Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[San Juan Sun]

What a sad, depressing affair this entire thing is turning out to be. I don’t think any of us know enough to condemn the church at all, we simply don’t know what has been done, and leaping to the conclusion that his has all been mishandled is premature.

Regarding Bishop himself, I thinks there’s enough smoke here to wager that he’s been guilty of impropriety for much of his life, and likely was involved in behavior that was criminal. I can’t prove this of course, and I doubt any of us ever will. If his activities were reported and investigated years ago, it does seem like he should have been barred from ever being in a position of trust ever again.

The thing that really bothers me the most though, is the way that the online forums that I read (CB and CS) have treated this. It’s turned into another battleground of the endless war regarding the Church’s authority claims. I think this is the real tragedy. Seems like you have people trying to tease out any questionable action of the church as evidence of treachery and covering up. On the other hand, you have a lot of people ridiculously spinning this story in the best possible light, to the point of victim blaming. It’s all tawdry and unbecoming of a group of people who claim to be disciples.

As I see it, people and churches have a moral obligation to protect the vulnerable members of our community. I think that’s what Christ would expect. This jockeying and spin doctoring strikes directly against that ideal, and it bumming me out. But maybe that’s what I get for reading CB!

[Eddie]

What a sad, depressing affair this entire thing is turning out to be. I don’t think any of us know enough to condemn the church at all, we simply don’t know what has been done, and leaping to the conclusion that his has all been mishandled is premature.

Regarding Bishop himself, I thinks there’s enough smoke here to wager that he’s been guilty of impropriety for much of his life, and likely was involved in behavior that was criminal. I can’t prove this of course, and I doubt any of us ever will. If his activities were reported and investigated years ago, it does seem like he should have been barred from ever being in a position of trust ever again.

The thing that really bothers me the most though, is the way that the online forums that I read (CB and CS) have treated this. It’s turned into another battleground of the endless war regarding the Church’s authority claims. I think this is the real tragedy. Seems like you have people trying to tease out any questionable action of the church as evidence of treachery and covering up. On the other hand, you have a lot of people ridiculously spinning this story in the best possible light, to the point of victim blaming. It’s all tawdry and unbecoming of a group of people who claim to be disciples.

As I see it, people and churches have a moral obligation to protect the vulnerable members of our community. I think that’s what Christ would expect. This jockeying and spin doctoring strikes directly against that ideal, and it bumming me out. But maybe that’s what I get for reading CB!

I'll give you an amen.

This isn't the first church leader to fall from grace - and unfortunately is unlikely to be the last. Hopefully we can continue to get better dealing with it.

[tooblue]

You seem to be trying to parse the story to fit your current paradigm. Why not take it at face value?

It is a beautiful parable. A simple story and we identify both with the pharisees and the woman. We all judge others and we all feel unworthy and in need of compassion and mercy at times.

It is a beautiful parable, and we are expected to apply it in our daily lives. In order to do that, not only must I take it at face value but I must also 'parse it' in order understand better how it relates to my individual, personal experience. That's the point of a parable.

[Omaha 680]

What a sad, depressing affair this entire thing is turning out to be. I don’t think any of us know enough to condemn the church at all, we simply don’t know what has been done, and leaping to the conclusion that his has all been mishandled is premature.

Regarding Bishop himself, I thinks there’s enough smoke here to wager that he’s been guilty of impropriety for much of his life, and likely was involved in behavior that was criminal. I can’t prove this of course, and I doubt any of us ever will. If his activities were reported and investigated years ago, it does seem like he should have been barred from ever being in a position of trust ever again.

The thing that really bothers me the most though, is the way that the online forums that I read (CB and CS) have treated this. It’s turned into another battleground of the endless war regarding the Church’s authority claims. I think this is the real tragedy. Seems like you have people trying to tease out any questionable action of the church as evidence of treachery and covering up. On the other hand, you have a lot of people ridiculously spinning this story in the best possible light, to the point of victim blaming. It’s all tawdry and unbecoming of a group of people who claim to be disciples.

As I see it, people and churches have a moral obligation to protect the vulnerable members of our community. I think that’s what Christ would expect. This jockeying and spin doctoring strikes directly against that ideal, and it bumming me out. But maybe that’s what I get for reading CB!

