The MTC Abuse Story

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This is the part that bothers me the most...

Like I said, it raises my eyebrows too.  But I think it’s helpful to keep two things in mind:

First, it’s a simple (if oft-unfortunate) fact of American life that if you know a secret, your lawyer needs to know that secret too if you want him to do his job effectively.

Second, the procedural posture is important here.  This isn’t a case of a victim making a police report, and then the Church swoops in and tries to stop the prosecution or assist or indemnify the perpetrator in his defense.  Nor is it a case of a victim saying “you’ve got a problem and we want proof that it’s been fixed”.  This is an accuser—apparently a dishonest one, to some extent—trying to shake down a multi-million dollar institution for cold, hard cash.  As @DoctorLemon says, you don’t do a six- or seven-figure payout just because a random Joe starts making legal threats.

[Just_A_Guy]

11 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

One more thought: what if her "church record" has nothing to do with bishop interviews, and is really limited to stuff like "she renounced membership on this date . . ."

I agree records of past sins confessed to a bishop should be totally off limits in litigation.  (Such records, if I recall are inadmissible in trials anyhow).  But if I were defending the church against explosive allegations, I would certainly want to know if we are dealing with someone with a motive to embarrass the church, e.g. a member who apostasized or was excommunicated.

From what I can tell we don't know what church records were pulled, but maybe it isn't quite as bad as it sounds?

 

Yeah, and my understanding is that the Church’s membership information system isn’t even set up to keep details of bishop’s interviews, confessions, etc.

By the way, given this talk about ecclesiastical confidentiality—did anyone else find it odd that Ron Leavitt (accuser’s old branch president) spoke to the press so readily about his recollections of his interviews with the accuser?

Edited March 31, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yeah, and my understanding is that the Church’s membership information system isn’t even set up to keep details of bishop’s interviews, confessions, etc.

By the way, given this talk about ecclesiastical confidentiality—did anyone else find it odd that Ron Leavitt (accuser’s old branch president) spoke to the press so readily about his recollections of his interviews with the accuser?

As bishop or branch presdient, one keeps confessions confidential.  But the substance of her meeting with him was not about her confession or secrets.  It was about her accusations against Bishop.

And since we don' t have details, there may very well have been some kind of confession on her part (partial complicity for example) that he did indeed keep confidential.  And such a confession would have made his comment (about her story being inconsistent) valid.  But he can't divulge the reasons he believed her story was inconsistent.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Guest

[lostinwater]

No winners here.  

Though what the mormon church did does not surprise me.  i'm not bothered by it as much as some - just because i'm not as vested in any meaning.  

The mormon church hires lawyers to protect it's interests.  Someone 'attacks' those interests and lawyers generally feel compelled to defend and attack back in the interests of their client.  i had a cousin who worked at a very high level within the mormon church.  He's told my family that there is as much bureaucracy within the mormon church as there is in any other big corporation - actually, the most of any place he's ever worked.

It's tragic though, because a lot of innocents get ripped apart in the process of due process.

Again, the things that bother me most are the messages that get heard by so many.  The message many will hear is "We'll ignore you as long as we can, the statute of limitations will pass, dig up everything we can about you if you make an accusation, and may very well not believe you after all that, regardless". 

Again, i know there are other messages.  And that is just an observation of how a lot of people are reading this.  They may be wrong, but the damage of that message is still there.

And certainly, the whole thing has spurred a lot of hate and anger and misunderstanding between a lot of groups defending either side.

The toxic effects of this whole thing just seem to deepen, day by day - as if it's heading towards the worst possible outcome anyone can imagine.

[Just_A_Guy]

Not to be overly confrontational, @lostinwater, but in situations like this what would you have the Church do?  Pay in full every claim made by someone who uses the “r” word, no questions asked?

Edited March 31, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[lostinwater]

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not to be overly confrontational, @lostinwater, but in situations like this what would you have the Church do?  Pay in full every claim made by someone who uses the “r” word, no questions asked?

Thank-you Sir.

No - not at all. i hope i didn't say that.  If i did, i didn't mean to.  i definitely didn't mean to convey that.

i'm just sad that so many innocent people - on both sides - get caught up and hurt in the legal process that (perhaps necessarily) surrounds an assault/abuse allegation. It doesn't surprise me that the mormon church participates in the same legal process that any other organization would, in similar ways.  

