Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[old_gregg]

Provo Daily Herald report:

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

I don't think there is anything new there. But this line struck me:



Interesting, given our conversation here. Bishop himself seems to think that excommunication is warranted.

tough to sort out what is manipulation and what is not. he seems to have learned that manifestations of contrition are pretty good leverage to avoid any real punishment.

[originalsocal]

I didn't say that none of this happened. I'm not taking that position at all.

He said it didn't happen. She says that it did. I don't feel like I am taking a position either way. If it came off that way, that was not my intention.

Let the law go through its process. Let the legal action go through its process. Let the Church go through their process.

I feel bad for an old man and his family that are guilty until proven innocent. I feel bad that the woman is having her life drug through the press as well. And you are correct, I don't like that folks are popping up out of the woodwork to take this opportunity to drag the Church over the coals yet again.

I don't post much, probably because I don't think I am a very good writer, but I'll give it a shot here.

Letting the processes run their course is not the problem. The processes ran. The only processes that are running right now are PR ones. The problem I see here is the process followed by the Church and the law failed to address the safety and well being of a disadvantaged woman. From a Church perspective there were many people along the way that dropped the ball, which allowed a predator to remain in a position of power, further compromising the safety of female members. I give exactly zero shits for this old man. I'm mildly perturbed at the defensiveness of the his son, who is in a bad position. I'm bothered by the ex-mo horde opportunists. I'm really irritated by Church members who assume the worst in a justifiably disaffected former member of the Church who at best was sexually assaulted, and at worst outright raped.

As to the victims possible nefarious means of releasing this tape, given the circumstance I'll give her a pass.

I think the comments from the Church are what need to be said at this point. Hopefully the aftermath creates the incentive for the Church respond with positive changes that will help to prevent this in the future.

So, Tick, respectfully I say the way you have portrayed this woman is not only unfair, but downright crappy especially since you have decided to make the judgment without even reading the transcript.

[Bo Diddley]

I don't post much, probably because I don't think I am a very good writer, but I'll give it a shot here.

Letting the processes run their course is not the problem. The processes ran. The only processes that are running right now are PR ones. The problem I see here is the process followed by the Church and the law failed to address the safety and well being of a disadvantaged woman. From a Church perspective there were many people along the way that dropped the ball, which allowed a predator to remain in a position of power, further compromising the safety of female members. I give exactly zero shits for this old man. I'm mildly perturbed at the defensiveness of the his son, who is in a bad position. I'm bothered by the ex-mo horde opportunists. I'm really irritated by Church members who assume the worst in a justifiably disaffected former member of the Church who at best was sexually assaulted, and at worst outright raped.

As to the victims possible nefarious means of releasing this tape, given the circumstance I'll give her a pass.

I think the comments from the Church are what need to be said at this point. Hopefully the aftermath creates the incentive for the Church respond with positive changes that will help to prevent this in the future.

So, Tick, respectfully I say the way you have portrayed this woman is not only unfair, but downright crappy especially since you have decided to make the judgment without even reading the transcript.

My heart goes out to her. No one is in a position to judge her after the things she's had to endure in life. I'll also say that she's completely justified to release the tape if that's what she wants to do.

[Jeff Lebowski]

My heart goes out to her. No one is in a position to judge her after the things she's had to endure in life. I'll also say that she's completely justified to release the tape if that's what she wants to do.

She didn’t release the tape. In fact she is upset that the tape was released.

[Bo Diddley]

She didn’t release the tape. In fact she is upset that the tape was released.

Right. I should have said "she would be justified" I that's what she were to choose.

[The_Tick]

I don't post much, probably because I don't think I am a very good writer, but I'll give it a shot here.

Letting the processes run their course is not the problem. The processes ran. The only processes that are running right now are PR ones. The problem I see here is the process followed by the Church and the law failed to address the safety and well being of a disadvantaged woman. From a Church perspective there were many people along the way that dropped the ball, which allowed a predator to remain in a position of power, further compromising the safety of female members. I give exactly zero shits for this old man. I'm mildly perturbed at the defensiveness of the his son, who is in a bad position. I'm bothered by the ex-mo horde opportunists. I'm really irritated by Church members who assume the worst in a justifiably disaffected former member of the Church who at best was sexually assaulted, and at worst outright raped.

As to the victims possible nefarious means of releasing this tape, given the circumstance I'll give her a pass.

I think the comments from the Church are what need to be said at this point. Hopefully the aftermath creates the incentive for the Church respond with positive changes that will help to prevent this in the future.

So, Tick, respectfully I say the way you have portrayed this woman is not only unfair, but downright crappy especially since you have decided to make the judgment without even reading the transcript.

I will make the time tonight to read the transcript. And I will look at what I wrote.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I do it all the time.

