Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Jeff Lebowski]

I realize that I am cynical, but I don't think I"m being cynical in this instance. The Church's PR is careful. Very careful. The need to put that she was briefly a missionary is really odd. The former member, a little bit less odd. The details were included for a reason.

Funk, you have been on the money for the most part on this thread. Once you start making speculative claims like that it undercuts your credibility. Come on.

[Moliere]

I realize that I am cynical, but I don't think I"m being cynical in this instance. The Church's PR is careful. Very careful. The need to put that she was briefly a missionary is really odd. The former member, a little bit less odd. The details were included for a reason.

They did leave out that she made death threats. So there’s that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MartyFunkhouser]

Funk, you have been on the money for the most part on this thread. Once you start making speculative claims like that it undercuts your credibility. Come on.

Okay, I'm willing to reconsider this position. I'll back off and just say, it seems a little odd these details were included and it didn't seem to add to the release.

I do stand by my point that the admissions that he made of grooming while in a position of power, alone, should result in his excommunication so that he never has access to vulnerable individuals in a church capacity again.

[wuapinmon]

sexual contact is very different from attempted rape in both church discipline and legal contexts. her motivation matters.

Any kind of sexual contact, even if she was the instigator, by someone with a missionary as a temple-married president of the MTC would sully the "Good Name of the Church."

[jay santos]

non pc post that I'll probably regret:

I've never raped anyone. Or tried to rape someone but stopped mid act because I couldn't get it up. So I'm not speaking from experience. But it seems like "rape" is obviously not fair and maybe even "attempted rape" is also not fair in this case. Pulling a gun out and not pulling the trigger is not considered attempted murder, it's called deciding not to murder.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Okay, I'm willing to reconsider this position. I'll back off and just say, it seems a little odd these details were included and it didn't seem to add to the release.

I do stand by my point that the admissions that he made of grooming while in a position of power, alone, should result in his excommunication so that he never has access to vulnerable individuals in a church capacity again.

Totally agree.

[MartyFunkhouser]

non pc post that I'll probably regret:

I've never raped anyone. Or tried to rape someone but stopped mid act because I couldn't get it up. So I'm not speaking from experience. But it seems like "rape" is obviously not fair and maybe even "attempted rape" is also not fair in this case. Pulling a gun out and not pulling the trigger is not considered attempted murder, it's called deciding not to murder.

I think the analogy here would be more accurate if you said that you pulled out a gun, beat the person up, and then pulled the trigger on the gun but it did not fire.

What was described is that he groomed her, took her to secluded place, ripped her clothing, and then wanted to rape her but couldn't get an erection. That isn't deciding not to rape, that is wanting to and attempting to rape someone.

[Donuthole]

non pc post that I'll probably regret:

I've never raped anyone. Or tried to rape someone but stopped mid act because I couldn't get it up. So I'm not speaking from experience. But it seems like "rape" is obviously not fair and maybe even "attempted rape" is also not fair in this case. Pulling a gun out and not pulling the trigger is not considered attempted murder, it's called deciding not to murder.

But if you pull the trigger and the gun jams up and doesn't fire, that's almost certainly attempted murder, especially if you were intending for the gun to fire when you pulled the trigger. So attempted rape is definitely fair. And if he attempted to insert his flaccid penis, rape is also probably on the table.

[wuapinmon]

But if you pull the trigger and the gun jams up and doesn't fire, that's almost certainly attempted murder, especially if you were intending for the gun to fire when you pulled the trigger. So attempted rape is definitely fair. And if he attempted to insert his flaccid penis, rape is also probably on the table.

A legitimate use of the word flaccid in a sentence is a hard thing to do.

[falafel]

But if you pull the trigger and the gun jams up and doesn't fire, that's almost certainly attempted murder, especially if you were intending for the gun to fire when you pulled the trigger. So attempted rape is definitely fair. And if he attempted to insert his flaccid penis, rape is also probably on the table.

Absolutely on the table. There's nothing about an erection in the rape statute.

[jay santos]

But if you pull the trigger and the gun jams up and doesn't fire, that's almost certainly attempted murder, especially if you were intending for the gun to fire when you pulled the trigger. So attempted rape is definitely fair. And if he attempted to insert his flaccid penis, rape is also probably on the table.

Agree. But coming to his senses at the last moment could also be interpreted by the victim as not following through due to flaccidity. There could be wide interpretation of this, even accepting her story as truth.

[Art Vandelay]

This is the first discussion, in a long time that reminds of what CUF use to be. Sad that it took such disturbing topic to do it. I enjoy reading different perspectives, several of which I have made me reconsider my own preconceived biases.

Why do addiction and predator have to be an either or? It makes sense in my mind that Bishop could be both. Based upon the recording he absolutely is a predator. However, that doesn't mean he doesn't have some form of addiction. Granted, he seems to throw the term out like a sympathy life raft, hoping the victim will grab ahold of it.

Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.

in my mind being an addict doesn't justify or condone behavior. A tweaker who robs a convenience store to feed his habit is still breaking the law. Considering the huge criminal and social consequences most pedophiles meet the criteria for being an addict. I would imagine most serial killers are addicts of their disease. In none of these cases do i feel the legal penalty should be lessened.

I hope society in general, and the LDS church specifically, continue to progress in how they deal with addiction. Thus individuals may be more inclined to seek help, before they reach the predatory state. Again I have no idea if Joseph Bishop is or isn't an addict and don't feel he should be treated differently, regardless. I would just like to see a way to have less of these terrible instances. For those who have dealt with abuse either personally, or of a loved one, they know the generational effect it can have.

[The_Tick]

A few things I have learned today:

1. Glad I'm not a lawyer. I'd eat a bullet.
2. Glad I don't read these transcripts or listen to Podcasts.
3. Opening up Twitter/Facebook today sure helped me know which of my ex-mo friends are still grinding the axe. Holy shit.

[clackamascoug]

This is reminiscent of Watergate. The cover up is going to be the bigger story... This is going to be picked up nationally, and it's going to hurt.

The back story of the knowledge of this is also a bit curious... Is it possible that Pres. Nelson knew about this going in and Elder Uchtdorf was not retained based upon his previous knowledge and chosen course of action?

[Northwestcoug]

What bar of evidence is the church trying to set with that statement?

The phrases:

"These allegations are very serious and deeply disturbing"; "If the allegations of sexual assault are true"; "Not surprisingly, the stories, timelines and recollections of those involved are dramatically different"; "The Church has great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims."; "Nevertheless, the Church takes seriously its responsibility to hold its members accountable for their conduct with respect of the laws of God and man"

are all over the place. Everyone agrees with the church that this is a deeply disturbing incident. And everyone agrees that there is the possibility that her version of the story may not be entirely accurate, though he admits to at the very least 'molestation', which most likely means assault. But within hours after the audio dropped, Deseret Book completely erased any association with him. They most certainly didn't do that without guidance from church leadership. So if the audio is disturbing enough to disavow the man, why implicitly place the blame of inaction on the police? I understand that the worst allegation is criminal, and that the church rightfully referred the matter to the police. But now that it is post-2017, the church needs to rethink it's 'great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims'. Their over-reliance on the judiciary (and we have to also partly blame society in general) is what kept this man able to abuse those under his power for years.