Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Jeff Lebowski]

That guy is a horrible person that should have been excommunicated and sent to jail. Huge failure at multiple levels.

[MartyFunkhouser]

That guy is a horrible person that should have been excommunicated and sent to jail. Huge failure at multiple levels.

Absolutely. The church failed, but I'm not going to criticize them too much as it was pretty much how organizations acted at the time. Even now it is only starting to change.

This is the only thing of value so far that Mormonleaks has even released. It is another example that we live in an age where cover ups will eventually see the light. Better to address the problem and deal with the negative PR from the problem then to cover it up.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Absolutely. The church failed, but I'm not going to criticize them too much as it was pretty much how organizations acted at the time. Even now it is only starting to change.

This is the only thing of value so far that Mormonleaks has even released. It is another example that we live in an age where cover ups will eventually see the light. Better to address the problem and deal with the negative PR from the problem then to cover it up.

Agreed.

[SteelBlue]

That guy is a horrible person that should have been excommunicated and sent to jail. Huge failure at multiple levels.

Absolutely. That was brutal to read. It was also a course in predator 101.

He is fluent in the language of sincere Mormon faith and has used it to keep secret his evil for a lifetime. That whole interview read to me like a cornered man searching for the angle that would appease her. He cycled through so many angles it was hard to keep track. His own personal history of molestation (I think he said that), no? Ok so how about addiction? No. Well, the wife didn't put out. Nope. Um, there are these compulsions... Nope. Evil spirits that had to be cast out? Nope. I'm a p.o.s. but think of my family? Nope.

Strangely, the one angle he seemed to believe he'd found was shared faith in the gospel and of repentance. He seemed to return to that well often and she humored him with those excuses more often than any others. She wanted to hear remorse and when he figured that out, he kept trying to express what sounded like sincere remorse. But, strangely, he was never able to do this without qualifying statements.

He wraps the interview by losing confidence in the repentance angle he was working and he returns again to others he'd worked previously. The "but think of my family" angle. Tries the "think of the damaged testimonies" angle and sensing failure, moves to a "think of the legal expenses" angle. My jaw dropped at that point because he's quite smooth as he cycles through this shit but this was an epic fail. I don't know what he thought he saw or heard from this woman that made him believe money was of interest to her. It was a horrible read on her motivations and I think he realizes it, but too late. He finishes with the manipulative "get your answer from the Lord." That was his last shot and he knew it. Crazy thing is, 2016 or earlier and it probably would've worked.

[falafel]

One point for GM here. Bad form to focus on the victim deceiving the perp in the interview and to question why she should make it public.

I don't think questioning her motive is out of bounds here. She has more than enough supporters; I don't think one or two voices advocating for fair treatment of the other side is harmful to her.

There are a few things about this that trouble me. The initial deception is problematic, IMO. She leads him along for 40 minutes, quite convincingly (especially if you've listened to the audio), pretending that she is there to interview him for an article on the good things church leaders have done. She gets him comfortable and then yanks the rug out from under him in a gotcha-style reveal. If her only motive was to obtain closure from him, this fake interview set up doesn't seem to support that.

I'm also interested to know if she herself released the transcript and audio, or if it was truly "leaked". As far as I can tell, there is no information out there as to its disclosure. Releasing it to the public doesn't seem to fit with her goal of obtaining closure (or even the goal of pursuing legal claims), so I tend to think someone else released it, perhaps without her permission or knowledge. If she did release it, that suggests to me that she ultimately decided she wanted to inflict as much pain on him and his family as possible. The only motive for that, IMO, is vengeance for what he did to her. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be outed and publicly flogged, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to fit within her stated goals of closure and healing. Plus, as she said throughout the transcript, she accepted his apology and claimed to have forgiven him. This doesn't sound like the action of someone offering forgiveness. But again, we don't know if she was the one who released it. But, as MBN noted, I doubt releasing this to the public will bring her peace or healing. IME, that's not how peace or healing come.

