sunstoned Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm curious why you think a Bishop would be better at this? Why would 1 person who changes every few years be more reliable than a system with organizational accountability? Bishop's don't receive training on this kind of thing. I understand concerns about the current HC office, but it seems like it would be a much more sustainable and reliable process to work with. One man acting unilaterally would seem to be more capricious than a bureaucratic system with checks, balances, and appeals. I agree in that there is accountability with the HC office. There is recourse. There is really no accountability with Bishops.
sunstoned Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 4 hours ago, katherine the great said: Many sexual assaults are not considered "rape". A rape kit won't reveal an unwanted sexual groping event. It also doesn't help in situations like when a Provo Police Officer took it upon his self to report the assault to BYU.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 4 hours ago, provoman said: Bishops endorsement is an Honor Code requirement, suspension from BYU for an endorsement revoked to due activity "at or near" the time of the sexual assault sure seems to violate the amnesty clause. The amnesty clause is a BYU clause. It has no effect on independent bishops, who are not part of BYU.
provoman Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 10 minutes ago, sunstoned said: It also doesn't help in situations like when a Provo Police Officer took it upon his self to report the assault to BYU. yeah who did he think he was scoring points with that jerk move
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 5 hours ago, katherine the great said: Many sexual assaults are not considered "rape". A rape kit won't reveal an unwanted sexual groping event. Of course. I was speaking only of rape.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 5 hours ago, toon said: The problem is when, while that investigation is still pending, the bishop asks to meet with the victim to discuss the incident. It's my understanding that that is what happened here. And based on what someone who claimed to have been the victim posted in another forum, her response was that she had been advised not to talk about it, including the drinking, while the investigation was pending. But because she refused to discuss the matter, the bishop apparently felt that she wasn't willing to deal with her issues (unrepentant?) and revoked the endorsement. Now I recognize that's just one side of the story, coming from someone posting relatively anonymously but claiming to be the victim. So that may not be how it played out. But if it was, it's problematic in the least. You are talking about a BYU student ward bishop, not the home ward bishop. The student is not obligated in any way to discuss the matter with either bishop, and does not need to answer any questions of a bishop. A bishop is not a "boss," and has no authority to ride herd on anyone. Confession (as in the confessional to an ecclesiastical authority) is always voluntary. Is never required. Information made publicly available is of course usable by any bishop in his action to call a bishops court (or stake high council) into being. For example, a secular conviction for rape will typically be used by a stake pres to call a high council mtg at which the convicted rapist will be excommunicated. A bishop cannot take unilateral action based on mere rumor. He needs facts.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: But the bishop in Podunck Iowa isn't likely to have the perpetrator come to him to turn in the victim as a retaliation. So it seems that most of these issues would occur in the student wards, not in the home ward (which doesn't even have the students records once they move) Bishops assigned to BYU student wards can only be involved if the perp comes to make an accusation. If he cannot verify the accusation, that would seem to prevent any further action from being taken. Meantime, the ecclesiastical endorsement by which the student got into BYU came from a home ward bishop. If the student ward bishop can simply remove that endorsement at will, even without adequate evidence, that does present a serious problem. Does BYU have a specific policy in place to deal with that quandary? Do you know for a fact that BYU student ward bishops are allowed to override the amnesty clause, thus rendering it of no value?
Exiled Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Attempting to control bishops would be an inappropriate top down act, which cannot be justified in a horizontal Church. BYU is an arm of the Church, and the Brethren are its Board of Trustees. That has nothing to do with independent bishops throughout the world, who are going to make their own judgments if they are told of any wayward ward members. Retaliation is going to happen. No way to avoid it. If you drop acid, smoke a joint, or get stoned some other way, that just may get back to the bishop. However, I do not know what Church policy is on this matter. Horizontal church? It seems the contrary in that SLC controls the building where the ward meets, controls practically all the money that comes in, writes the manuals, sets the schedule choices, and has a very detailed handbook of procedures and instructions. That seems like top-down, vertical control to me with maybe a little splash of horizontal in that SLC doesn't tell bishops what to say in every circumstance. However, it has been a long time since I dropped acid 👽 so I am open to hear how it is a horizontal church. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Exiled said: Horizontal church? It seems the contrary in that SLC controls the building where the ward meets, controls practically all the money that comes in, writes the manuals, sets the schedule choices, and has a very detailed handbook of procedures and instructions. That seems like top-down, vertical control to me with maybe a little splash of horizontal in that SLC doesn't tell bishops what to say in every circumstance. However, it has been a long time since I dropped acid 👽 so I am open to hear how it is a horizontal church. Sociologists consider it horizontal in that lay bishops and stake presidents function on their own without tight hierarchical supervision. The same is largely true of other churches, which likewise publish standardized Sunday School manuals, and all the rest -- the main difference being that they have a highly trained professional clergy. A truly hierarchical top-down operation is more like Scientology.
