Joseph Bishop Redux: Lawsuit Filed

[Grunt]

30 minutes ago, erog84 said:

And this is the problem in my view.  That information should have been sent to the local legal authorities, not the local ecclesiastic authorities.  We see the same issue across many organizations, who keep it all internal when it should be handled outside the organization.  How many occurrences have happened just like this, where the local church authority covered it up?  Hopefully very few, but I am not too optimistic about that.

I'm assuming when NT said "still have the court documents" it was from the authorities.

[estradling75]

41 minutes ago, erog84 said:

And this is the problem in my view.  That information should have been sent to the local legal authorities, not the local ecclesiastic authorities.  We see the same issue across many organizations, who keep it all internal when it should be handled outside the organization.  How many occurrences have happened just like this, where the local church authority covered it up?  Hopefully very few, but I am not too optimistic about that.

Sent by whom...  The accuser??... that is well within their legal right if they want to but sometimes they chose not to no one stopped them but themselves..  The Church?  Do you really think the Church should drag both the accused and the accuser into legal system if the accuser is unwilling? Honesty how do you expect that to go if the legally adult accuser does not want to testify?  We are not talking youth who are minors and seen and seen as legally incompetent.  We are talking full grown legally recognized adult here making their own choices

[erog84]

21 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Sent by whom...  The accuser??... that is well within their legal right if they want to but sometimes they chose not to no one stopped them but themselves..  The Church?  Do you really think the Church should drag both the accused and the accuser into legal system if the accuser is unwilling? Honesty how do you expect that to go if the legally adult accuser does not want to testify?  We are not talking youth who are minors and seen and seen as legally incompetent.  We are talking full grown legally recognized adult here making their own choices

 

On 4/6/2018 at 12:26 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I would just like to make sure I'm on record here.

- A few years back, I had information regarding a Mormon in another state sexually abusing a child.  I knew the child.

- I sent my information to that person's bishop and stake president, and asked them to tell me the results.

- The church held a disciplinary counsel and the person was excommunicated.  The stake president called me back to tell me that result.  He asked me to let him know if he could do anything else to help the child heal.

- I am a real person.  This is not a rumor, or a thirdhand account of something.  I still have all the court documents and emails and transcripts and stuff.  

 

I'm only guessing here, but when horrible stuff like this happens, I'm guessing my experience is more of the norm than everything we're reading about with the Joseph Bishop incident.

This is what I quoted, and was replying to his personal situation.  Perhaps there is miscommunication going on because your response is hard to match up to what I said based on his personal situation.  Maybe you felt like I was responding to the original posting?  Here is my reply regardless.

- Sent by himself.  If he was able to send the knowledge of knowing child abuse was going on to a church authority, he should have been sending that to the legal authorities.

- I don't think the Church should be involved at determining the legality of those things other than turning over what information they are given to the authorities (legal ones).  If you want to let the Bishop know what's going on, fine, but that should be secondary to letting CPS (or police, etc) know.

 

[erog84]

47 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm assuming when NT said "still have the court documents" it was from the authorities.

Yea, maybe I miss-interpreted.  I read it as the "church court" since I am so used to people calling it that.

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, erog84 said:

Yea, maybe I miss-interpreted.  I read it as the "church court" since I am so used to people calling it that.

I'm a newb, so I've never heard "church court" before.  

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, erog84 said:

- I don't think the Church should be involved at determining the legality of those things other than turning over what information they are given to the authorities (legal ones).  If you want to let the Bishop know what's going on, fine, but that should be secondary to letting CPS (or police, etc) know.

How far are you willing to take this? Should the Church authorities call the cops if Sister Whoever shows up with a black eye? Should they contact CPS every time a child has a bruise?

It is naive in the extreme to say that the Church should never try to determine legality before calling the cops. No reasonable person would ever reflexively call the cops without first making some effort to determine whether there seemed to be a criminal or other legal problem.

[erog84]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

How far are you willing to take this? Should the Church authorities call the cops if Sister Whoever shows up with a black eye? Should they contact CPS every time a child has a bruise?

It is naive in the extreme to say that the Church should never try to determine legality before calling the cops. No reasonable person would ever reflexively call the cops without first making some effort to determine whether there seemed to be a criminal or other legal problem.

Having read your posts for years now (long time lurker), I think you would appreciate a "common sense" approach.  When someone is saying child abuse or rape, that is much different than a single bruise.  And if you aren't sure, better safe than sorry.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, erog84 said:

Having read your posts for years now (long time lurker), I think you would appreciate a "common sense" approach.  When someone is saying child abuse or rape, that is much different than a single bruise.  And if you aren't sure, better safe than sorry.