Did i really convey something else?  If yes, please tell me how (honestly want to know), so i can be more clear in the future.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you Sir.

No - not at all. i hope i didn't say that.  If i did, i didn't mean to.  i definitely didn't mean to convey that.

i'm just sad that so many innocent people - on both sides - get caught up and hurt in the legal process that (perhaps necessarily) surrounds an assault/abuse allegation. It doesn't surprise me that the mormon church participates in the same legal process that any other organization would, in similar ways.  

Did i really convey something else?  If yes, please tell me how (honestly want to know), so i can be more clear in the future.

No, I agree with your sadness at the overall situation.  I just wasn’t sure whether you were suggesting that there is some better option out there for the Church to follow.  

[NeuroTypical]

There is a way for the church to track 'dirt' on it's members.  It's called a "permanent annotation to the membership record".  There's a process to make such an annotation, and it involves the bishop and Stake President (and possibly others, it's been a while since I had access to the process).  

It is used only in cases when a member has committed a serious offence like child sexual abuse or murder or something.  It is there, in order to help the church prevent roving predators from moving from ward to ward, grooming and harvesting victims, and then moving on before they get caught.  Because there are no shortage of monsters in the form of real friendly good guys, who move into the ward eager to serve, talking to the bishop about how they're good with the youth, and have experience with boy scouts, etc.

Once placed on a member's record, it stays unless a member of the first presidency allow it's removal.  I am told it stays even for members who are excommunicated or resign, and later are re-baptized.  Because again, the world is full of dudes who get excommunicated for raping a child, and then three years later they pop up in another state appearing sincere in their desires to be re-baptized.

Thank God our church tracks such things. 

[lostinwater]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

your sadness at the overall situation.  I just wasn’t sure whether you were suggesting that there is some better option out there for the Church to follow.  

Thank-you.

Honestly, i think everyone is probably doing what they know how to do.  And that means lots of failures.  

It's easy (and on MormonHub, very dangerous  ) to provide criticisms about people, processes, and motivations other than your own.  Even then.

Based on what i know, i think the lawyers involved on both sides were perhaps acting a little less than Christlike - which is basically what they are paid to do.  And much the same way i might act placed in a similar situation.

i also think there are factors with the mormon culture that may have contributed.  But these same cultural factors in another context could do a lot of good.

i'm trying to learn to stay away from just telling others how they should be the version of themselves that i like best, and then expressing indignation when they refuse to comply.  There are enough broken people to help to keep even a non-hypocritical and focused version of myself busy for a very long time.  God an Jesus are the ones who do the big stuff.  People like me are just very small cogs in their very big wheel.  

[NightSG]

On 3/29/2018 at 8:06 PM, estradling75 said:

When the case comes down to "He Said... She Said"

Don't you mean "She said, and he didn't deny it?"

[Vort]

3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

"Salt Lake City attorney Greg Skordas said the document was meant to be used for negotiating a possible settlement, releasing it was improper."   Her private information released to the media!

Pretty sure this "private information" was all public records. The counsel for the defense was merely demonstrating that this woman was not a credible plaintiff.

3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

And this in particular:
"Turner Bitton with the Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault said even if the church didn’t put out the letter, the methods used in it are intended to silence accusers.

“It sends a message to that individual person, but to everyone else, that if you come forward we are going to dig through your past we're going to dig through your experiences who you are your very identity,” Bitton said."  

We all know this is what happens when a victim of rape goes to court....that's part of the reason that if I were raped I doubt I would report it to the police.  What's the point? ---but to have this happen when the church is involved.  I have no words...

You take Turner Bitton's words at face value, without considering his obvious biases? I wonder why?

"The methods used" are intended to demonstrate to the plaintiff's counsel the weakness of their case. What exactly do you expect the Church to do? To pay off anyone who claims grievance? The Church is supposed not to defend itself? The Church is supposed not to bring up the embarrassing fact that the woman is a liar with a history of false accusations?

Why must the woman who cries "rape" be believed unconditionally?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Vort you clearly are missing where I'm coming from. And no I don't think I can explain. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest MormonGator]

 

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Don't you mean "She said, and he didn't deny it?"

Sounds like that to me too. 

[estradling75]

12 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Vort we must have a different definition of at face value. Or perhaps you missed my post where i asked JAG to HELP me understand, or the post where I thanked JAG and DoctorLemon for explaining the legal status quo to me.  