clarkgoble Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 47 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I agree in that there is accountability with the HC office. There is recourse. There is really no accountability with Bishops. Bishops are under Stake Presidents and you can usually contact them. There's no one to contact if you think the HCO screwed up.
Amulek Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 hour ago, katherine the great said: Nah. For a playful pinch on the buttocks I would just report it to Human Resources and let them deal with it. I would be okay with that. That was kind of my point. Sexual assault includes a spectrum of behavior, ranging from an playful pinch up to rape. So, when I hear somebody say that the assailant in a sexual assault case must be kicked out of school, my mind immediately tries to think of an exception for when that might not be the correct result. Something far enough down the assault spectrum, like say a pinch, seems to qualify. If, however, by sexual assault, one only means more sever forms of assault, then sure - I'm on board with you there. Quote It's clear that this went way beyond that. After groping her, he laid on top of her and tried to rip her clothes off. That's a sexual assault. I agree. And in the case discussed in the article I think revoking the perpetrator's ecclesiastical endorsement was eminently justified.
provoman Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The amnesty clause is a BYU clause. It has no effect on independent bishops, who are not part of BYU. I never said or indicated it applied to Bishops. I clearly and simply explained how the amnesty clause covers loss of endorsrment, because the loss of endorsement is due to conduct at or near the time of the asssault. AND endorsement is an honor code requirement. Edited August 9, 2018 by provoman 1
clarkgoble Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, provoman said: I clearly and simply explained how the amnesty clause covers loss of endorsrment, because the loss of endorsement is due to conduct at or near the time of the asssault. AND endorsement is an honor code requirement. Near? So if someone files a Title IX then goes out drinking the next week and is seen, that's a problem even if the Bishop knew nothing about the Title IX incident? This example we've all been discussing sounds bad because the Bishop seems pretty clueless on a whole slew of levels. (Assuming of course the reports are accurate - never a sure thing with the press) But it's also a rare case where it appears the Bishop is over both people which honestly. What are the chances two people from the same ward are out partying to the point they're both so drunk they are making horrible choices and one assaults the other? I'm not going to say it never happens but it's got to be reasonably uncommon. Don't get me wrong, the perp sounds like someone who is pretty screwed up to say the least. When I heard he was working towards marriage my first thought is why on earth is the Bishop supporting this? He should be warning the fiancé! Edited August 9, 2018 by clarkgoble 2
HappyJackWagon Posted August 9, 2018 Author Posted August 9, 2018 12 hours ago, sunstoned said: It is not just students. This applies for employees also. A bishop has supreme power. He controls a person's education and professional job. I knew an individual who was fired from his job with the church because he lost his ecclesiastical endorsement. Why did he lose the endorsement? Fun story... This friend was a bishop who worked for the church. One of his direct reports was the stake president. The stake president became upset with an assignment he was given and refused to do it. The SP told the bishop (his boss) to give someone else the assignment. The bishop stuck to his guns because he needed the SP to do it. The SP took away the bishop's TR which was a requirement for church employment for failure to support and sustain the priesthood leader. The bishop lost his job with the church. The bishop appealed the process to the 70 over the SP, but the 70 refused to get involved in a personal matter. Long story short, a couple of years after my friend lost his job with the church, he won a lawsuit against the church yet the SP remained in his office as SP and working for the church. In this case, removing the TR was the same thing as removing the ecclesiastical endorsement. It was an abuse of power that allowed the SP to fire the bishop and then step into his role as supervisor in his employment. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted August 9, 2018 Author Posted August 9, 2018 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Bishops assigned to BYU student wards can only be involved if the perp comes to make an accusation. If he cannot verify the accusation, that would seem to prevent any further action from being taken. Meantime, the ecclesiastical endorsement by which the student got into BYU came from a home ward bishop. If the student ward bishop can simply remove that endorsement at will, even without adequate evidence, that does present a serious problem. Does BYU have a specific policy in place to deal with that quandary? Do you know for a fact that BYU student ward bishops are allowed to override the amnesty clause, thus rendering it of no value? Any bishop can give or remove an ecclesiastical endorsement. If the student gets the endorsement from Bishop Smith in Podunck Iowa but then moves to a student ward in Rexburg, Bishop Johnson is fully capable or removing that endorsement. We know for a fact it happened in the situation in the OP. The student was promised there wouldn't be discipline from the school, yet when the bishop rescinded her endorsement, school policy required her expulsion.
