Another Open Letter

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I just checked the court docket.  No real developments.  We are still in the very, very early stages, though.  The lawsuit (the "Complaint") was filed on April 4, but the summonses were not generated by the Court until April 11.  The Complaint and the Summons will need to be formally served on the defendants, including the Church.  That probably either has happened or else will be happening in the very near future.  Then the Church will have, IIRC, three weeks to file a response.

I am curious as to whether the Church will file a Motion to Dismiss by citing the statute of limitations.  That seems like a formidable obstacle for Ms. Denson's attorneys.

Settlement negotiations would almost certainly not be publicized.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you think that this will go to trial?  It seems like both parties would be better served if a settlement could be reached.

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

He wouldn't paint the victim as maybe being the wrong kind of girl, so to speak.

Probably not. He would show compassion.

How would he treat the accused?

Edited April 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[why me]

12 hours ago, changed said:

I thought it was founded on Jesus Christ?  

This whole thing reiterates the fact the members rely too much on prophets and other church leaders, instead of putting their primary devotion and trust in G-d.

Founded on Jesus Christ by imperfect people who as the generations pass, still are imperfect. Maybe the secret is to see the person first and then the calling with the realization that the person with the calling is imperfect and act accordingly.

[smac97]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Do you think that this will go to trial?  It seems like both parties would be better served if a settlement could be reached.

No, I don't think it will go to trial. I think there are far too many problems with the case. Both sides obviously wanted to originally approach this matter and settle it quietly, but that initial objective was destroyed when Denson went rogue and leaked her own recording to the media.  However, I think both parties still want to settle, they will just need to do it in a different way.

Edited April 18, 2018 by smac97

[Marginal Gains]

8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I started to respond to your response, but you are neither objective or rational.  You have your mind made up and it does matter what anyone else says.  YOU KNOW THE REAL TRUTH.  Okay, good for you.  No need for further discussion because you know. Cheers

I’m going by the observable facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Greg Bishop was more than just Joseph L Bishop’s uninformed child. Greg is also Joseph L Bishops well informed attorney, who knew the contents of his dads police interview as well as what he had admitted to within it. He knew the police department would have prosecuted his dad were there no statute of limitations issues. He knew the victims accusations were both credible, and corroborated by his dad and also a second victim. He knew all those things prior to deciding to re-abuse his dads victim by putting into the public domain sensitive information about the victim that had no bearing on the case whatsoever, and which he should not have been granted access to in the first place. As an attorney he knew all that, but went ahead anyway.

Those are the facts, make your own mind up on the basis of them.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Probably not. He would show compassion.

How would he treat the accused?

He would forgive. I want to add also, that the information about the victim, sure doesn't help others that have been abused want to come forward. Who would?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m going by the observable facts. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Observable facts?"

"Nothing more, nothing less?" 

This from the same guy who is talking about a "porn den?"

Quote

Greg Bishop was more than just Joseph L Bishop’s uninformed child. Greg is also Joseph L Bishops well informed attorney, who knew the contents of his dads police interview as well as what he had admitted to within it. He knew the police department would have prosecuted his dad were there no statute of limitations issues.

Actually, it would be a prosecutor, not the police, who would make a determination of whether to prosecute.

But other than that, I think you have correctly summarized what Greg Bishop probably knew/knows.

Quote

He knew the victims accusations were both credible,

Again, claims that you are "going by the observable facts," "nothing more, nothing less" don't work here.  None of us knows if the victim's accusations (rape or attempted rape) are "credible."

Quote

and corroborated by his dad and also a second victim.

Yet again, claims that you are "going by the observable facts," "nothing more, nothing less" don't work here.

Joseph Bishop has not corroborated accusations of rape or attempted rape.

As far as I have seen, the "second victim" hasn't corrobrated much of anything pertaining to Denson's allegations.  If you disagree, then CFR, please, as to what "corroboration" exists.

Quote

He knew all those things prior to deciding to re-abuse his dads victim

You cannot frame the facts in such biased, risible terms while also claiming to be "going by the observable facts," "nothing more, nothing less"

Quote

by putting into the public domain sensitive information about the victim that had no bearing on the case whatsoever, and which he should not have been granted access to in the first place. As an attorney he knew all that, but went ahead anyway.

What "sensitive information" did Bishop release into "the public domain?"

And how have you determined that such inofrmation "had no bearing on the case whatsoever?"

Quote

Those are the facts, make your own mind up on the basis of them.