At any rate I dont think my response is what merits accepting at face value at all. I'm struggling with this, yes, but I am not accepting ANYTHING  about this article at face value. 

The legal system... is an adversarial system. (aka they fight and the Judge rules on the winner)  Thus lawyers are fighters who understand the rules of the "Fight Club"  Thus court and the events leading to it are fights.  While we might think attacks on character are low blows" they are legal ones.

This is one of the many reason why our character matter.

Both sides can end up getting their character attacked, reputations ruined, and have serious (and understandable reservations) about going through the process at all. 

Therefore it is entirely disingenuous for one side complain about how it effects its side while gleefully doing the same exact thing to the other side.  That is the hypocrisy of Turner Bitton.  That being said I will repeat that some who might have valid claim look at the process and decide not to engage. That is their choice. It is not intended to "silence accusers" but part of the process to help weed out bogus and fraudulent claims.

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 

Sounds like that to me too. 

So throw due process out the window and have Mob rule then.  Just because you didn't hear anything?

[Guest MormonGator]

33 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So throw due process out the window and have Mob rule then.  Just because you didn't hear anything?

Ha. I'm in the ACLU and I interned for the public defenders in college. So while that doesn't make me an expert in any way, shape of form on legal affairs, it does sort of show where my sympathies are if you want to talk about rights of the accused. When the prosecution indicts him, he is absolutely, 100% entitled to a fair trial in front of objective jurors. 

But when someone doesn't deny a charge-then yes, that strongly implies guilt. And if you are innocent, it implies stupidity if you don't deny it.  If I accuse you @estradling75 of cheating on your wife (which is something you'd never do, I'm sure of it, and it's the first "crime" that popped into my head. I could have said auto theft, bank robbery) I'm 100% certain you wouldn't just meekly "not deny" anything, especially if you didn't cheat on her, steal a car, or rob a bank. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

IIRC the Church had had a good working relationship with UCASA in the past.  I’m not inclined to assume that Bitton was fully aware of the context in which his comments were being extracted or would be used.  It’s remarkable how quickly a “conventional wisdom” can emerge about certain allegations, that is drastically detached from what the parties with direct knowledge have actually said.  Bitton could easily be a victim of that “conventional wisdom”.

Rita Skeeter is far more representative of modern journalism, than Joseph Bishop is of modern Mormonism.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

But when someone doesn't deny a charge-then yes, that strongly implies guilt. And if you are innocent, it implies stupidity if you don't deny it.  If I accuse you @estradling75 of cheating on your wife (which is something you'd never do, I'm sure of it) I'm 100% certain you wouldn't just meekly "not deny" anything, especially if you didn't cheat on her. 

I’m like you, MG.  But there are a lot of strange ducks out there who make an inordinately big deal about even having to “dignify” an accusation with a denial.  

There’s also the possibility that, having had one or two bishops already come asking about these accusations over the course of the last decade for stuff that supposedly happened thirty years ago; he just got cranky and decided that he was done talking about it. 

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Ha. I'm in the ACLU and I interned for the public defenders in college. So while that doesn't make me an expert in any way, shape of form on legal affairs, it does sort of show where my sympathies are if you want to talk about rights of the accused. When the prosecution indicts him, he is absolutely, 100% entitled to a fair trial in front of objective jurors. 

But when someone doesn't deny a charge-then yes, that strongly implies guilt. If I accuse you @estradling75 of cheating on your wife (which is something you'd never do, I'm sure of it) I'm 100% certain you wouldn't just meekly "not deny" anything, especially if you didn't cheat on her. 

Except what do you really have...  As evidence?   You have her words and you have his words (Thus my He said She said) and they both have been shown to have reasons to doubt their comments (so much that your own bias play out more on who you believe then truth will)

As for not saying anything consider this.  If you accuse me of cheating on my wife my first instinct (and the truth) would be to counter.  But if the accusation was part of a larger picture attempt to drag the churches name through the mud and extort money from them.  Then I would want to consult with the church and make sure opening my mouth did not make things worst.

Odds are (since I can be a bit abrasive and come off poorly) they might tell me to save it for court and legal process rather then the media.  And I would like to think I am the kinda of guy who would be willing to personal slander attacks quietly because I was asked to.

PS: Also I am one of @Just_A_Guy "odd ducks" (although I consider myself normal)  in that I truly believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I generally distrust the media to make accurate reports on the facts

[Guest MormonGator]

31 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m like you, MG.  But there are a lot of strange ducks out there who make an inordinately big deal about even having to “dignify” an accusation with a denial.  