clarkgoble Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: I knew an individual who was fired from his job with the church because he lost his ecclesiastical endorsement. Why did he lose the endorsement? Fun story... This friend was a bishop who worked for the church. One of his direct reports was the stake president. The stake president became upset with an assignment he was given and refused to do it. The SP told the bishop (his boss) to give someone else the assignment. The bishop stuck to his guns because he needed the SP to do it. The SP took away the bishop's TR which was a requirement for church employment for failure to support and sustain the priesthood leader. The bishop lost his job with the church. The bishop appealed the process to the 70 over the SP, but the 70 refused to get involved in a personal matter. Long story short, a couple of years after my friend lost his job with the church, he won a lawsuit against the church yet the SP remained in his office as SP and working for the church. In this case, removing the TR was the same thing as removing the ecclesiastical endorsement. It was an abuse of power that allowed the SP to fire the bishop and then step into his role as supervisor in his employment. Should have fired him before he lost his job.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 9, 2018 Author Posted August 9, 2018 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Near? So if someone files a Title IX then goes out drinking the next week and is seen, that's a problem even if the Bishop knew nothing about the Title IX incident? This example we've all been discussing sounds bad because the Bishop seems pretty clueless on a whole slew of levels. (Assuming of course the reports are accurate - never a sure thing with the press) But it's also a rare case where it appears the Bishop is over both people which honestly. What are the chances two people from the same ward are out partying to the point they're both so drunk they are making horrible choices and one assaults the other? I'm not going to say it never happens but it's got to be reasonably uncommon. Don't get me wrong, the perp sounds like someone who is pretty screwed up to say the least. When I heard he was working towards marriage my first thought is why on earth is the Bishop supporting this? He should be warning the fiancé! It is my understanding that a person doesn't get a complete pass to break any honor code rules they want if they have filed a sxual assault report. But if as part of the assault report it comes out that she was drinking, or wearing clothing that wasn't to standard, or in an apartment after hours etc, she wouldn't be punished for those infractions. If she goes out the next week and gets drunk, the two instances are totally unrelated and it would seem reasonable for a bishop to address that issue. In a student ward that doesn't sound very unusual at all. When I was at BYU my social circle were the apartment complexes in my ward. It's pretty natural. So if you're hanging out with people in your ward, obviously the same bishop would be involved.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 9, 2018 Author Posted August 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Should have fired him before he lost his job. The irony is that the bishop was actually the SP's bishop so he could have made the same claim about not sustaining the leader, but my friend wasn't a schmuck and didn't want to abuse the position. But yes, this work disagreement caused the bishop to lose his job and his calling
toon Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You are talking about a BYU student ward bishop, not the home ward bishop. The student is not obligated in any way to discuss the matter with either bishop, and does not need to answer any questions of a bishop. A bishop is not a "boss," and has no authority to ride herd on anyone. Confession (as in the confessional to an ecclesiastical authority) is always voluntary. Is never required. Information made publicly available is of course usable by any bishop in his action to call a bishops court (or stake high council) into being. For example, a secular conviction for rape will typically be used by a stake pres to call a high council mtg at which the convicted rapist will be excommunicated. A bishop cannot take unilateral action based on mere rumor. He needs facts. In this case, the two students were in the same ward. The perp met with the bishop, confessed, and presumably also provided him with the victim's name, claiming that she had been drinking. The bishop then met with her, and she refused to discuss it. It appears that, because of her refusal, the bishop then revoked her endorsement. Yes, she also could have refused to even meet with him. I suspect that also would have resulted in a revoked endorsement. I'm not sure the difference between a home a student ward bishop, as both have the ability to revoke an endorsement. 1