I agree with this. It's too exhausting for me to say much more than it all makes me incredibly sad. I am sad this woman (and likely others) were victimized in such an awful way within the walls of one of the most significant sites of the church that I love. I am sad that there may have been failures of leadership at different levels within the church that made these alleged crimes not be properly assessed until now. If failures do come to light I hope those responsible are properly disciplined and that we learn to be better as an organization in the future.

And it makes me extremely sad to see good members unwilling to admit that this may have been a very big screw up by the church and also to see many who were once our brother and sisters in the gospel take such pleasure in an awful situation because of the damage it can do the church. I'm not referring to anyone in this forum in particular but to family members and friends who don't post here.

[originalsocal]

I have a family member who was ex'd, who told us in so many words that you can't imagine how empty you feel when you lose the companionship of the spirit. When she was baptized again, she was very grateful to get it back again. She is a stronger member now than she ever was before the excommunication. So I can definitely see there is a group of people that may need to feel terrible remorse for what they've done. And going through that harrowing guilt is necessary for them mentally to get back on track.

But this does not speak to the 'doctrinality' of excommunication. It just doesn't make any sense to me, in the context of Christianity.



Let's assume that excommunication for some sins is required for forgiveness, and that this is the reason why the church has been commanded to do it. Is the stigma and all the other negative things associated with it necessary also? For instance, the public shaming of not being able to talk in church, no callings, etc. Is there any doctrinal need for this humiliation? Furthermore, it is LDS doctrine that ex'd members do not have the companionship of the holy ghost. For something that is taught to be so essential in this world, what is the doctrinal explanation of why an already struggling ex-member cannot have access to this gift to keep him/her on the right path to forgiveness?

Thinking about my family member I referenced above, in my anecdotal experience she is the exception. I know of a handful of ex'd people in my area who fell off the grid, so to speak. All the trappings that go with the supposed doctrine of why excommunication; i.e. the capriciousness of the discipline, the shame involved of regular attendance after being ex'd, the long time before even being considered 'good enough' for rebaptism, were just not worth it for them. I know others work through it and are eventually grateful for the whole ordeal. But for a supposed step in the path towards forgiveness, excommunication sure does leave quite the scar.

I agree that it does leave a scar. Having sat in on a number of disciplinary counsels I've come to realize that being ex'ed is not just a chance to feel the pain. When a person is ex'ed the covenants that they have made are gone. They are no longer obligated to live up to what they no longer have. From there you can go one of two ways---fight to get it back or live on free of the obligation that you probably didn't want to live up to anyway. You get to choose. Choice is always a good thing imo.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Some new details here:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/03/22/former-missionary-training-center-president-admits-to-asking-a-young-missionary-to-expose-her-breasts-in-the-80s-byu-police-say/

She went to BYU police last November, before the interview. Then she spoke with them in more detail after she interviewed him in December. Bishop was interrogated by BYU police and confessed to taking her to his "his small preparation room" and asking her to show him her breasts.

Deputy Utah County Attorney David Sturgill said he could not pursue charges against Bishop because the statute of limitations had expired. In 1984, the legal deadline for filing a rape charge was four years, he said.

“I have no reason to doubt the victim’s disclosure, and would have likely prosecuted Mr. Bishop, but for the expiration of the statute of limitations,” Sturgill wrote.

[Art Vandelay]

Some new details here:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/03/22/former-missionary-training-center-president-admits-to-asking-a-young-missionary-to-expose-her-breasts-in-the-80s-byu-police-say/

She went to BYU police last November, before the interview. Then she spoke with them in more detail after she interviewed him in December. Bishop was interrogated by BYU police and confessed to taking her to his "his small preparation room" and asking her to show him her breasts.

Why the BYU police? Because the MTC is a BYU property? I would think the Provo police would be better able to handle a case of this magnitude (if not for the SoL)

[Moliere]

Some new details here:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/03/22/former-missionary-training-center-president-admits-to-asking-a-young-missionary-to-expose-her-breasts-in-the-80s-byu-police-say/

She went to BYU police last November, before the interview. Then she spoke with them in more detail after she interviewed him in December. Bishop was interrogated by BYU police and confessed to taking her to his "his small preparation room" and asking her to show him her breasts.

That is a good article.

Here's a very believable part that changes the narrative a bit:

“The way he uses the term, ‘sex addiction,’ and the way she uses it are different,” the son said. “Throughout his life, [my father] has struggled with … maintaining pure thoughts.”