[ERCougar]

I want to expound a little on my earlier comment.

The ex-mormon and anti-mormon factions can't separate Church bureaucracy and the Gospel (what I view as the Church) because it helps make their case against the divinity of the Church. "How could the Church leaders allow such a horrible man to be in such a position if they are truly inspired by God?"

Then there is the group within the Church that cannot separate the two either. They believe that all decisions/callings in the Church, while not perfect, are inspired, making the bureaucracy inspired as well. They see situations, such as this one, as a direct sign of Satan's opposition to the Church. So they defend the Church at every turn, regardless of the situation. Even against compelling evidence.

If Asay was indeed made aware of the allegations against Bishop, then the Church bureaucracy does deserve criticism for allowing Bishop to remain in his calling...not for placing him in the position initially (this assumes no one was aware of his issues beforehand). I agree with MartyFunk that they handled it similarly to how many large organizations and religions addressed the issue of sexual predators/sexual assault in the past. So my hope is that the bureaucracy will learn from this situation, and have a better approach in the future.

Similar to temple interviews, when a member is called to a position, the bishop,et al does so with faith that the person has disclosed any egregious sins to the appropriate authority. Leadership is not immune to the deceptions and failings of human nature. To believe otherwise, places them on an untouchable pedestal that is not fair to them.

Point taken, but I'm not sure how applicable it is here.I
I don't see many (or any) people drawing theological conclusions from this. However, if I'm making the real-world decision of whether I want to participate, or more specifically here, if I want my daughter to participate in Church functions, the functioning of the bureaucracy is kind of important, maybe the most important thing. I can sit and read the BOM with her at home, after all. So if I'm considering sending her to YW or a mission, I would like to know that she's safe, regardless of what anyone claims about eternal families or Jews in America. And if something happens--or if she claims that something happens--I'd like to be reassured that the first step of the Church leaders would be to believe her and protect her, ten times before worrying about whether a legally convictable offense has occurred (or what PR or liability issues they face). I'd also like to believe that her fellow members' immediate reaction would be one of protection, rather than combing through her past to see if she's credible. I'm not feeling very reassured on either front, and the question of whether Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ or just God or nothing hasn't really played into that.

Sidenote (not directed at you, JIC): I get that it's kind of gauche to only show up to someone's domain to criticize, and that really wasn't my intent in commenting. If you go to back to my original post, I really just wanted to question the contrast between the swiftness of the response these last few days, with the apparently slow one of the last few months since the Church has really known about this. Yes, that's a criticism, but I'm fleshing out thoughts, and I also can get a little bit more of the rationale of the Church's response. I don't think the Church is evil--I think they had a really tough situation to deal with and they didn't anticipate this. Hopefully, that's a lesson for them, and hopefully, their default response will be more victim-friendly in the future (note: that doesn't require crucifying Bishop--had they acted more aggressively, I think it's clear his name would be less newsworthy right now). I really will move on now--not interested in piling on.

[falafel]

I want to expound a little on my earlier comment.

The ex-mormon and anti-mormon factions can't separate Church bureaucracy and the Gospel (what I view as the Church) because it helps make their case against the divinity of the Church. "How could the Church leaders allow such a horrible man to be in such a position if they are truly inspired by God?"

Then there is the group within the Church that cannot separate the two either. They believe that all decisions/callings in the Church, while not perfect, are inspired, making the bureaucracy inspired as well. They see situations, such as this one, as a direct sign of Satan's opposition to the Church. So they defend the Church at every turn, regardless of the situation. Even against compelling evidence.

If Asay was indeed made aware of the allegations against Bishop, then the Church bureaucracy does deserve criticism for allowing Bishop to remain in his calling...not for placing him in the position initially (this assumes no one was aware of his issues beforehand). I agree with MartyFunk that they handled it similarly to how many large organizations and religions addressed the issue of sexual predators/sexual assault in the past. So my hope is that the bureaucracy will learn from this situation, and have a better approach in the future.

Similar to temple interviews, when a member is called to a position, the bishop,et al does so with faith that the person has disclosed any egregious sins to the appropriate authority. Leadership is not immune to the deceptions and failings of human nature. To believe otherwise, places them on an untouchable pedestal that is not fair to them.

Good post.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Point taken, but I'm not sure how applicable it is here.I
I don't see many (or any) people drawing theological conclusions from this. However, if I'm making the real-world decision of whether I want to participate, or more specifically here, if I want my daughter to participate in Church functions, the functioning of the bureaucracy is kind of important, maybe the most important thing. I can sit and read the BOM with her at home, after all. So if I'm considering sending her to YW or a mission, I would like to know that she's safe, regardless of what anyone claims about eternal families or Jews in America. And if something happens--or if she claims that something happens--I'd like to be reassured that the first step of the Church leaders would be to believe her and protect her, ten times before worrying about whether a legally convictable offense has occurred (or what PR or liability issues they face). I'd also like to believe that her fellow members' immediate reaction would be one of protection, rather than combing through her past to see if she's credible. I'm not feeling very reassured on either front, and the question of whether Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ or just God or nothing hasn't really played into that.

