Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Jeff Lebowski]

Pretty good statement, but simply referring Bishop to his local ecclesiastical leaders in 2010 was not enough. A full investigation should have been done at that time.

Good grief. You are all over the map.

[myboynoah]

Stop framing it as being about revenge. He tried to rape her. There are consequences. Those consequences are not revenge. They are the operation of law and order and the social construction of reality. You don't call it revenge if you call the police and the person gets charged. You also don't have to reveal yourself to the public if you are raped. His "good name" like that of the Church he represented, is now sullied BY HIS ACTIONS, NOT HERS.

I read a fair amount of anger and revenge in her motives. You may see it otherwise. She can have multiple motives, including those about which you are screaming.

She did go to the authorities, general and civil. She also threatened to kill him. Did you read the transcript?

I was responding to Jay's hypothetical, one which IMO bears limited resemblance to the situation the interviewer describes.

[smokymountainrain]

This was posted in the youtube comments of the MormonStories podcast.



The GA who gave the talk "Be 100 Percent Responsible" is Lynn G. Robbins.

lol. sounds legit.

[falafel]

Good grief. You are all over the map.

How so? If you read my comments carefully (or perhaps even skim them), you will notice I have never said Bishop (1) deserved to stay in his callings, (2) was not guilty/these things didn't happen, (3) shouldn't be punished to the full extent of the law.

I guess my comments should be circumscribed a bit by the fact that I don't know what, if any, callings he held in 2010 when the church allegedly found out about this. If he only had local-level callings in 2010, then reporting him to his ecclesiastical leaders is probably the right first move. If he had anything above a stake-level calling, more should have been done.

[MartyFunkhouser]

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.

You aren't defending his actions, but you sure want to make sure the other side (the attempted rapist and predator that used his religious position of power to prey on women) gets his fair side shared.

I see no value in questioning her motives in this one. Even your questioning, if entirely true, doesn't give him a pass for anything. If she wanted to do this as pure vengeance against the person who wronged her, he still wrong her.

If he deceived him, who cares she was trying to get admissions of criminal activity that likely had a substantial impact on her life.
If she just wanted to make him look bad, who cares he looks bad because he is a predator.
If she just wants to make the church look bad, who cares the church failed her.

[falafel]

lol. sounds legit.

Sorry, you're not allowed to question these things.

[MartyFunkhouser]

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.

It is because it is a bullshit excuse used by a predator. He isn't an addict and his actions had nothing to do with an "addiction."

[falafel]

You aren't defending his actions, but you sure want to make sure the other side (the attempted rapist and predator that used his religious position of power to prey on women) gets his fair side shared.

I don't care if he gets his "fair side shared." I just don't want to see him get the death penalty, so to speak. See if he can be helped.

I see no value in questioning her motives in this one. Even your questioning, if entirely true, doesn't give him a pass for anything. If she wanted to do this as pure vengeance against the person who wronged her, he still wrong her.

I'm not giving him a pass for anything.

If he deceived him, who cares she was trying to get admissions of criminal activity that likely had a substantial impact on her life.

I don't think we have 100% of the facts yet, so I don't think its a good idea to accept one side or the other entirely at this point. Apparently the PG police couldn't make a case in 2010.

If she just wanted to make him look bad, who cares he looks bad because he is a predator.

Ok

If she just wants to make the church look bad, who cares the church failed her.

Ok

[falafel]

It is because it is a bullshit excuse used by a predator. He isn't an addict and his actions had nothing to do with an "addiction."

How, exactly, do you know this? You don't. Just as I don't know that is is and addict. No need to talk in absolutes with so few facts.

[MartyFunkhouser]

The "addiction" angle is a copout. That doesn't move the needle for me in the slightest. This man used a position of authority to rape innocent sister missionaries. Bloody hell, contemplate that for a minute.

Exactly, this isn't about an addiction. I'm not even convinced it is about sex for this predator. It is about prey. It is about abusing power. If this was just about sex, he would have hired a prostitute or found a willing woman to have sex with him.

The addiction angle is only thrown out by this guy as a means to minimize his actions. falafel is playing right into that, as well as playing into this minimizing what this person did by his focus on the victim's motivations. She is a victim, she gets to act of vengeance if she so desires. She didn't do anything criminal, you know, unlike him.

[old_gregg]

You aren't defending his actions, but you sure want to make sure the other side (the attempted rapist and predator that used his religious position of power to prey on women) gets his fair side shared.

is your implication here that he should not have an opportunity to share his side of the story (if he has one)?

[MartyFunkhouser]

Does anybody really believe that seeking revenge on this predator will bring the interviewer peace of mind? I get it. She's been victimized on at least three occasions by men in her life. I understand the anger and striking out at all "priesthood holders." I just don't believe going down that road, holding onto the anger, seeking and exercising revenge after all these years will bring her peace.

Who am I say say how the victim gets to gain power back over her predator. It may not bring her peace of mind. It might destroy her for all that I know. It may have been an incredible poor choice to make. However, it is her choice to make. She gets to make it. She gets to get control for once over the situation. Her actions shouldn't be criticized, unless she was lying about what he did to her, which she was not.

[old_gregg]

Her actions shouldn't be criticized, unless she was lying about what he did to her, which she was not.

what if she got closure only by cutting the skin off his face and making it into a lampshade?

[wuapinmon]

Shame on John Dehlin.

Now there's someone who will unfriend you over anything. Of course, I unfriended him, but only after he invited anyone who disagreed with him about anything to unfriend him.

[myboynoah]

Who am I say say how the victim gets to gain power back over her predator. It may not bring her peace of mind. It might destroy her for all that I know. It may have been an incredible poor choice to make. However, it is her choice to make. She gets to make it. She gets to get control for once over the situation. Her actions shouldn't be criticized, unless she was lying about what he did to her, which she was not.

Yes, it is her choice to make. I don't believe anger and revenge are good, healthy motivations for one's choices.