I don't want to downplay the fact this man should never have been in the position he was in, but him admitting to sexual molestation or having a sex addiction should be interpreted using those terms used in the church, not as they are interpreted outside of the church. What he did was inappropriate, but I'm having doubts that it was actually rape or even attempted rape.

In full disclosure, I didn't read the transcript and have only seen summaries of what it entailed.

[ByronMarchant]

I don't want to downplay the fact this man should never have been in the position he was in, but him admitting to sexual molestation or having a sex addiction should be interpreted using those terms used in the church, not as they are interpreted outside of the church. What he did was inappropriate, but I'm having doubts that it was actually rape or even attempted rape.

In full disclosure, I didn't read the transcript and have only seen summaries of what it entailed.

You should read the entire transcript. His memory is not poor, and his admissions are not subtle.

[Moliere]

You should read the entire transcript. His memory is not poor, and his admissions are not subtle.

I didn't say his memory was poor nor that his admission are not subtle. I'm saying that when he admits to having a sexual addiction, that is defined very differently in teh church than it is out of the church. That difference should be accounted for. Porn addiction is similar in taht it's much more broadly defined in the church than out.

[The_Tick]

I didn't say his memory was poor nor that his admission are not subtle. I'm saying that when he admits to having a sexual addiction, that is defined very differently in teh church than it is out of the church. That difference should be accounted for. Porn addiction is similar in taht it's much more broadly defined in the church than out.

Lol...dumb dumb.

He's on old white male. He needs to be destroyed. Stay with the Ex-mo narrative please.

I wont listen to a Podcast, nor will I read the transcript. But...for someone that didn't want this to get out, how did the recording get out?

Someone isn't telling the truth.

[Pelado]

That is a good article.

Here's a very believable part that changes the narrative a bit:



I don't want to downplay the fact this man should never have been in the position he was in, but him admitting to sexual molestation or having a sex addiction should be interpreted using those terms used in the church, not as they are interpreted outside of the church. What he did was inappropriate, but I'm having doubts that it was actually rape or even attempted rape.

In full disclosure, I didn't read the transcript and have only seen summaries of what it entailed.

Here are some of the highlights (lowlights?) from the transcript (please excuse any mistakes on my part in transcribing):

But you also kind of groomed me, a
little bit, and you took me down into the basement, it wasn't really a basement,
but it was downstairs, a little storage room.

...

You took me down, you don't remember taking a sister missionary downstairs
into the basement? Okay, let me say this. I made all this time and you know
from a long time ago, 33 years ago was a long time. I need an apology, and I
need an admission, and I need to know what was ever done if anything, because
I have carried this and it has destroyed my life. So do you remember the room
in the basement?

I do.

Do you remember the movies in the basement? The DVD, the VHS player and
the TV? No. Do you remember tearing my blouse, pulling up my skirt, ripping
the back of my skirt and trying to rape me? But you didn't, because you didn't
have a full erection. You don't remember that?

No.

...

You told me that ...

Was I trying to titillate you?

I believe that you were grooming me, is what you were doing. And there was
another girl, we'll talk about her in a minute. Um, you told me that you liked it
when you and your wife, apparently, had dinner alone. Candlelit
dinner. And she had this ...

We would take

Yes, and she was, you liked it when she pulled it down over her breasts and
exposed her breasts at dinner.

Yes.

Okay. But, okay, so, your addiction was the problem. I understand that. I
understand that more than you know, only because I worked in substance
abuse, addiction.

From the other side of it was, [Redacted] was not...

You know what, we don't need to talk about [Redacted]. The fact that I was a
missionary, and you were my mission president and you were sharing that was
the problem.

That's true.

Yeah. So, but you had that storage room. Why did you take me down there?
And why would you do what you tried to do?

I think at that time I was still very much addicted.

...

Do you remember the other girl with me? The other one you were grooming?
Her name was [Redacted].

[Redacted]

Yes, that's her last name.

I remember [Redacted].

Did you molest her?

Yes

Did you [inaudible]?

Oh yes.

To her?

Yes.

Directly?

Yes.

...

Well when did you molest her?

When she was living with us.

Oh God.

I want to tell you about this.

Please do.

[Redacted] came in and she wanted a back rub. And I rubbed her back.
And that got too much...frisky. that's all that ever happened with all, and
with [Redacted] ... I must have, you know that was hard on [Redacted] too.

...

So the truth is, even
though you tried to rape me, and you couldn't get full erection, you still --

Why would I not remember that?