Sidenote (not directed at you, JIC): I get that it's kind of gauche to only show up to someone's domain to criticize, and that really wasn't my intent in commenting. If you go to back to my original post, I really just wanted to question the contrast between the swiftness of the response these last few days, with the apparently slow one of the last few months since the Church has really known about this. Yes, that's a criticism, but I'm fleshing out thoughts, and I also can get a little bit more of the rationale of the Church's response. I don't think the Church is evil--I think they had a really tough situation to deal with and they didn't anticipate this. Hopefully, that's a lesson for them, and hopefully, their default response will be more victim-friendly in the future (note: that doesn't require crucifying Bishop--had they acted more aggressively, I think it's clear his name would be less newsworthy right now). I really will move on now--not interested in piling on.

If that is your criteria, she is probably just as safe (if not safer) on a mission than anywhere else (college, work, etc). Nothing is 100% safe.

[falafel]

Sorry if this has been posted. I have been away from the thread for the last day or so.

Bishop's attorney, which is also his son, is pushing back pretty hard against the accuser. He has produced documents (apparently) that show she has a pretty detailed history of claiming sexual assault and other things, only to recant or have authorities conclude she was not being truthful. None of this means that she is not being truthful about Bishop, and perhaps Bishop's actions contributed to these later actions.

Bishop's family told Fox 13 they question the woman's claims because of her "long history of false accusations and criminal activity."

The family sent Fox 13 documents that list more than a half a dozen times the accuser claimed she was sexually or physically assaulted.

One of those incidents was in 1999, where the woman claimed she was assaulted in a parking lot by two men, then asserted legal claims against her place of work for failing to have proper security.

Police reports show the case was unfounded and states, "the complainant has confessed to providing misleading and incomplete information... "

There was another claim of sexual assault made 10 years earlier while on her mission. The accuser says she was struggling with what Bishop did to her and wanted to go home.

Woman: "Pretended somebody in the [expletive] parking lot tried to rape me, because I was having an anxiety attack and I didn't want to tell anybody."

Other incidents ranged from allegedly lying about cancer treatments for money, forging prescriptions, and DUI. Police documents show the woman also claimed a restaurant put razor blades in the icing of a chocolate cake—only for police, doctors and psychologists to say she did it intentionally.

http://fox13now.com/2018/03/21/famil...o-allegations/

[falafel]

If that is your criteria, she is probably just as safe (if not safer) on a mission than anywhere else (college, work, etc). Nothing is 100% safe.

Summon Cardiac Coug!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sorry if this has been posted. I have been away from the thread for the last day or so.

Bishop's attorney, which is also his son, is pushing back pretty hard against the accuser. He has produced documents (apparently) that show she has a pretty detailed history of claiming sexual assault and other things, only to recant or have authorities conclude she was not being truthful. None of this means that she is not being truthful about Bishop, and perhaps Bishop's actions contributed to these later actions.



http://fox13now.com/2018/03/21/famil...o-allegations/

Yikes!

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Similar to temple interviews, when a member is called to a position, the bishop,et al does so with faith that the person has disclosed any egregious sins to the appropriate authority. Leadership is not immune to the deceptions and failings of human nature. To believe otherwise, places them on an untouchable pedestal that is not fair to them.

To ask to be sustained as a prophet, seer and revelatory and then be deceived by one you’ve placed in a prominent position is much different than a bishop not discerning if I’m lying about drinking Fireball and Coors Light with Funkhouser or not. I see a major distinction in those.

[falafel]

To ask to be sustained as a prophet, seer and revelatory and then be deceived by one you’ve placed in a prominent position is much different than a bishop not discerning if I’m lying about drinking Fireball and Coors Light with Funkhouser or not. I see a major distinction in those.

Doesn't that assume that the prophets seers and revelators always have the electricity flowing, so to speak? Seems like an unreasonable assumption.

[SteelBlue]

Sorry if this has been posted. I have been away from the thread for the last day or so.

Bishop's attorney, which is also his son, is pushing back pretty hard against the accuser. He has produced documents (apparently) that show she has a pretty detailed history of claiming sexual assault and other things, only to recant or have authorities conclude she was not being truthful. None of this means that she is not being truthful about Bishop, and perhaps Bishop's actions contributed to these later actions.



http://fox13now.com/2018/03/21/famil...o-allegations/

Regardless of anything she might have lied about, Bishop still has a lot of explaining to do about the things he admitted to on that recording.