Perhaps leaving two doors or curtains open.

Not sure what to make of the comment about Beck, since I wasn't in that convo. What I mean about makes all the difference in listening to the audio, I thought you listened because by listening, it's clear how much better it is compared to just reading the transcript. For instance, you mentioned that there were people out in the hall. But there is much more than that, you hear more into what is being sad. Nuances, wow, can't think of a good description. If you haven't listened then you won't understand I guess, or maybe you do. I wonder if Smac has listened too, because he might change his tune.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Not sure what to make of the comment about Beck, since I wasn't in that convo. What I mean about makes all the difference in listening to the audio, I thought you listened because by listening, it's clear how much better it is compared to just reading the transcript. For instance, you mentioned that there were people out in the hall. But there is much more than that, you hear more into what is being sad. Nuances, wow, can't think of a good description. If you haven't listened then you won't understand I guess, or maybe you do. I wonder if Smac has listened too, because he might change his tune.

Yes, I agree nuances are clearer.  There was a lot missed by not including the long pauses, silences that occurred.  The transcript makes it appear that both pretty much just ran off whathever popped into their heads.  It misses both the likely deliberate thought that went into many comments as well as when it is likely he couldn't follow here well and was overwhelmed by the intensity of what she was saying and couldn't think of anything useful to say.  Also it catches better when he is fully present and when he gets tired or withdraws and more or less automatically responds.

Then there are the errors in transcription and points that would be missed if not reading the transcript along with the audio.  I think much will be missed if just the audio is listened to or the transcript read as content is harder to track and errors of transcription as well as variations of tone and intonations, which changes meaning significantly.  There is one comment that is quite deliberate where he says "I don't remember that".  There is a lot of weight put on "that" which seems out of place and made me wonder if he actually remembered other things in that he had been not dismissive, but distancing himself by saying "I apologize for that, but I don't remember that".  It was as she said, "convenient".

Given what he did remember, what he talked about, I highly doubt he forgot raping her.  He is either lying about it or he didn't rape her, imo.

He knew he was being recorded, I believe (he says something like 'now it is recorded' after she says she wanted people to stop calling her nuts and accept it was real).  That might be why he kept saying 'I have problems with it' but never identified what 'it' really was except in one case where he admitted masturbation was part of it.  I can't decide if he was obsessed with thinking himself sinful for having sexual thoughts or not.  His talking about his wife not loving him, about a sexless marriage leads me to believe it was usually the opposite and he made excuses all the time dismissing his inappropriate thoughts, his flirtations.  Even when he is 'confessing' his recognition that he used his charm "willingly and unwillingly" to get inappropriate attention from women, he immediately absolves himself because those behaviours and feelings are all gone in his view, removed because surgery removed his ability to get aroused.

However, I remember one client of group therapy back in my clinical psych days who mentally whipped himself for being obsessed one minute and the next was chastising all the girls on BYU campus for coming on to him as they walked by (he was not attractive though not ugly...it was how he carried himself and dressed sloppily, had a furtive air about him, I suspect most women on campus avoiding looking at him because he made them feel uncomfortable).  I see it as possible that Bishop did self flagellate over his lack of mental control because he calls , his current sexual dysfunction, the lack of interest a "gift from God" iirc, but he also acts as if disappointed "no use fussing" he lacks the ability now.   His explanation of his "repentance"/healing comes across more as using his self diagnosis as a justification, an excuse for his behaviour (see, I know I did wrong, but it wasn't my fault, so you should let me off with pain suffered, so much pain...).  I didn't hear or read any real sense of suffering in his voice, it came across as frustration, inconvenienced, unhappy he missed out on both a  "normal" relationship (sexually fulfilling by his standards whatever that might be) as well as losing out on higher callings as a GA because he got blackballed in some fashion.

His having dementia...after hearing it while reading it, I am even more certain he has it or at least was out of it from drugs that day so his memory was off at times, he was agreeable at odd moments, he lost track easily of what the topic was and kept going to telling stories he saw as faith promoting, saw as bearing his testimony at weird moments rather than responding directly to her comments (and they came across more as 'I am special so you need to give me a pass on my fully repented sins' to me).  He seemed to think he could 'heal' her by convincing her the Spirit worked through him or maybe he thought he was saying stuff that would convince her the Church was God's work (the story of the small branch being "so pure", for example).

I don't think his dementia was at a point he would forget raping someone, he might confuse people (as he apparently did when he confessed to police he asked Denson to expose herself when it appears that was Green), he might have rewritten history so it was always the woman who initiated it...made the excuse so many times it became a habit that now his screwed up memory thinks of as what really happened.... but forgotten he was actually violent with someone, I doubt that.  But I am not expert on dementia, so I would love to see him evaluated by a professional.