Now, before Marty and Green Monstaaaaah jump down my throat, let me reiterate that I am not defending Bishop's actions, which are despicable. But I don't see any problem with looking at this situation from both sides.

[jay santos]

I don't think questioning her motive is out of bounds here. She has more than enough supporters; I don't think one or two voices advocating for fair treatment of the other side is harmful to her.

There are a few things about this that trouble me. The initial deception is problematic, IMO. She leads him along for 40 minutes, quite convincingly (especially if you've listened to the audio), pretending that she is there to interview him for an article on the good things church leaders have done. She gets him comfortable and then yanks the rug out from under him in a gotcha-style reveal. If her only motive was to obtain closure from him, this fake interview set up doesn't seem to support that.

I'm also interested to know if she herself released the transcript and audio, or if it was truly "leaked". As far as I can tell, there is no information out there as to its disclosure. Releasing it to the public doesn't seem to fit with her goal of obtaining closure (or even the goal of pursuing legal claims), so I tend to think someone else released it, perhaps without her permission or knowledge. If she did release it, that suggests to me that she ultimately decided she wanted to inflict as much pain on him and his family as possible. The only motive for that, IMO, is vengeance for what he did to her. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be outed and publicly flogged, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to fit within her stated goals of closure and healing. Plus, as she said throughout the transcript, she accepted his apology and claimed to have forgiven him. This doesn't sound like the action of someone offering forgiveness. But again, we don't know if she was the one who released it. But, as MBN noted, I doubt releasing this to the public will bring her peace or healing. IME, that's not how peace or healing come.

Now, before Marty and Green Monstaaaaah jump down my throat, let me reiterate that I am not defending Bishop's actions, which are despicable. But I don't see any problem with looking at this situation from both sides.

It's fine she deceived him in order to get access in order to confront him. It's fine she wants vengeance. She does say she wanted closure. But it was clear she was very frustrated by him not admitting it. Maybe she was lying about saying she wanted closure in order to get him to confess, so she'd have it on tape to turn into police (also totally fine), but it's possible she truly did just want to hear the words "yes I did it, I remember, I'm sorry". And maybe not hearing that is what is prompting her to take more action? I think a lot of anti-Mormons are taking this and running to the extreme, but to question her motives or intentions or rights in this is totally wrong, imho.

[wuapinmon]

I think the dude was born and raised in a time when sexual addiction was not very well understood, let alone treated. I think he is honest when he says that he didn't really understand his own problems (i.e., that it was an addiction) until somewhat recently. This is supported by the fact that he just "tried really hard" to stop acting out. There's also a lot of the shame cycle in what he says. This tells me he has only started to come to terms with his behavior as an addiction, meaning something that you can't just power through. I think you have to have some amount of pity for a person in that situation, although you certainly do not need to excuse what he did.

But, what is his addiction? Rape? I think he was in a position of power and knew that he could use the "Spirit" to help him groom women. I mean, he had a BASEMENT room with a bed and video tapes, for Christ's sake. He's a predator too worried about his position in the Church to confess due to godly sorrow.

I think that's a generous interpretation. I see someone who has a history of not coming fully clean because of what that might do to him and his position/reputation, both within the church and professionally. For example, in Argentina as a missionary, he didn't come completely clean, likely because he would have been sent home. It worked out for him. He got his conscience cleared and he didn't suffer the consequences. I have no reason to believe this process then didn't continue when he claims he talked to Elder Asay, etc. Telling himself he would "try really hard" to stop was his way of reconciling the fact that he liked the leadership positions he was receiving, but he knew that if he came clean, he would lose the prestige and be shamed. So he would either confess to bits and pieces--enough to assuage his guilt but keep his positions--or he would tell himself that he was trying really hard not to do them. But I don't doubt for one second that he knew he should be coming completely clean and facing the consequences. He can't blame that on addiction.

This is what I was thinking last night, but couldn't quite figure out. Thanks for writing it.