Well.

That's terrible.

Yeah, that was pretty damn terrible. But I'd rather be me than you.

I would rather be you than me.

...

If this goes public, how many women are going to come and say oh my god, me
too. How many?

Point well taken.

Okay, I know this point is well taken. I want to know how many. I want to know
that I am not the only one,. I want to know that I am not the only one.

You are not the only one.

I know I'm not the only one. How many are there?

When I was a young missionary, in Argentina, [inaudible 01:15:08], there was a
lady. I went to the mission president, halfway confessed, didn't tell him all that
happened, so you can't blame him for not [inaudible 01:15:30]. There was
nothing .. when I was in Florida, there was this lady I just told you about.

...

I feel for the first time in those 30-something, longer than that for me, that I
have been successful, at last. I no longer have those feelings. I don't have the
stuff that sleeps with me bugging me all the time. I don't. It's gone. I don't know
how long. It's been like alcoholics anonymous where they get up and say, "Hi,
I'm" ...

"I'm Bob. I'm an alcoholic".

Yes. I'm Joe. I'm a sexual predator. Now then, how long you've been clean from
alcohol? X-number of years.

[jay santos]

I didn't say his memory was poor nor that his admission are not subtle. I'm saying that when he admits to having a sexual addiction, that is defined very differently in teh church than it is out of the church. That difference should be accounted for. Porn addiction is similar in taht it's much more broadly defined in the church than out.

I think this is a key point. It's messy because a) he's 85 and possibly not full mental state b) he has history of confessing half truths, so maybe nothing he said is trustworthy. But.

He calls himself a sex addict, but he basically gives a 4th step AA inventory to her in the interview, and it's bad but maybe doesn't support the Exmo view of this. She keeps asking, is there anything else. And he honestly seems to be trying to rack his brain to remember everything. He identifies about five total sexual experiences starting from when he was a missionary. He acknowledges that he had no business interviewing young women on sexual issues. But he seems to be implying more that it's titillating his brain than he's acting on it. He admits to "molesting" the other sister missionary. But when it is explained, it seems to be a consensual sexual act between two adults (granted the girl is much younger and he's in an authority position, so it's obviously not morally correct) that starts with a back rub and "gets frisky". He seems to be heavily shame based and when he seems to be admitting to being a sex addict and predator, he is talking about this in terms of the standard of an LDS leader not what most people think of as a sex addict and predator.

[Moliere]

I think this is a key point. It's messy because a) he's 85 and possibly not full mental state b) he has history of confessing half truths, so maybe nothing he said is trustworthy. But.

He calls himself a sex addict, but he basically gives a 4th step AA inventory to her in the interview, and it's bad but maybe doesn't support the Exmo view of this. She keeps asking, is there anything else. And he honestly seems to be trying to rack his brain to remember everything. He identifies about five total sexual experiences starting from when he was a missionary. He acknowledges that he had no business interviewing young women on sexual issues. But he seems to be implying more that it's titillating his brain than he's acting on it. He admits to "molesting" the other sister missionary. But when it is explained, it seems to be a consensual sexual act between two adults (granted the girl is much younger and he's in an authority position, so it's obviously not morally correct) that starts with a back rub and "gets frisky". He seems to be heavily shame based and when he seems to be admitting to being a sex addict and predator, he is talking about this in terms of the standard of an LDS leader not what most people think of as a sex addict and predator.

Yes, you said it better than me.

He's a sexual predator, I get that. He did inappropriate things and should be disciplined by the church. He even confessed to doing inappropriate things. But there's no evidence or confession of rape or attempted rape so the exmo narrative of this guy raping people isn't really holding up. This doesn't discount that fact that church leaders should have removed him from his position when the accusations were made, but even MPFunk seems willing to give a small pass to the church back then given the very different environment in society towards this stuff.

Thankfully things have changed for the better even before this allegation, as evidence by what our resident bishops have mentioned.

I guess I'm more upset that Mormonleaks got the scoop before I could put this lady on a podcast episode

[Green Monstah]

Lol...dumb dumb.

He's on old white male. He needs to be destroyed. Stay with the Ex-mo narrative please.

I wont listen to a Podcast, nor will I read the transcript. But...for someone that didn't want this to get out, how did the recording get out?

Someone isn't telling the truth.

I'm the President of The_Tick fanclub, but if this is true, why the hell are you commenting in the thread?