Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

(Swish placeholder here.)

I seriously love you so much! Bring back the CUFfies, swaggiest post of the year nominee.

[Northwestcoug]

Joanna Brooks takes a shot on FB:

She's trying too hard there.

[PaloAltoCougar]

She's trying too hard there.

Yes, that was disappointing, and more than a little facile.

[SeattleUte]

Ok. That swish is allowed.

E.g., http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...l=1#post854523

[creekster]

She mentions in the transcript that she had counsel, and then later that "the statute of limitations has not run" on his crimes. Which leads me to believe she was getting legal advice on that topic.

Maybe. I thought that was a bit of bravado, especially given that the SoL as to rape HAD run already. Maybe she meant something else. Either way GM is right that it doesnt matter to the church's reaction to the misconduct.

[Green Monstah]

That is true, although she may not have known the statute had run. And a factual inconsistency might be a basis to evaluate her credibility. But I don't think it makes any difference to ecclesiastical issues.

Agreed. I’m not sure it makes much a difference morally/ethically either

[creekster]

E.g., http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...l=1#post854523

That's it? That was the swish?

[falafel]

That's it? That was the swish?

15 minutes of fame.

[falafel]

Maybe. I thought that was a bit of bravado, especially given that the SoL as to rape HAD run already. Maybe she meant something else. Either way GM is right that it doesnt matter to the church's reaction to the misconduct.

Possibly. I think I heard that part on the audio, of which I only listened to sections. She seemed very convinced on that point. Maybe she just looked up the SOL in the current statutes and thought "Aha! No SOL for rape!" before heading into the interview.

[Pelado]

Well, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to make a distinction between intentionally leading people out of the church vs. taking actions that have a secondary impact that results in people leaving the church. Call me crazy, but I doubt Bishop was raping people to push them out of the church. Its not an insignificant distinction, at least for me.

You have no proof of that. Maybe he was raping them so they would leave the church and he wouldn't have to be tempted to assault them any more.

That's a big difference.

How so?

I believe she said "you tried to rape me" and that the only reason he wasn't successful was because he couldn't maintain an erection.

Her account in the transcript is not inconsistent with her testimony to the BYU PD.

jay - I'm not agreeing with you very much today. I don't think the words she used with Bishop were to make a legal distinction between rape and attempted rape. She said to Bishop that he tried/attempted to rape her and only stopped because he couldn't get/keep an erection. The police determined the wording in the police report, going with "rape" after ascertaining that there was penetration.

[Omaha 680]

I have nothing to add to the discussion but appreciate most of the comments and debate. I would like to point out that in the last few pages Funk has made a ton of sense and SU has added nothing substantial to the discussion do to showing up late and heavily weighed down by his own biases. Also the Democrats are cold warriors and the republicans have no issue with foreign powers tampering in elections. Up is down. Day is night.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's it? That was the swish?

Sheesh, no kidding. SU, I take it back. No swish for you!

[All-American]

That's a big difference.

Maybe not in his case.

[Jarid in Cedar]

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.

Easy:

1. I like CS.
2. I like some of the people of CS.
3. I love the Church

But I'm not going to waste my time reading the fading memory of a man who made dumb choices. Nor the woman who is taking the current day definition of "sexual assault" and trying to bury this dude and vilify the Church.

And we have a huge problem with the current sliding scale of what people think is rape/sexual assault.

Y You haven't read the transcript, yet you are more than willing to assume the worst about the woman in question. You are obviously willing to disparage her because you perceive that she is vilifying the church. You assume that she is purposely leaked the transcript for nefarious means. And you do it without reviewing any of the relevant information.

The vilification is of the church bureaucracy, but not of the church itself. If you can't differentiate between the two, you are blinded by your own bias and internal motivation(both sides of the spectrum)

I'm not too blind to see that. But don't most people equate those to be one and the same? My belief is that they do.

So because you believe that others can't separate the two, your response is to attack her credibility, presume that she is taking "current day definition of sexual assault", and presume the worst intentions. This is basically the game plan of any defense attorney in a rape trial. I don't believe you care about Bishop's fate at all, only that it paints the church in a bad light.

[The_Tick]

Y You haven't read the transcript, yet you are more than willing to assume the worst about the woman in question. You are obviously willing to disparage her because you perceive that she is vilifying the church. You assume that she is purposely leaked the transcript for nefarious means. And you do it without reviewing any of the relevant information.





So because you believe that others can't separate the two, your response is to attack her credibility, presume that she is taking "current day definition of sexual assault", and presume the worst intentions. This is basically the game plan of any defense attorney in a rape trial. I don't believe you care about Bishop's fate at all, only that it paints the church in a bad light.

I didn't say that none of this happened. I'm not taking that position at all.

He said it didn't happen. She says that it did. I don't feel like I am taking a position either way. If it came off that way, that was not my intention.

Let the law go through its process. Let the legal action go through its process. Let the Church go through their process.

I feel bad for an old man and his family that are guilty until proven innocent. I feel bad that the woman is having her life drug through the press as well. And you are correct, I don't like that folks are popping up out of the woodwork to take this opportunity to drag the Church over the coals yet again.