I guess I'm not convinced that he is a sex addict. I think most men are "sex addicts" in the same sense that he was, i.e. attracted to women and would really, really like to bone the women they are attracted to, especially if it could be done in a vacuum (in, not with!) where it wouldn't be discovered and/or affect their personal life. Succumbing to that temptation when the opportunity presents itself doesn't make you an addict. Intentionally putting yourself in that position and then doing your best to seal the deal doesn't make you and addict. And no, even ripping the close off of someone and attempting to rape them doesn't make you an addict. It makes you a stupid man who is not good at controlling his urges.

The addiction might be that he feels he cannot control himself, but after continually allowing yourself to remain in positions of power wherein you can prey on those under you, positions based on supposed righteousness, it's very charitable to call it an addiction rather than an abuse of power.

I agree. He's also a pathological liar who has come to believe his own lies. It was never as bad as it really was because he's conned himself and bought into the false narrative. This is why he won't or can't remember doing what he did to her.

It was difficult for me to follow at times because of the choppy edits. What was the deal with the missionary he molested by rubbing her back? Was there more to it than that I missed, or was that truly what constituted the molestation? I wouldn't be surprised to find it was more than that, but he's conned himself into thinking that's all it was.

I also never really followed what happened with the lady in the skimpy bathing suit.

What a sad life to have lived.

The skimpy bathing suit thing I think, if I had to guess, probably involved him "petting" someone, maybe or maybe not against her will. Based on the other behaviors mentioned, that seems like his modus operandi, and since that woman likely had a husband--so someone who could come back on him--he likely wouldn't go farther than that.

Really hard to know whether he is an addict from the outside. The question is whether he knows of the tremendous cost involved in his activities, and is still compelled to go through with that self-destructive action, or whether he just thinks he won't get caught. I think the information we have allows for both interpretations, with neither really able to be proved in the context of this discussion.

It is. Antonio Muñoz Molina has a novel called Plenilunio about a young man (ca. 20 y/o) who lives with his mother, works as a fishmonger, and rapes and strangles little girls in his spare time. The novel is about the detective trying to solve the case. At the end he says:

"“Fue por culpa de la luna...me emborrachaba y la luna me hacía pensar cosas raras. Mi madre me lo decía de chico, que yo era lunero. Pero yo no quería matarlas, lo único que quería era que no gritaran..."

[It was because of the moon. I would get drunk and the moon would make me think strange things. My mom said it to me ever since I was a boy, that I was a lunero (hard to translate...maybe lunatic, but it doesn't mean the same thing here. Lunero could be translated literally as moon maker, one who works with the moon, one who follows the moon, one who works in/under the moonlight). But, I didn't want to kill them, I only wanted them to not scream.

When confronted, directly, about his crimes--including having a victim pick him out of a lineup--he suddenly turns to religion for someone/thing to blame, rather than the moon. He says to the detective who caught him:

Pero, ya he vencido al Enemigo, eso quería decirle, usted me entenderá, aunque ahora piense que no me cree. Ahora puedo acordarme de todo lo que hice, de lo que hicieron mis manos, y eso ya no me turba, ya no me paso las noches sin dormir, como antes, cuando el demonio me tenía despierto, en aquel calobozo, cuando yo oía de lejos los gritos de la gente que quería matarme. Yo también quería que me mataran. Pero, ahora leo el Libro, digo las oraciones y cierro los ojos y me duermo, el Ángel del Señor me trae la misericordia del sueño porque mi espíritu está en paz. [...] [N]o me importa no tener ningún abogado, no tengo que responder ante las leyes de los hombres sino ante la ley de Dios, y él sabe que me puso a prueba y que soy inocente, alabado sea el Señor, sea por siempre bendito y alabado.

