Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Soccermom]

What bar of evidence is the church trying to set with that statement?

The phrases:

"These allegations are very serious and deeply disturbing"; "If the allegations of sexual assault are true"; "Not surprisingly, the stories, timelines and recollections of those involved are dramatically different"; "The Church has great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims."; "Nevertheless, the Church takes seriously its responsibility to hold its members accountable for their conduct with respect of the laws of God and man"

are all over the place. Everyone agrees with the church that this is a deeply disturbing incident. And everyone agrees that there is the possibility that her version of the story may not be entirely accurate, though he admits to at the very least 'molestation', which most likely means assault. But within hours after the audio dropped, Deseret Book completely erased any association with him. They most certainly didn't do that without guidance from church leadership. So if the audio is disturbing enough to disavow the man, why implicitly place the blame of inaction on the police? I understand that the worst allegation is criminal, and that the church rightfully referred the matter to the police. But now that it is post-2017, the church needs to rethink it's 'great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims'. Their over-reliance on the judiciary (and we have to also partly blame society in general) is what kept this man able to abuse those under his power for years.

No statment would have been better than that statement. Factual or not, I really dislike the slight reference to the fact that she served a "brief" time as a missionary and is no longer a member of the church. Sounds like something a victim of sexual assault by a church leader would do!

Something pointed out in a feminist mormon housewives post mentions that the church got access to the tape in January and then in February was pushing for the both party consent to record converstaions law. Makes one wonder if the two events are related.

[Donuthole]

Something pointed out in a feminist mormon housewives post mentions that the church got access to the tape in January and then in February was pushing for the both party consent to record converstaions law. Makes one wonder if the two events are related.

Pushing for the new law wouldn’t have any effect on the Dec 2017 tape because it wouldn’t apply ex post facto. Also, didn’t he actually consent to the interview? I didn’t listen, but from the transcript it appeared he knew it was being recorded.

[Soccermom]

Pushing for the new law wouldn’t have any effect on the Dec 2017 tape because it wouldn’t apply ex post facto. Also, didn’t he actually consent to the interview? I didn’t listen, but from the transcript it appeared he knew it was being recorded.

Ah, didn't know he was aware he was being recorded. I didn't listen to the audio--just skimmed it. But I think that pushing for the new law could still be related if they were concerned about future tapes.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What bar of evidence is the church trying to set with that statement?

The phrases:

"These allegations are very serious and deeply disturbing"; "If the allegations of sexual assault are true"; "Not surprisingly, the stories, timelines and recollections of those involved are dramatically different"; "The Church has great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims."; "Nevertheless, the Church takes seriously its responsibility to hold its members accountable for their conduct with respect of the laws of God and man"

are all over the place. Everyone agrees with the church that this is a deeply disturbing incident. And everyone agrees that there is the possibility that her version of the story may not be entirely accurate, though he admits to at the very least 'molestation', which most likely means assault. But within hours after the audio dropped, Deseret Book completely erased any association with him. They most certainly didn't do that without guidance from church leadership. So if the audio is disturbing enough to disavow the man, why implicitly place the blame of inaction on the police? I understand that the worst allegation is criminal, and that the church rightfully referred the matter to the police. But now that it is post-2017, the church needs to rethink it's 'great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims'. Their over-reliance on the judiciary (and we have to also partly blame society in general) is what kept this man able to abuse those under his power for years.

Good grief. That is grossly oversimplistic. Suppose someone walks in an accuses you of a crime. You deny it. Should the church excommunicate you solely on the basis of the accusation with no other evidence? They are right, when criminal accusations are involved, the church does not have the same resources and techniques that law enforcement has and some deference to the legal process is unavoidable as the case moves forward.

As for the tape, that is very new material. The church didn't get it until what, January?

[Jeff Lebowski]

No statment would have been better than that statement. Factual or not, I really dislike the slight reference to the fact that she served a "brief" time as a missionary and is no longer a member of the church. Sounds like something a victim of sexual assault by a church leader would do!

Couldn't disagree more. No statement would have been far worse. If those two lines are the worst thing about the statement, they did a fantastic job in a horribly difficult situation.

[Northwestcoug]

Good grief. That is grossly oversimplistic. Suppose someone walks in an accuses you of a crime. You deny it. Should the church excommunicate you solely on the basis of the accusation with no other evidence? They are right, when criminal accusations are involved, the church does not have the same resources and techniques that law enforcement has and some deference to the legal process is unavoidable as the case moves forward.

As for the tape, that is very new material. The church didn't get it until what, January?