My intent wasn't to tear you down, but to say that calling the cops every time someone says "boo" won't help the problem. Making the blanket statement that "the Church shouldn't try to determine the legality of things before reporting to the authorities" throws the door open very wide indeed. If you meant only the case where someone claims abuse or rape, then I probably agree that it should just be reported, unless it's so obviously false that it doesn't merit attention.

But I am not sure how that applies in the present case. For example, Brother Leavitt heard the sister's claim in 1984, when mandatory reporting laws didn't exist (I think). He obviously had serious reservations about the reliability of her report. In retrospect, with the present evidence that Bishop was a pervert, that looks pretty bad -- but at the time, it seemed reasonable to Leavitt, and if we had been there with him, we may well have agreed.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, erog84 said:

Having read your posts for years now (long time lurker),

Glad you are here my friend!  

Anyone who has the patience and stamina to read @Vort posts for years deserves to be the next apostle. 

[erog84]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

My intent wasn't to tear you down, but to say that calling the cops every time someone says "boo" won't help the problem. Making the blanket statement that "the Church shouldn't try to determine the legality of things before reporting to the authorities" throws the door open very wide indeed. If you meant only the case where someone claims abuse or rape, then I probably agree that it should just be reported, unless it's so obviously false that it doesn't merit attention.

But I am not sure how that applies in the present case. For example, Brother Leavitt heard the sister's claim in 1984, when mandatory reporting laws didn't exist (I think). He obviously had serious reservations about the reliability of her report. In retrospect, with the present evidence that Bishop was a pervert, that looks pretty bad -- but at the time, it seemed reasonable to Leavitt, and if we had been there with him, we may well have agreed.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I would rather a paper trail showing I covered my bases than ignoring a situation if it comes back to bite me.  There is never a perfect solution, and will always be "exceptions to the rule", but as I stated before, better safe than sorry.

[Grunt]

6 minutes ago, erog84 said:

Hindsight is 20/20, but I would rather a paper trail showing I covered my bases than ignoring a situation if it comes back to bite me.  There is never a perfect solution, and will always be "exceptions to the rule", but as I stated before, better safe than sorry.

Sure, but a Bishop has an obligation to the congregation, too.  Personally, I don't think he would be fulfilling it if every time someone issued an accusation he turned him into the authorities.

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, erog84 said:

Hindsight is 20/20, but I would rather a paper trail showing I covered my bases than ignoring a situation if it comes back to bite me.  There is never a perfect solution, and will always be "exceptions to the rule", but as I stated before, better safe than sorry.

@estradling75 already mentioned this; but it bears repeating:  Hughes-Denson was a grown woman when she encountered Bishop.

There are many states that require third-party reporting of alleged sexual abuse against a child.  I don’t know of a single state that requires third-party reporting of alleged sexual assaults against an adult.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, erog84 said:

 

This is what I quoted, and was replying to his personal situation.  Perhaps there is miscommunication going on because your response is hard to match up to what I said based on his personal situation.  Maybe you felt like I was responding to the original posting?  Here is my reply regardless.

Fair enough

The topic was and is about a grown adult and I made it very clear about the current difference between a Legal Adult and a Legal Minor touching both issues

1 hour ago, erog84 said:

- Sent by himself.  If he was able to send the knowledge of knowing child abuse was going on to a church authority, he should have been sending that to the legal authorities.

- I don't think the Church should be involved at determining the legality of those things other than turning over what information they are given to the authorities (legal ones).  If you want to let the Bishop know what's going on, fine, but that should be secondary to letting CPS (or police, etc) know.

Both cases of present-ism.  Mandatory reporting requirement are relatively new.  While I generally agree with such laws and think they are a good idea, I also know that they have not existed for the majority of my life.  For the majority of my life people were expected and did exercise personal judgment.

It is it manifestly unfair to change the goal post retroactively and then hang someone out for doing what was the normal of the time.

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by estradling75
New info

[Just_A_Guy]

(Clarification:  in Utah, *everyone* is a mandatory reporter of child abuse.)

Edited April 17, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, erog84 said:

Yea, maybe I miss-interpreted.  I read it as the "church court" since I am so used to people calling it that.

To clarify: The "information" I gave to the local ecclesiastic authorities, was that Dood had pled guilty to a count of aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, and had been sentenced to 5 years to life.  There was no keeping anything internal.