[But, now I have vanquished the Enemy, that's what I wanted to tell you, you'll come to see what I mean, even if you think that you don't believe me right now. Now I can remember everything that I did, that my hands did, and that doesn't bother me, I no longer have sleepless nights, like before, when the demon would have me awake, in that dungeon, when I would hear the cries of the people outside who wanted to kill me. I also wanted them to kill me. But, now I read the Book, I say my prayers, and I close my eyes and fall asleep. The Angel of the Lord brings me the mercy of sleep because my spirit is at peace. [...] I don't care if I don't have a lawyer, I don't have to stand before the laws of Man, rather than those of God, and he knows that he put me to the test and that I am innocent, praised be the Lord, may he always be blessed and praised.]

Something about his affect, his constant appealing to his addiction, smacks of the murderer in Plenilunio. If you speak Spanish, it's a helluva good read. Thus far, there hasn't been a translation.

This is not exclusive of addict behavior. Addiction is all about self-delusion.

That sounds better if I imagine Bubbles saying it.

This. What exactly is his addiction? That he can't control himself assaulting women who are under his ecclesiastical control? The transcript reads pretty convincingly that he doesn't deny the allegations, and refers to others. The multiple references to 'addiction' are a cop out. Like his half-assed confessions to his authorities (I can't be the only one who did this with porn and, um, other behaviors), he is trying to put reprehensible behavior in the best light possible. Hence, blame an addiction.

You weren't the only one.

Also, what was with the VCR in the basement room?

Grooming...show them porn, or if he needed a quiet place to burp the worm.

So she deceived the old guy to get him talking so she could confront him. Has she been open about who she is?

Yo, been open about who she is? She is a victim of sexual assault and attempted rape. She doesn't have to be open. As for her deceiving him:

[falafel]

It's fine she deceived him in order to get access in order to confront him. It's fine she wants vengeance. She does say she wanted closure. But it was clear she was very frustrated by him not admitting it. Maybe she was lying about saying she wanted closure in order to get him to confess, so she'd have it on tape to turn into police (also totally fine), but it's possible she truly did just want to hear the words "yes I did it, I remember, I'm sorry". And maybe not hearing that is what is prompting her to take more action? I think a lot of anti-Mormons are taking this and running to the extreme, but to question her motives or intentions or rights in this is totally wrong, imho.

At some point, the means do not justify the ends. We are not there with this particular case (pretty far from it), but I still think its okay to be uncomfortable with how she approached this. I'm not asking for her to be denied justice of for him to walk free. I think it is dangerous in situations like this to automatically give the victim a free pass on all of their actions. Being a victim does not entitle one to consequence-free actions.

[falafel]

But, what is his addiction? Rape? I think he was in a position of power and knew that he could use the "Spirit" to help him groom women. I mean, he had a BASEMENT room with a bed and video tapes, for Christ's sake. He's a predator too worried about his position in the Church to confess due to godly sorrow.

Rape is not the addiction, just like stealing is not the addiction for a coke addict. But rape can be one of the methods a person uses to satisfy the addiction.

I'm not sure why everyone is so eager to discount the possibility that this guy was an addict. Having an addiction does not excuse the behavior in the slightest (although I recognize Bishop was trying to use it to deflect and minimize his crimes and actions). But it can help to explain the motivation for the actions.

He may not be an addict, but then he's just a piece of shit who preyed on young women because he liked it. That's certainly not out of the question. But I think its less likely than the alternative.

[falafel]

Grooming...show them porn, or if he needed a quiet place to burp the worm.

I really wish you hadn't put it in those terms.

[SteelBlue]

He may not be an addict, but then he's just a piece of shit who preyed on young women because he liked it. That's certainly not out of the question. But I think its less likely than the alternative.

He's a predator. If he preys because he's hungry or because he just likes to hunt who cares? The end result is the same. His motivations are pretty far down on the list of things that matter in this whole situation. Religious faith is a playground for people like him. "Who's going to believe you? Look at me. Look at you." Man, that's just pure evil.