Alright. I'm not trying to be oversimplistic here. I there are two separate issues here. First, the issue of sexual assault. Given the events of last year, do you have a similar level of faith in the judicial system as the church, that it will rightly determine the judgement of these sorts of allegations? In it's statement, the church washed it's hands of her accusation once it handed the case over to the police department. Outside of conclusive physical evidence, it will comes down to she said/he said. I am not arguing that it should be fundamentally different in the judicial system. But after last year it has to be clear that there is plenty of guilt out there that the courts can't/won't punish. Does the church hold itself to a similar standard in discipline? Should it? In this case, he was allowed to continue his predatory ways, just because he denied it. I'm not saying there is necessarily a better way, but I think the 'faith in the judicial system' phrase is a cop out. And very oversimplistic.

By the way, the police department came out with a statement contradicting the church's version of events. They were only involved because she had apparently made threats; they did not address the allegations:

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/loc...7ca824e34.html

The second issue is what the church thinks of the allegations, irrespective of its statement. Do you think they believe them? I think it's pretty clear they do, since he is non-existent now in Deseret Bookstore. So why are they still playing it like they're not sure who to believe? And, if it's true that they had the audio since January, why did it take until the story blew up yesterday to scrub Deseret Bookstore's website until now?

[Flystripper]

Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

Honest question. Why was the church waiting on law enforcement to figure out what happened in this instance? Isn’t the statute of limitations for sexual assault (short of rape) only 8 years in Utah? The legal system ain’t gonna do shit for a sexual assault that occurred 30 years ago.

It seems to me that learning of the allegation and turning it over to police in 2010 was a bit of a cop out given that the victim never claimed rape, only attempted rape, and there is no statute of limitations on rape in Utah. Nothing was ever going to be done by the legal system in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I see nothing wrong with the girl or her motivations for confronting her predator. I think finding blame in sexual assault victims is about as déclassé as possible.

[Green Monstah]

non pc post that I'll probably regret:

I've never raped anyone. Or tried to rape someone but stopped mid act because I couldn't get it up. So I'm not speaking from experience. But it seems like "rape" is obviously not fair and maybe even "attempted rape" is also not fair in this case. Pulling a gun out and not pulling the trigger is not considered attempted murder, it's called deciding not to murder.

It’s aggravated assault, at minimum.

[Uncle Ted]

No statment would have been better than that statement. Factual or not, I really dislike the slight reference to the fact that she served a "brief" time as a missionary and is no longer a member of the church. Sounds like something a victim of sexual assault by a church leader would do!

Something pointed out in a feminist mormon housewives post mentions that the church got access to the tape in January and then in February was pushing for the both party consent to record converstaions law. Makes one wonder if the two events are related.

Pushing for the new law wouldn’t have any effect on the Dec 2017 tape because it wouldn’t apply ex post facto. Also, didn’t he actually consent to the interview? I didn’t listen, but from the transcript it appeared he knew it was being recorded.

Why would the Church and a "Court of Love" even care that it has consent of both parties?

"Brother Bishop... We heard you some really terrible things on an audio recording being passed around on the internet but since you didn't give your consent to that recording we can't use it in this Court of Love. Therefore, we assume that you stand by the statement you made 30+ years ago that nothing happened between you and the victim. You are free to go, Brother.

As for the PR damage this will blow over like that Mountain Meadows Massacre thing did eventually, I am sure. We may make a statement that we are sorry in about 150 years or so when we are absolutely sure the church will bare no more liability. We may need to release you, however, from your calling as second counselor in the sunday school for a little while just to show folks that we won't tolerate this kind of stuff."

[wuapinmon]

This is reminiscent of Watergate. The cover up is going to be the bigger story... This is going to be picked up nationally, and it's going to hurt.

The back story of the knowledge of this is also a bit curious... Is it possible that Pres. Nelson knew about this going in and Elder Uchtdorf was not retained based upon his previous knowledge and chosen course of action?

Come on, dude. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? I can't abide that kind of speculation; it feels unfair, inflammatory, and slanderous.

Alright. I'm not trying to be oversimplistic here. I there are two separate issues here. First, the issue of sexual assault. Given the events of last year, do you have a similar level of faith in the judicial system as the church, that it will rightly determine the judgement of these sorts of allegations? In it's statement, the church washed it's hands of her accusation once it handed the case over to the police department. Outside of conclusive physical evidence, it will comes down to she said/he said. I am not arguing that it should be fundamentally different in the judicial system. But after last year it has to be clear that there is plenty of guilt out there that the courts can't/won't punish. Does the church hold itself to a similar standard in discipline? Should it? In this case, he was allowed to continue his predatory ways, just because he denied it. I'm not saying there is necessarily a better way, but I think the 'faith in the judicial system' phrase is a cop out. And very oversimplistic.