toon Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Meantime, the ecclesiastical endorsement by which the student got into BYU came from a home ward bishop. If the student ward bishop can simply remove that endorsement at will, even without adequate evidence, that does present a serious problem. Does BYU have a specific policy in place to deal with that quandary? Do you know for a fact that BYU student ward bishops are allowed to override the amnesty clause, thus rendering it of no value? While the original endorsement to get into BYU may come from the home ward, continuing endorsements may come from the student ward. I was at BYU when they implemented the continuing endorsement requirement. At or near the end of each academic year, the student ward bishop would schedule continuing-endorsement interviews with all the students in the ward who were planning on returning the next year. If that bishop doesn't issue the continuing endorsement, the student cannot return the next year. In addition, the student ward bishop has the ability to revoke an endorsement mid-semester, and if that happens the student doesn't even get to finish the semester, likely gets kicked our of housing, and probably gets no tuition refund. Seems like the solution here, given that there appears to be an appeal process to the school in the event an endorsement is revoked, would be to require whoever hears that appeal to consult with the Title IX office as well as the bishop when making a decision, in order to ensure that the amnesty policy is followed. So a discussion with the bishop in order to determine why he revoked the endorsement. If the related to conduct that occurred on or around the time of the assault, then there's a call to the Title IX office to see if this conduct, had it been reported to them, would have resulted in amnesty. If so, then the student remains in school notwithstanding the revocation of the endorsement. 1
bluebell Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: The irony is that the bishop was actually the SP's bishop so he could have made the same claim about not sustaining the leader, but my friend wasn't a schmuck and didn't want to abuse the position. But yes, this work disagreement caused the bishop to lose his job and his calling It's really hard to believe a SP could remove a bishop's TR with no cause and that a General Authority would refuse to get involved when the bishop went to him because it was a personal matter. That's not a personal matter at all, it's an ecclesiastical matter.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 9, 2018 Author Posted August 9, 2018 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: It's really hard to believe a SP could remove a bishop's TR with no cause and that a General Authority would refuse to get involved when the bishop went to him because it was a personal matter. That's not a personal matter at all, it's an ecclesiastical matter. I know this person very well and would be shocked if he made up that kind of elaborate story but you can choose to believe it or not. Moral of the story- Life is unfair sometimes and power is abused. Even in the church. Limiting the possibility of abuse is a good thing.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 1 hour ago, toon said: While the original endorsement to get into BYU may come from the home ward, continuing endorsements may come from the student ward. I was at BYU when they implemented the continuing endorsement requirement. At or near the end of each academic year, the student ward bishop would schedule continuing-endorsement interviews with all the students in the ward who were planning on returning the next year. If that bishop doesn't issue the continuing endorsement, the student cannot return the next year. In addition, the student ward bishop has the ability to revoke an endorsement mid-semester, and if that happens the student doesn't even get to finish the semester, likely gets kicked our of housing, and probably gets no tuition refund. Seems like the solution here, given that there appears to be an appeal process to the school in the event an endorsement is revoked, would be to require whoever hears that appeal to consult with the Title IX office as well as the bishop when making a decision, in order to ensure that the amnesty policy is followed. So a discussion with the bishop in order to determine why he revoked the endorsement. If the related to conduct that occurred on or around the time of the assault, then there's a call to the Title IX office to see if this conduct, had it been reported to them, would have resulted in amnesty. If so, then the student remains in school notwithstanding the revocation of the endorsement. Sounds good to me.
bluebell Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I know this person very well and would be shocked if he made up that kind of elaborate story but you can choose to believe it or not. Moral of the story- Life is unfair sometimes and power is abused. Even in the church. Limiting the possibility of abuse is a good thing. I'm not saying it can't be true, only that it's a shocking claim that implies a breakdown on two different levels, both in the church and in regards to his job. It requires at least 3 other people to behave in really unreasonable ways, which is difficult to believe. Could still have happened though. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2018 Posted August 9, 2018 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Any bishop can give or remove an ecclesiastical endorsement. If the student gets the endorsement from Bishop Smith in Podunck Iowa but then moves to a student ward in Rexburg, Bishop Johnson is fully capable or removing that endorsement. We know for a fact it happened in the situation in the OP. The student was promised there wouldn't be discipline from the school, yet when the bishop rescinded her endorsement, school policy required her expulsion. So there is no appeal based on Title IX, as suggested by toon? And was the perp allowed to just walk around free pending trial for rape?
Recommended Posts