[Green Monstah]

I don't think questioning her motive is out of bounds here. She has more than enough supporters; I don't think one or two voices advocating for fair treatment of the other side is harmful to her.

There are a few things about this that trouble me. The initial deception is problematic, IMO. She leads him along for 40 minutes, quite convincingly (especially if you've listened to the audio), pretending that she is there to interview him for an article on the good things church leaders have done. She gets him comfortable and then yanks the rug out from under him in a gotcha-style reveal. If her only motive was to obtain closure from him, this fake interview set up doesn't seem to support that.

I'm also interested to know if she herself released the transcript and audio, or if it was truly "leaked". As far as I can tell, there is no information out there as to its disclosure. Releasing it to the public doesn't seem to fit with her goal of obtaining closure (or even the goal of pursuing legal claims), so I tend to think someone else released it, perhaps without her permission or knowledge. If she did release it, that suggests to me that she ultimately decided she wanted to inflict as much pain on him and his family as possible. The only motive for that, IMO, is vengeance for what he did to her. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be outed and publicly flogged, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to fit within her stated goals of closure and healing. Plus, as she said throughout the transcript, she accepted his apology and claimed to have forgiven him. This doesn't sound like the action of someone offering forgiveness. But again, we don't know if she was the one who released it. But, as MBN noted, I doubt releasing this to the public will bring her peace or healing. IME, that's not how peace or healing come.

Now, before Marty and Green Monstaaaaah jump down my throat, let me reiterate that I am not defending Bishop's actions, which are despicable. But I don't see any problem with looking at this situation from both sides.

What does her motive matter if you're not interested in defending the rapist or church (who both acted indefensibly) and/or smearing her to make yourself feel better about the fact that the a church run by revelation called a serial rapist to high callings? Bad shit happens at church, but if your impulse is to start questioning the victim's motivation, I think you're missing the real issue for the benefit of your own dissonance. You're focusing on the shitty play whilst a bullet-ridden President Lincoln is dying next to you on the floor.

[jay santos]

At some point, the means do not justify the ends. We are not there with this particular case (pretty far from it), but I still think its okay to be uncomfortable with how she approached this. I'm not asking for her to be denied justice of for him to walk free. I think it is dangerous in situations like this to automatically give the victim a free pass on all of their actions. Being a victim does not entitle one to consequence-free actions.

If she's lying about what he did, then yes. If you're assuming she's telling the truth, I can't possibly see how you could object to her deceiving him in a way to get the 1:1 interview, and then in publicizing the recording. I just don't get it at all. This is attempted rape of a general authority level LDS leader to a missionary. She had been trying to get justice for years and no one would listen to her or validate her. Yes, ends don't justify the means. She shouldn't kill anyone in an attempt to get a recording. She shouldn't rape anyone. She shouldn't beat or torture anyone. Is it OK to pretend she wants to talk about something else and then spring it on him? uh, hell yes.

[Uncle Ted]

Absolutely. The church failed, but I'm not going to criticize them too much as it was pretty much how organizations acted at the time. Even now it is only starting to change.

This is the only thing of value so far that Mormonleaks has even released. It is another example that we live in an age where cover ups will eventually see the light. Better to address the problem and deal with the negative PR from the problem then to cover it up.

Yeah, I agree. Maybe the church can come clean on this... along with the BS polygamy section 132, the Book of Abraham being literally "translated" from some Egyptian writing (at least give us the Book of Joseph that JS Jr promised), etc.

[falafel]

He's a predator. If he preys because he's hungry or because he just likes to hunt who cares? The end result is the same. His motivations are pretty far down on the list of things that matter in this whole situation. Religious faith is a playground for people like him. "Who's going to believe you? Look at me. Look at you." Man, that's just pure evil.

I don't think the end result is the same, and I do think his motivations matter. The reason being that an addict is someone who might be reformed through treatment, while a pure evil person is not likely to change. But, like I said, I don't know whether he's an addict, a sociopath, or something in between.