There’s also the possibility that, having had one or two bishops already come asking about these accusations over the course of the last decade for stuff that supposedly happened thirty years ago; he just got cranky and decided that he was done talking about it. 

All true, and I understand that, @Just_A_Guy, I really do.

My grave concern is that we're applying a different standard to this guy due to his age and position than we would if the average LDS was accused of something. Obviously I can't answer that question because I can't read minds. 
 

25 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

(since I can be a bit abrasive and come off poorly)

A bit? 

(kidding, kidding) 

I'm from the school of thought where "odd ducks" are in the minority. Very small percentage. 90-95% of us would, if we really were accused of something as heinous as infidelity, rape, etc would punch back with all our might, especially in the real world and if we really didn't do it. Our reputation is on the line. Hypothetically we say we wouldn't dignify it with a response, or we'd just meekly deny it. But that's very rare. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

All true, and I understand that, @Just_A_Guy, I really do.

My grave concern is that we're applying a different standard to this guy due to his age and position than we would if the average LDS was accused of something. Obviously I can't answer that question because I can't read minds. 

You’re part right, I think; though maybe not for the reason you suggest (more on that in a minute).  But as a matter of trying to ascertain truth, I don’t know that that the skepticism being shown to the accuser or the deference being granted to the defendant are wrong in the abstract.  I think the question is probably less why we’re applying a deferential standard to this guy; and more why we don’t apply that standard to *every* accused wrongdoer.  (And, to be clear—though I’ve said this before—it seems pretty clear that he was sexually inappropriate; what I think is in dispute is whether he actually raped the woman.)

But I think it is wrong to attribute special treatment of Bishop/unique skepticism towards his accuser, to a misplaced respect for authority or “patriarchy” per se.  I think it’s more a function of the dynamics intrinsic to any small-ish, close-knit community; and this manifests itself in a couple of ways:

1)  One of the most insightful comments I’ve seen on the internet—and I don’t recall the source—went more-or-less as follows: 

“There are two types of women in life—‘Lifetime Channel’ women, and ‘Hallmark Channel’ women.  Flee from the first type.  Marry the second type.”

That fundamental sorting exists among both genders and is visible in any small community:  the “Lifetime Channel” folks who make everything a big production, equate “communication” to teary shouting matches, insist that healthy relationships require that plenty of such “communicationd” be done frequently, and who seem to move from one real or imagined crisis to the next; versus the “Hallmark Channel” folks who are maybe a little frumpy and saccharine and emotionally distant, but who ultimately put their heads down and get the job done and whose life stories just seem to magically “work” for some ill-defined reason.  

In any small community there is a chasm between the “Lifetime folks” and the “Hallmark folks”.  You saw it in high school, you saw it at work, you see it in your family, and you see it at Church.  When they can, the two groups often subconsciously avoid each other.  Lifetimers view Hallmarkers as privileged, artificial, smug, and out-of-touch/sheltered from the vicissitudes of life.  Hallmarkers view Lifetimers as just plain exhausting.  I think generally the “Lifetimers” have probably gone through and are still coping with some degree of trauma from which the “Hallmarkers” were blessedly spared.

The simple fact is that in any dispute between someone seen as a “Lifetimer” versis someone seen as a “Hallmarker”, the two groups will tend to rally around their own.  In the LDS sphere, this is exacerbated by the fact that Hallmarkers tend to be the ones who get into the leadership positions and dominate the bulk of “orthodox” Mormons.  Moreover, I think that if you had a solid “Hallmark” girl accuse a solid “Lifetime” Church leader of rape, you’d find her garnering a lot of support from her ward regardless of the two parties’ ecclesiastical positions and/or ages.  But that’s not a dynamic that plays out very often, especially because savvy sex predators will usually pick a “Lifetimer” as a victim specifically because Lifetimers usually have a tougher life experience, lower economic status, fewer family supports, and a pattern of questionable life choices that will tend to make her both more vulnerable and less believable.  In Bishop’s case, whatever he did to this woman, he seems to have chosen a doozy of a bad witness.

2)  Small communities will always favor insiders over outsiders.  I think most Mormons are livid over Bishop’s betrayal of his calling and would be thrilled to see him drummed out for adultery—he’s no “insider” at this point. In fact, I think what he’s admitted to doing is so egregious that as far as most of us are concerned it doesn’t even need to be discussed—to some degree or other the guy’s a slimeball, case closed.  