If asked what I believed actually happened with him without reference to Denson's descriptions, I would say it is probable he used porn a lot off and on through his adulthood, had lots of fantasies about women, including some violent ones (which is how he could believe himself capable of rape).  I think it likely he instigated "flirtation" with women and in a few cases that went to more, including physical contact, though it seems he focused more on just looking.  He seemed to really want to provide examples of his indiscretions, but could only provide two with any detail, the Florida woman and Green.  I think he abused Green by asking her to expose herself in the basement room and I think that backrub was more than just frisky and I doubt she begged for it too hard, if at all (her asking may have just been looks he interpreted as seductive).  However, his comment "point well taken"...it sounded not as a programmed response, but that in that moment he was confronted with reality.  So I think there were likely some other sister missionaries, at least from the time as MTC.  He might not have had enough control in being able to isolate sister missionaries away from others' ears and eyes in other places....no convenient basement room where no one would see them enter or leave or hear anything, no being home alone in Provo where his wife and kids are all involved in social/school activities and predictable in times away from home.

As far as Denson...there is a problem in that she clearly knew the details about what happened with Green, seems likely she talked with her in detail.  This means her comments about the basement might not be independent ( if they talked prior to Green going to church leaders in 2010, it could be that one of their stories is a creation based on the other's actual experience...not saying that is what happened, just that it is a possibility that needs to be considered), However, it is likely they were independent based on exBishop Leavitt's comments.  Can't remember if he specified the basement or just that she had a weird story of rape.  If he did or does specify the basement rape details, I lean towards the rape actually happening (or at least sexual contact, it is possible she inflated the details then and now) as that makes two independent stories about the basement...hers and Bishop's confession about Green's abuse even if he thought he was confessing to a lesser version of Denson's encounter.  Iow, I believe there was sexual abuse in two cases of the sister missionaries, though don't know if rape was involved or if Denson went there because of her history (that she said claimed rape back as a missionary in DC iirc because she was embarrassed about having an anxiety attack leads me to think she jumped to accusations of rape too easily back then, likely because of her sexual abuse by her step father, possibly due to the circumstances of her first pregnancy which appears to have occurred after her baptism, between 15 and 20 years of age...she probably had to wait at least a year after she gave her child up for adoption to go on a mission ).  I think there are actually three independent stories of abuse, Denson's report to Leavitt that he has shared, Bishop's confession to BYU police, Green's 2010 accusation though this is currently problematic because all we hear of it is through Denson and we have no details on what Green has to say herself.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

On 4/13/2018 at 1:12 PM, Calm said:

Given what he did remember, what he talked about, I highly doubt he forgot raping her.  He is either lying about it or he didn't rape her, imo.

I agree with you Calm that it comes down to being one of these two.  He certainly readily and almost eagerly volunteered information regarding other women he'd been inappropriate with over the years.

On 4/13/2018 at 1:12 PM, Calm said:

I don't think his dementia was at a point he would forget raping someone, he might confuse people (as he apparently did when he confessed to police he asked Denson to expose herself when it appears that was Green)...

Do we know anymore about this other woman (Green)?  Is she the other victim who has come forward or is that not known?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree with you Calm that it comes down to being one of these two.  He certainly readily and almost eagerly volunteered information regarding other women he'd been inappropriate with over the years.

Do we know anymore about this other woman (Green)?  Is she the other victim who has come forward or is that not known?

I believe it was confirmed..nowtrying to remember where.

Very little is known about her outside of Denson's remarks.  Iirc, the only other source of info is the Church official statement.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

From the MN statement:

"We are aware of one other woman (who is referenced in the December recording) who informed her local ecclesiastical leaders that she was sexually abused by Joseph Bishop while he served as president of the Missionary Training Center"

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018

[SJR3t2]

Sorry if someone has already shared this, but I ran into this statement by Jessica Lowder on FB the other day.

I was adopted as a baby through the Mormon church. Two years after placing me for adoption my birth mother decided to serve a mission. When she was at the MTC (mission training center) she was raped by Joseph Bishop, the MTC President. Joseph Bishop had had previously sexually assaulted women and the church knew this fact through his confessions. Not only did the church not discipline him, they continued to put him in high positions where he worked with young vulnerable women. My birth mother has tried to get justice for over 30 years and after the church refused to take action and accountability she took matters into her own hands. She posed as a reporter and sat down with her attacker and was able to obtain a recorded confession where he apologized and explained he was a sex addict who should have never held those positions in the church.
The church heard the tape and as an attempt to keep my birth mother quiet they compiled a dossier filled with any dirt they could gather. Not only did this include her private church records, they also dug into my confidential, closed adoption record and exposed my first and last name in the dossier. The church had this information because I was adopted through them. My name was then given to Joseph Bishop’s son Greg Bishop and leaked to the media which I believe was not only an intimidation tactic to scare my birth mother but also a warning to other victims to demonstrate what would happen if they decide to come forward as well. Not only was this a complete breach of privacy, they objectified me and used me as one of the skeletons in my birth mothers closet with complete disregard for my feelings and privacy. They didn’t even know if I was aware who my birth mother was or the circumstances of my birth. They didn’t care. I grew up in the church and never expected this. They have shown a dark and ruthless side that needs to be exposed. I will not be used and I will not allow them to get away with what they did. They have been digging this hole for the past 33 years and only seem to be making it worse. This is shameful. I can’t put into words how livid I am, how much anxiety this has caused and how hurtful the church has been by crushing others to keep up their facade. The church needs to take accountability now.