Not really.  Your recitation of "the facts" is heavily slanted and questionable in a number of ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 18, 2018 by smac97

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Both sides obviously wanted to originally approach this matter and settle it quietly, but that initial objective was destroyed when Denson went rogue and leaked her own recording to the media.

I think you meant to write, "but that initial objective was destroyed when Denson's claims were not taken seriously."

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

Both sides obviously wanted to originally approach this matter and settle it quietly, but that initial objective was destroyed when Denson went rogue and leaked her own recording to the media.

I think you meant to write, "but that initial objective was destroyed when Denson's claims were not taken seriously."

Nope, I didn't mean that.

The Church retained a law firm and entered into settlement negotiations with Denson's attorneys.  That doesn't sound like "Denson's claims were not taken seriously."

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

Not sure how relevant. But Denson stated that settlement stopped when the tape was released.

 

Also, Vernon and Jordan are opposing counsel on more than one case against the Church.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

Not sure how relevant. But Denson stated that settlement stopped when the tape was released.

Denson materially misled the public on this point.  She first objected to MormonLeaks publishing the recording, but then later admitted - through her attorney - that she was the one who "leaked" the recording to multiple media outlets (see here).

Quote

Also, Vernon and Jordan are opposing counsel on more than one case against the Church.

Yes, that's their bailiwick.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 18, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I think you meant to write, "but that initial objective was destroyed when Denson's claims were not taken seriously."

Since we have no knowledge of what was being discussed prior to the public release of the tape, how can you know or even guess that Denson's claims were not being taken seriously?

BYU Police and the UV Attorney certainly took them seriously.  Why wouldn't the Church and its legal reps?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I think you meant to write, "but that initial objective was destroyed when Denson's claims were not taken seriously."

Since we have no knowledge of what was being discussed prior to the public release of the tape, how can you know or even guess that Denson's claims were not being taken seriously?

BYU Police and the UV Attorney certainly took them seriously.  Why wouldn't the Church and its legal reps?

Because that accusation, baseless though it may be, makes the LDS Church look bad. 

QED.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

He would forgive. I want to add also, that the information about the victim, sure doesn't help others that have been abused want to come forward. Who would?

Bingo.  You nailed it Tacenda..seems like no one ever sees the consequences...which is what membership needs to see.  Whether there is an absolute proof..they know this man is not worthy of priesthood, temple ..and all else that he has been given..he said so!

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Bingo.  You nailed it Tacenda..seems like no one ever sees the consequences...which is what membership needs to see.  Whether there is an absolute proof..they know this man is not worthy of priesthood, temple ..and all else that he has been given..he said so!

I am curious why you feel the "membership needs to see" the sins / wrongful conduct of Joseph Bishop. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 18, 2018 by smac97

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious why you feel the "membership needs to see" the sins / wrongful conduct of Joseph Bishop. 

Thanks,

-Smac

So that they can believe what you do...and what I have also been told many times on this board..and that is people ..even people you admire make mistakes..and that there are mortal consequences for those mistakes.  That the church is real in their condemnation of such sins. 

[smac97]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Quote

I am curious why you feel the "membership needs to see" the sins / wrongful conduct of Joseph Bishop. 

So that they can believe what you do...and what I have also been told many times on this board..and that is people ..even people you admire make mistakes..and that there are mortal consequences for those mistakes. 

I'm not persuaded that the members of the Church are oblivious to such things.

Just now, Jeanne said:

That the church is real in their condemnation of such sins. 

And that means the LDS Church must publicize any discipline of Joseph Bishop?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

Just now, smac97 said:

I'm not persuaded that the members of the Church are oblivious to such things.

And that means the LDS Church must publicize any discipline of Joseph Bishop?

Thanks,

-Smac

To show just and honesty...yes, in this case..it is out there and if the church will just be open and truthful..it will give serve as justice for both sides.  Her story is out there..there is a need to know that the church will do something about this.  You put herself out there...silence from the leaders will only condemn them.  Why would they want that?

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To show just and honesty...yes,

I guess I don't understand that.  But I respect your opinion.

Quote

in this case..it is out there and if the church will just be open and truthful..it will give serve as justice for both sides. 

Would you have demanded this "open and truthful" stuff if the Church had complied with Denson's original efforts to resolve this matter through confidential negotiations?

Quote

Her story is out there..there is a need to know that the church will do something about this. 

I'm not sure there is a "need to know."

Quote

You put herself out there...

I don't understand this.  I did not put Denson "out there."  Her attorneys didn't put her "out there."  Denson per herself out there.

Quote

silence from the leaders will only condemn them. 

First, the LDS Church has not been "silent."  The Church has repeatedly condemned sexual abuse.

