Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[falafel]

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

How do you know that? Do you have information we don't have?

[MartyFunkhouser]

Shame on John Dehlin.

I agree.

As to the church's statement, why the need to describe her as "this former church member, who served briefly as a missionary." Why the need to throw shade at her, as we know in the LDS culture that leaving early on a mission is often seen as a negative (notice I said often not always). Why the need to include that she is a "former church member," which again will be invalidating of her opinion by many church members. Why not instead state something like "This matter was brought to the attention of the Church in 2010, by a woman who was in the MTC in 1984." The Church's PR is not some mickey mouse operation, those details were included for a reason and sadly, I think it is to add a layer of invalidation to her story.

Also, interesting that there is no mention in the statement of, you know, his admissions on an audio recording that he did in fact sexually abuse multiple women. All it mentions is his denials in interviews with church leaders.

So of my hope that the church would learn from this type of thing is tempered by that statement.

[wuapinmon]

They did a fine job of calling her a former member who served briefly. Sounds like he tried to serve her in his briefs...maybe she came home because, you know, her MTC President tried to rape her and she was traumatized.

There's nothing wrong, per se, with the Church's clarification, but there's some signifying going on in there too.

[old_gregg]

I agree.

As to the church's statement, why the need to describe her as "this former church member, who served briefly as a missionary." Why the need to throw shade at her, as we know in the LDS culture that leaving early on a mission is often seen as a negative (notice I said often not always). Why the need to include that she is a "former church member," which again will be invalidating of her opinion by many church members. Why not instead state something like "This matter was brought to the attention of the Church in 2010, by a woman who was in the MTC in 1984." The Church's PR is not some mickey mouse operation, those details were included for a reason and sadly, I think it is to add a layer of invalidation to her story.

Also, interesting that there is no mention in the statement of, you know, his admissions on an audio recording that he did in fact sexually abuse multiple women. All it mentions is his denials in interviews with church leaders.

So of my hope that the church would learn from this type of thing is tempered by that statement.

because it is helpful information regarding her potential motivation.

[MartyFunkhouser]

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.

I'm going only off his statements in the interview. He isn't an sex addict. I think based on his own statements, this isn't about sex it is about power. That is my read on his comments. The addiction angle was an attempt to minimize when he was cornered. It is the same way when a predator gets caught and is facing impending criminal charges the predator all the sudden wants help.

[MartyFunkhouser]

because it is helpful information regarding her potential motivation.

I go back to her motivation doesn't really matter when there is a recorded admission of this individual engaging in sexual abuse.

As I indicated, I don't really have a lot of criticism for the church in 1984 that, while they handled his poorly, it was pretty normal for large organizations at that time. I do have a lot of criticism for the LDS church's statement in 2018.

[old_gregg]

I go back to her motivation doesn't really matter when there is a recorded admission of this individual engaging in sexual abuse.

As I indicated, I don't really have a lot of criticism for the church in 1984 that, while they handled his poorly, it was pretty normal for large organizations at that time. I do have a lot of criticism for the LDS church's statement in 2018.

did you read the transcript? his admission is certainly not clear. if there’s any risk of ambiguity, her motivation should and must be considered. this is not to say that the factual occurrence of what she describes is false, just that we should have good process for deciding that.

[SteelBlue]

There's nothing wrong, per se, with the Church's clarification, but there's some signifying going on in there too.

Definitely. I wanted to like it, but it's heavy handed in classically wrong ways. Especially for an initial response in 2018.

Also, I'm struggling to believe there was no contact with Asay. No reason beyond that she was very convincing on that point. I wonder if a record of all such conversations is normally kept. In other words, how out of the ordinary would it be for him to have had such a conversation and left no record?

[wuapinmon]

did you read the transcript? his admission is certainly not clear. if there’s any risk of ambiguity, her motivation should and must be considered. this is not to say that the factual occurrence of what she describes is false, just that we should have good process for deciding that.

He maintains that he doesn't remember the rape, but he does remember her, and someone who lived with him with a boob job. But, doesn't he remember that he groomed her? Also, does Utah use preponderance of evidence in civil suits like this might be, or is it a reasonable doubt standard?

Her motivation must be considered, certainly, by a grand jury.

[myboynoah]

I do have a lot of criticism for the LDS church's statement in 2018.

Yeah, that's a pretty damning statement for former President Bishop. They put his name out there twice, noting the sexual assault allegations, and saying they are still investigating from an ecclesiastical perspective.

[MartyFunkhouser]

did you read the transcript? his admission is certainly not clear. if there’s any risk of ambiguity, her motivation should and must be considered. this is not to say that the factual occurrence of what she describes is false, just that we should have good process for deciding that.

His admissions with what he did to her are not clear. His admissions that he has sexually assaulted women are clear. His admissions that he groomed her are clear.

[Green Monstah]

This isn't something I can google from work, but there are some that believe sexual addiction is a myth. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't say either way, but the assertion is germane to this discussion.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Definitely. I wanted to like it, but it's heavy handed in classically wrong ways. Especially for an initial response in 2018.

Also, I'm struggling to believe there was no contact with Asay. No reason beyond that she was very convincing on that point. I wonder if a record of all such conversations is normally kept. In other words, how out of the ordinary would it be for him to have had such a conversation and left no record?

I don't think the church is denying that. But Asay is dead. No way to confirm.

[falafel]

I'm going only off his statements in the interview. He isn't an sex addict. I think based on his own statements, this isn't about sex it is about power. That is my read on his comments. The addiction angle was an attempt to minimize when he was cornered. It is the same way when a predator gets caught and is facing impending criminal charges the predator all the sudden wants help.

Sex addiction isn't about sex, its about pain, suffering, fear, insecurity. Its about using something (drugs, alcohol, sex) to dull that pain, to hid from the fear, to minimize the insecurity.

[falafel]

This isn't something I can google from work, but there are some that believe sexual addiction is a myth. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't say either way, but the assertion is germane to this discussion.

Yes, some people say that.