By the way, the police department came out with a statement contradicting the church's version of events. They were only involved because she had apparently made threats; they did not address the allegations:

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/loc...7ca824e34.html

The second issue is what the church thinks of the allegations, irrespective of its statement. Do you think they believe them? I think it's pretty clear they do, since he is non-existent now in Deseret Bookstore. So why are they still playing it like they're not sure who to believe? And, if it's true that they had the audio since January, why did it take until the story blew up yesterday to scrub Deseret Bookstore's website until now?

I didn't think you were being overly simplistic. The washing its hands metaphor is fairly apt too.

[Sleeping in EQ]

This matter was brought to the attention of the Church in 2010, when this former Church member, who served briefly as a missionary in 1984, told leaders of the Pleasant Grove Utah West Stake that she had been sexually assaulted by the president of the Provo Missionary Training Center, Joseph Bishop, 25 years earlier.

For the most part the press release is fine, but the word "a" would be much better here. And how long did she serve a mission? If she served the full 18 months, the Church certainly doesn't consider that serving "briefly" in other contexts.

[ERCougar]

I've only skimmed this thread, so sorry if this has been addressed, but the (in)action that I'm having a really hard time wrapping my brain around is what happened in January. Outside counsel hired to investigate? Good. They see the stories differ and drop it? Hmm...a bit of a head scratcher, considering the tape, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they have access to evidence we don't. But then, the day this comes out, his online church presence (deseret book and the like) is scrubbed? So suddenly, the evidence is enough to at least take some action?
It's really hard to escape the conclusion that they didnt really care until they had to.

Does anyone know if he's had a court? Because the church has held courts on far less evidence. I don't doubt we'll see one now that everyone's watching, which will only reinforce the question, "what were you waiting for? "

[Jeff Lebowski]

Alright. I'm not trying to be oversimplistic here. I there are two separate issues here. First, the issue of sexual assault. Given the events of last year, do you have a similar level of faith in the judicial system as the church, that it will rightly determine the judgement of these sorts of allegations? In it's statement, the church washed it's hands of her accusation once it handed the case over to the police department. Outside of conclusive physical evidence, it will comes down to she said/he said. I am not arguing that it should be fundamentally different in the judicial system. But after last year it has to be clear that there is plenty of guilt out there that the courts can't/won't punish. Does the church hold itself to a similar standard in discipline? Should it? In this case, he was allowed to continue his predatory ways, just because he denied it. I'm not saying there is necessarily a better way, but I think the 'faith in the judicial system' phrase is a cop out. And very oversimplistic.

By the way, the police department came out with a statement contradicting the church's version of events. They were only involved because she had apparently made threats; they did not address the allegations:

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/loc...7ca824e34.html

When you say "last year", what are you talking about? The church got the recording in January. Two months ago.

Again, what would you do differently in a "he said/she said" context? Not just this case, but in general. Always believe the accuser? Don't you think they have some obligation to be careful and deliberate?

The second issue is what the church thinks of the allegations, irrespective of its statement. Do you think they believe them? I think it's pretty clear they do, since he is non-existent now in Deseret Bookstore. So why are they still playing it like they're not sure who to believe? And, if it's true that they had the audio since January, why did it take until the story blew up yesterday to scrub Deseret Bookstore's website until now?

I agree that the recording is very damning. He admits to being a sexual predator, even if he claimed to have a hazy memory about the incident in question. I am sure that they have been taking it very seriously since that point in time. But I wouldn't put much significance to the fact that it took them two months to pull some stuff from Deseret Book that most likely nobody is buying anyway.

[ERCougar]

When you say "last year", what are you talking about? The church got the recording in January. Two months ago.

Again, what would you do differently in a "he said/she said" context? Not just this case, but in general. Always believe the accuser? Don't you think they have some obligation to be careful and deliberate?



I agree that the recording is very damning. He admits to being a sexual predator, even if he claimed to have a hazy memory about the incident in question. I am sure that they have been taking it very seriously since that point in time. But I wouldn't put much significance to the fact that it took them two months to pull some stuff from Deseret Book that most likely nobody is buying anyway.

Ha, looks like NWC had the same question. Sorry to rehash.

I wonder what "take it seriously" means. It took them hours to decide to scrub him from deseret book, but they can't hold a court? Two months is a long time to sit on this kind of evidence. I realize he's 85, but it's a terrible precedent to set, if they're truly interested in protecting future victims.