But the accuser at this point is also most definitely an “outsider” thrice over—by leaving, by publicly embarrassing the Church (as opposed to just going after her abuser), and then by demanding money from the Church.  As orthodox Mormons I think most of our positions with regard to Bishop and his accuser boil down to “a pox on both their houses”.  But since outsiders don’t hear us articulating the depth of our contempt for Bishop, I think our post-#metoo secular society chooses to interpret the result as us dismissing the victim for the purpose of closing ranks around the perpetrator.  And since the gravamen of the accuser’s case is now coalescing around allegations of a Church cover-up and demands for a fat payout, the mainstream LDS pushback against her is probably only going to get harder.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

On 3/27/2018 at 11:30 AM, Anddenex said:

5) "It's rooted in our survival after two centuries of distrust from outsiders and it's also morphed into the idea that if we make our church look bad, no one will convert. That sounds trite, but the need to push conversion is also a strong, benevolent belief." False. The Church (and its good standing members) are not more concerned about converts than people being abused. We are concerned about falsehoods being spread as any organization is concerned with. We simply don't like lies. Name a person or entity that does? We are concerned with people who naively believe false witness and then hate you just because you are "Mormon." I am more concerned with the spread of falsehoods that lead to hate crimes, not people who choose not to join the Church.

With the recent shout out in Saturday morning general conference, this only confirms this statement above. False witness is being spread even in our solemn assemblies, by which those who are weak in the faith, or have no faith, will believe.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

All true, and I understand that, @Just_A_Guy, I really do.

My grave concern is that we're applying a different standard to this guy due to his age and position than we would if the average LDS was accused of something. Obviously I can't answer that question because I can't read minds. 
 

A bit? 

(kidding, kidding) 

I'm from the school of thought where "odd ducks" are in the minority. Very small percentage. 90-95% of us would, if we really were accused of something as heinous as infidelity, rape, etc would punch back with all our might, especially in the real world and if we really didn't do it. Our reputation is on the line. Hypothetically we say we wouldn't dignify it with a response, or we'd just meekly deny it. But that's very rare. 

Except that he DID deny it.  It just wasn't on the tape.  Remember that nature of the tape was specifically to put him at ease.

Later, as the accusation came public, he DID deny any rape accusations.

[estradling75]

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Except that he DID deny it.  It just wasn't on the tape.  Remember that nature of the tape was specifically to put him at ease.

Later, as the accusation came public, he DID deny any rape accusations.

Which is why I said

 

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

  You have her words and you have his words (Thus my He said She said) and they both have been shown to have reasons to doubt their comments (so much that your own bias play out more on who you believe then truth will)

The fact the people are claiming he did not deny it are showing more about their own bias then any thing remote close to truth

 

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I'm from the school of thought where "odd ducks" are in the minority. Very small percentage. 90-95% of us would, if we really were accused of something as heinous as infidelity, rape, etc would punch back with all our might, especially in the real world and if we really didn't do it. Our reputation is on the line. Hypothetically we say we wouldn't dignify it with a response, or we'd just meekly deny it. But that's very rare. 

And like I said chances are I would to (like the guy in question has which you ignore)  But the fact that I can see the possibility where I might think silence is a better/effective/the right path, means I need to allow for others to reach the same conclusion.

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Except that he DID deny it.

I've yet to hear of him personally and openly denying it; the only claim of that was filtered through his son/lawyer.  (Which sounds amusingly closely kin to uncle-dad when you actually say it.)

Quote

Remember that nature of the tape was specifically to put him at ease.

Even after she made the accusation? Even a drooling idiot would realize at that point it's time to make any denial right away.  "I don't recall but I'm sorry if I did" is awfully convenient when we have Ron "Rain Man" Leavitt clearly remembering this specific one out of thousands of meetings with his flock 34 years ago, and claiming that was because it lacked credibility.  Can you imagine if your brain kept meticulous and readily recallable track of every bit of information you didn't believe for decades?  I can clearly remember every girl I've gotten to second base with in the last 27 years, (technically in the last 41, but since the number prior to age 14 was zero, that doesn't really count) so how common would sexually abusing women have to be to relegate any particular one to "gee, I don't remember if I did that to you" status?

Edited April 1, 2018 by NightSG