Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Green Monstah]

Easy:

1. I like CS.
2. I like some of the people of CS.
3. I love the Church

But I'm not going to waste my time reading the fading memory of a man who made dumb choices. Nor the woman who is taking the current day definition of "sexual assault" and trying to bury this dude and vilify the Church.

And we have a huge problem with the current sliding scale of what people think is rape/sexual assault.

I bet if you read the transcript, you'd see it differently.

[frank ryan]

Easy:

1. I like CS.
2. I like some of the people of CS.
3. I love the Church

But I'm not going to waste my time reading the fading memory of a man who made dumb choices. Nor the woman who is taking the current day definition of "sexual assault" and trying to bury this dude and vilify the Church.

And we have a huge problem with the current sliding scale of what people think is rape/sexual assault.

Something tells me if this was your daughter you'd be singing a different tune.

[Bo Diddley]

I suspected that the statute of limitations was different back in 1984. The clock stops when you're out of state. Where Bishop lives in Arizona, has he spent 4 years in Utah since 1984? Obviously he spent a couple more years as MTC President Provo.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I think Gregory Bishop should be adopted as an honorary member of the Pitino family.

Tick, I love you man, but you are so off base on this one. The plain fact of the matter on this one is the best case scenario for Bishop is that he abused a position of trust to groom women for sexual contact and had sexual contact with at least one woman that he groomed. Based on his own admissions (both in the recorded interview and to the police), it is the best case scenario. He is a bad human being that should suffer appropriate consequences and the church needs to ensure that he is never placed in any position again where he can use his Priesthood authority to groom women.

The story is sad. The reactions to her at the time in 1984 and now what came out about her in 1987 are extremely sad. The bishop in 1987 was just doing what people did at that time. The criticism of the church, if any, from this situation should be limited to if it doesn't learn and change policies to prevent this type of thing from happening again.

[Art Vandelay]

The story is sad. The reactions to her at the time in 1984 and now what came out about her in 1987 are extremely sad. The bishop in 1987 was just doing what people did at that time. The criticism of the church, if any, from this situation should be limited to if it doesn't learn and change policies to prevent this type of thing from happening again.

I agree with this statement. Also lets not forget her bishop likely knew who she was. I have no idea of the timeline, but if he was also aware that she had made claims about (self-planted) razors in her food, and other crazy things, how realistic does a claim against the mtc president sound? Think of the craziest sister in your ward, and imagine she said the temple president took her downstairs and abused her in the temple. How likely are you to start legal actions? In fact, a well meaning friend (doesn't have to be a priesthood leader) might try and talk her out of going forward with charges to save her (what you assume will be) public humiliation.

[The_Tick]

I think Gregory Bishop should be adopted as an honorary member of the Pitino family.

Tick, I love you man, but you are so off base on this one. The plain fact of the matter on this one is the best case scenario for Bishop is that he abused a position of trust to groom women for sexual contact and had sexual contact with at least one woman that he groomed. Based on his own admissions (both in the recorded interview and to the police), it is the best case scenario. He is a bad human being that should suffer appropriate consequences and the church needs to ensure that he is never placed in any position again where he can use his Priesthood authority to groom women.

The story is sad. The reactions to her at the time in 1984 and now what came out about her in 1987 are extremely sad. The bishop in 1987 was just doing what people did at that time. The criticism of the church, if any, from this situation should be limited to if it doesn't learn and change policies to prevent this type of thing from happening again.

I don't disagree with any of this. With the entire #metoo movement, everyone is guilty before proven innocent.

If there's proof, then by all punish the man as far as possible. But until then, I don't like anyone that is unfairly flayed publicly until they get their day in court.

And like someone said earlier...would I be singing a different tune if this was my daughter? Of course. But I raised my daughters to see Church leaders as men and fallible. To not be pressured to do anything that they didn't want to do. And to let us know if there was anything fishy. But I raised by girls in the 2000's, so I obviously parented them in a different way.

I look at all Church leaders the same way that I look at anyone else. They are human, they make mistakes.

I just find it ironic that so many people on CS that are anti most disciplinary councils are upset that this dude wasn't ex'd.

I'm no attorney, but isn't this all hearsay at this point?