Second, what does this even mean?  Silence about what?  And how would such silence "condemn" the leaders of the LDS Church?

Quote

Why would they want that?

I don't think they would.  But there seems to be a rush to condemn them, and the entire Church, for misconduct that has only been alleged. 

I find that troubling.

-Smac

Edited April 18, 2018 by smac97

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess I don't understand that.  But I respect your opinion.

Would you have demanded this "open and truthful" stuff if the Church had complied with Denson's original efforts to resolve this matter through confidential negotiations?

I'm not sure there is a "need to know."

I don't understand this.  I did not put Denson "out there."  Her attorneys didn't put her "out there."  Denson per herself out there.

First, the LDS Church has not been "silent."  The Church has repeatedly condemned sexual abuse.

Second, what does this even mean?  Silence about what?  And how would such silence "condemn" the leaders of the LDS Church?

I don't think they would.  But there seems to be a rush to condemn them, and the entire Church, for misconduct that has only been alleged. 

I find that troubling.

-Smac

Smac..it is obvious that you and I are seeing things differently.  In your struggle to defend the church and Bishop in all of this..(and I am sure you think it is not  a struggle)  I see you defense as a die cast..a shield..a frustrating rationalization to keep you sane..really   I will not confer with you anymore on this as I see that your most utter defense is always...why?  I have good reasons for how I see this and feel my instincts are correct.  You have yours..and your right to defend is ..well..your right.  Silence from the church on what they plan to do or not..I guess doesn't matter..just like everything else..it just doesn't matter.  Sad for you members..IMO.

[why me]

58 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

To show just and honesty...yes, in this case..it is out there and if the church will just be open and truthful..it will give serve as justice for both sides.  Her story is out there..there is a need to know that the church will do something about this.  You put herself out there...silence from the leaders will only condemn them.  Why would they want that?

What does it mean to be open? Or to be honest? It seems critics love the church to be honest but what about? And what should leaders do? Abuse will occur in any organization. And in a church with millions of members, it will happen again. This only came to light because of Mormonleaks and because of Bishop's calling. Has Bishop been found guilty of anything yet?

Edited April 18, 2018 by why me

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Smac..it is obvious that you and I are seeing things differently. 

Some things, yes.

Quote

In your struggle to defend the church

I'm not persuaded that the Church really needs defending.

Quote

and Bishop in all of this..

I haven't been defending Bishop.  In fact, I have condemned his apparent misconduct.  Several times.

Quote

(and I am sure you think it is not  a struggle) 

You are correct.  I do not struggle with things I am not doing.

Quote

I see you defense as a die cast..a shield..a frustrating rationalization to keep you sane..really  

I don't understand what this means.  

And I'm far from going insane.  I am interested in this issue, to be sure.  I find your attempt to characterize me as being irrational about it is . . . weird.  I have done nothing to warrant such strange accusations.

Quote

I will not confer with you anymore on this as I see that your most utter defense is always...why? 

Again, I am not really defending "the Church," and I am not defending Bishop at all.

Quote

I have good reasons for how I see this and feel my instincts are correct.  You have yours..and your right to defend is ..well..your right. 

I respect your opinion.

Quote

Silence from the church on what they plan to do or not..I guess doesn't matter..just like everything else..it just doesn't matter.  Sad for you members..IMO.

I don't understand the cynicism/nihilism.  But I'll leave you to it.

I have been troubled by things in Church history.  Mountain Meadows.  The origins and some explanations of the Priesthood Ban.  Some aspects of polygamy.  

This issue likewise has some troubling aspects.  I think the bishop in the 1980s seriously erred in not reporting the allegations of abuse, but I am also gratified about the Church's extensive efforts since then to train bishops and give them the training and resources needed to address such allegations property.  I am concerned about the allegations that Ms. Denson met with Elder Asay, and that he did nothing thereafter.  However, I think this allegation is far from being established.  And above all, I am repulsed and dismayed at the apparent misconduct of Joseph Bishop, but the scope of that misconduct seems to be very much in dispute.

I concur that this issue is "sad" for members of our faith community.  We were, it seems, betrayed by a man who was placed in a position of significant trust, and who then appears to have violated that trust (again, the scope of that violation is very much in dispute).  However, I disagree with your cynical/nihilistic (or was it purely sarcastic?) declaration that "it just doesn't matter" what the Church does about all of this.  Of course it matters.  It matters a lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 18, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, why me said:

Quote

To show just and honesty...yes, in this case..it is out there and if the church will just be open and truthful..it will give serve as justice for both sides.  Her story is out there..there is a need to know that the church will do something about this.  You put herself out there...silence from the leaders will only condemn them.  Why would they want that?

What does it mean to be open? Or to be honest?

I think it means that the LDS Church is supposed to presume Joseph Bishop guilty and publicly humiliate him.

Quote

It seems critics love the church to be honest but what about?

"Honest" is a malleable term, it seems.  "Tell me everything that I want to know, 'cuz failure to do so means you are dishonest" seems to be the presently operative definition.

I will note, once again, that Ms. Denson's attorneys are the ones that sought a confidential settlement from the Church.  And the Church was in the midst of discussing such a settlement when Ms. Denson "leaked" the recording to the media.

So the accusations about the Church not being "honest" appear to be a one-way street. 

Denson wants a confidential settlement = Okey dokey!

LDS Church discusses a confidential settlement = Ah!  Dishonesty!

Quote

And what should leaders do? Abuse will occur in any organization. And in a church with millions o members, it will happen again. This only came to light because of Mormonleaks and because of Bishop's calling. Has Bishop been found guilty of anything yet?

No, he hasn't.  Not even close.  And he can't be found "guilty" (of a crime), only "liable" (for a tort).  And perhaps not even that, since the claims are 30+ years old.  

That would not eliminate the possibility of ecclesiastical discipline, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 18, 2018 by smac97

[Jeanne]

31 minutes ago, why me said:

What does it mean to be open? Or to be honest? It seems critics love the church to be honest but what about? And what should leaders do? Abuse will occur in any organization. And in a church with millions of members, it will happen again. This only came to light because of Mormonleaks and because of Bishop's calling. Has Bishop been found guilty of anything yet?

Be open in what the church is going to do...and to do it.  Not just words.  This man broke the laws of chastity in a million different ways...just by confession without trial..do what you are supposed to do and let people know that consequences has been preserved and served.  This way, your grand daughter..or great grand daughter will someday be able to come to you...the bishop..the stake president and say I have been abused!!  Why would you not want that????  Thank God for mormonleaks...this is the silence that is broken...and there is no..shut up..anymore!!

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Be open in what the church is going to do...and to do it.  Not just words. 

And do it now, without regard as to whether the allegations are true.  Guilty until proven innocent, and all that.  And sometimes not even then.

And do it publicly, 'cuz publicly humiliating Joseph Bishop and his family is the only way to avoid accusations of "dishonesty."

Quote

This man broke the laws of chastity in a million different ways...just by confession without trial...

Right.  No need to investigate or determine the scope of his wrongdoing.  Just nail him to the wall now.  Guilty until proven innocent.

An accusation alone is sufficient to destroy a person's life.  That's just the way things are.

As for his "confession," yes, it appears that he has confessed in the recording to something, but not rape or attempted rape.  And those are the legal claims in view.  And there are some rather serious limitations on the evidentiary value of that recording.  There are also serious problems with the statute of limitations.  And Denson's credibility.  And the priest/penitent privilege.

I think sexual misconduct against sister missionaries is extremely serious and merits attention, investigation and, if established, discipline (and criminal charges, if possible).  But this rush to judgment / trial by media circus/ pound of flesh stuff is rather off-putting and unseemly.  Why not just . . . wait and let the courts to their thing?

Quote

do what you are supposed to do and let people know that consequences has been preserved and served. 

"Let people know?"  How?  By publicly announcing his excommunication?  Before it's actually happened?

And when?  What's the rush?

Quote

This way, your grand daughter..or great grand daughter will someday be able to come to you...the bishop..the stake president and say I have been abused!! 

Disclosing abuse is a difficult thing.  I don't think a press release announcing the ecclesiastical discipline of an individual would garner much attention from young women in the Church.

But it sure would be grist for the critics and opponents of the Church, eh?  We're getting preemptive criticisms of the Church for failing to publicize the excommunication of Joseph Bishop, even though that hasn't happened yet.

I have two daughters.  I hope and pray nothing like this ever happens to them.  And if it does, I hope they would disclose it immediately.  To me and my wife.  To the police.  To a bishop.  To a trusted friend.  

But I've had that desire for a very long time, since they were born.

Quote

Why would you not want that???? 

Who are you to accuse other people of not wanting that????

Must it be your way or the highway?  The only moral approach to this difficult issue is what you decree?  Or is it just possible that people of good will and conscience might also be concerned about the welfare of the girls and women in the Church, and hence find your accusations to the contrary to be offensive and unwarranted and despicable?

-Smac

Edited April 18, 2018 by smac97