[Jarid in Cedar]

The vilification is of the church bureaucracy, but not of the church itself. If you can't differentiate between the two, you are blinded by your own bias and internal motivation(both sides of the spectrum)

[Omaha 680]

I agree with this statement. Also lets not forget her bishop likely knew who she was. I have no idea of the timeline, but if he was also aware that she had made claims about (self-planted) razors in her food, and other crazy things, how realistic does a claim against the mtc president sound? Think of the craziest sister in your ward, and imagine she said the temple president took her downstairs and abused her in the temple. How likely are you to start legal actions? In fact, a well meaning friend (doesn't have to be a priesthood leader) might try and talk her out of going forward with charges to save her (what you assume will be) public humiliation.

That's the worst part about all this for me. While ultimately the wrong decisions, leaders may not have been dismissing claims of abuse casually just because they were against a prominent member. They may have been weighing the "credibility" of the accuser in determining whether to act. Which makes the possibility that Bishop may have singled out troubled women as targets because they would be less likely to be believed even more horrifying.

[Green Monstah]

I don't disagree with any of this. With the entire #metoo movement, everyone is guilty before proven innocent.

If there's proof, then by all punish the man as far as possible. But until then, I don't like anyone that is unfairly flayed publicly until they get their day in court.

And like someone said earlier...would I be singing a different tune if this was my daughter? Of course. But I raised my daughters to see Church leaders as men and fallible. To not be pressured to do anything that they didn't want to do. And to let us know if there was anything fishy. But I raised by girls in the 2000's, so I obviously parented them in a different way.

I look at all Church leaders the same way that I look at anyone else. They are human, they make mistakes.

I just find it ironic that so many people on CS that are anti most disciplinary councils are upset that this dude wasn't ex'd.

I'm no attorney, but isn't this all hearsay at this point?

If you read some of the articles or the transcript, you could answer this question yourself.

[Flystripper]

The vilification is of the church bureaucracy, but not of the church itself. If you can't differentiate between the two, you are blinded by your own bias and internal motivation(both sides of the spectrum)

yes

[MartyFunkhouser]

I don't disagree with any of this. With the entire #metoo movement, everyone is guilty before proven innocent.

If there's proof, then by all punish the man as far as possible. But until then, I don't like anyone that is unfairly flayed publicly until they get their day in court.

And like someone said earlier...would I be singing a different tune if this was my daughter? Of course. But I raised my daughters to see Church leaders as men and fallible. To not be pressured to do anything that they didn't want to do. And to let us know if there was anything fishy. But I raised by girls in the 2000's, so I obviously parented them in a different way.

I look at all Church leaders the same way that I look at anyone else. They are human, they make mistakes.

I just find it ironic that so many people on CS that are anti most disciplinary councils are upset that this dude wasn't ex'd.

I'm no attorney, but isn't this all hearsay at this point?

I don't see the value of ex-communication, but I'm also not a believer. However, the message that you send that if you are a homosexual in a loving and committed marriage you are excommunicated, but if you are a Priesthood holding believer that uses a position of trust and authority to groom women for sexual contact that doesn't lead to excommunication, is a message the church cannot send.

[MartyFunkhouser]

The vilification is of the church bureaucracy, but not of the church itself. If you can't differentiate between the two, you are blinded by your own bias and internal motivation(both sides of the spectrum)

Agreed.

[The_Tick]

The vilification is of the church bureaucracy, but not of the church itself. If you can't differentiate between the two, you are blinded by your own bias and internal motivation(both sides of the spectrum)

I'm not too blind to see that. But don't most people equate those to be one and the same? My belief is that they do.

[The_Tick]

I don't see the value of ex-communication, but I'm also not a believer. However, the message that you send that if you are a homosexual in a loving and committed marriage you are excommunicated, but if you are a Priesthood holding believer that uses a position of trust and authority to groom women for sexual contact that doesn't lead to excommunication, is a message the church cannot send.

I agree. But I'm also the same guy that would like to see homosexual members of the Church be allowed full fellowship. If you want to keep them out of the temple, that's their prerogative, but don't kick them out of being who they are.

[Northwestcoug]

I just find it ironic that so many people on CS that are anti most disciplinary councils are upset that this dude wasn't ex'd.

Strident anti-disciplinary councils for sins/apostasy guy here. But if you're going to have them, criminal assault should be a shoe-in.

I'm no attorney, but isn't this all hearsay at this point?

Good question. I wonder if the transcript sheds a little light on this.