[askandanswer]

8 hours ago, erog84 said:

And this is the problem in my view.  That information should have been sent to the local legal authorities, not the local ecclesiastic authorities.  We see the same issue across many organizations, who keep it all internal when it should be handled outside the organization.  How many occurrences have happened just like this, where the local church authority covered it up?  Hopefully very few, but I am not too optimistic about that.

Right now in Australia, the current Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, is on trial for failing to report allegations of child abuse made against a priest he was responsible for in the early 1980's. The charges were later proven and I think the priest ended up killing himself.

[NeuroTypical]

So again, just to make sure we all understand what the church is doing...

Church Statement About Alleged Sexual Assault by Former Mission President - Newsroom - March 2018

  Quote

Sexual abuse cannot be tolerated in the Church. We continue to urge our leaders to take reports of abuse very seriously. Leaders should call the Church's abuse helpline, which has been established to assure that victims are cared for and that abuse reporting laws are strictly obeyed.

 

And this:
How the Church Approaches Abuse - Newsroom - Take a look at what the church says about these headings:

  Quote

- Our First Priority: Help the Victim, Stop Abuse
- Victims Are Innocent
- Children Are a Gift from God
- Zero-Tolerance Policy
- A Societal Plague
- The Church’s Comprehensive Efforts to Prevent Abuse and Protect Children
- Congregations can provide great protection:
- Facilities and programs designed to protect against abuse:
- Process for calling leaders:
- Membership record annotations:
- Professional help line:
- Counseling available:
- Continuing Vigilance
- Convicted Abusers Not Permitted to Work with Children
- Responsibility to Educate, Be Watchful
- Our Duty to Safeguard Children

 

And President Hinckley's General Conference talk from 2002, where he talks about spousal, elderly, and child abuse:

Now I wish to mention another form of abuse that has been much publicized in the media. It is the sordid and evil abuse of children by adults, usually men. Such abuse is not new. There is evidence to indicate that it goes back through the ages. It is a most despicable and tragic and terrible thing. I regret to say that there has been some very limited expression of this monstrous evil among us. It is something that cannot be countenanced or tolerated. The Lord Himself said, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

That’s very strong language from the Prince of Peace, the Son of God.

I quote from our Handbook of Instructions: "The Church’s position is that abuse cannot be tolerated in any form. Those who abuse ... are subject to Church discipline. They should not be given Church callings and may not have a temple recommend. Even if a person who abused a child sexually or physically receives Church discipline and is later restored to full fellowship or readmitted by baptism, leaders should not call the person to any position working with children or youth unless the First Presidency authorizes removal of the annotation of the person’s membership record.

"In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse" (Church Handbook of Instruction, p. 157-158).

For a long period now we have worked on this problem. We have urged bishops, stake presidents, and others to reach out to victims, to comfort them, to strengthen them, to let them know that what happened was wrong, that the experience was not their fault, and that it need never happen again.

We have issued publications, established a telephone line where Church officers may receive counsel in handling cases and offered professional help through LDS Family Services.

These acts are often criminal in their nature. They are punishable under the law. Professional counselors, including lawyers and social workers, are available on this help line to advise bishops and stake presidents concerning their obligations in these circumstances. Those in other nations should call their respective area presidents.

 

And occasional news stories like this one from 2016: Church Marks National Child Abuse Prevention Month

  Quote

Sister Oscarson presented a $100,000 donation to Teresa Huizar, executive director of the National Children’s Alliance, the national association and accrediting body for children’s advocacy centers, and a $25,000 check from the Church to Susanne Mitchell, director of the Children’s Justice Centers in Salt Lake County.

 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, erog84 said:

Hindsight is 20/20, but I would rather a paper trail showing I covered my bases than ignoring a situation if it comes back to bite me.  There is never a perfect solution, and will always be "exceptions to the rule", but as I stated before, better safe than sorry.

I've known too many people who lie to make that a common policy.  I'd be reporting people for various crimes every week.

[erog84]

16 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Fair enough

The topic was and is about a grown adult and I made it very clear about the current difference between a Legal Adult and a Legal Minor touching both issues

Both cases of present-ism.  Mandatory reporting requirement are relatively new.  While I generally agree with such laws and think they are a good idea, I also know that they have not existed for the majority of my life.  For the majority of my life people were expected and did exercise personal judgment.

It is it manifestly unfair to change the goal post retroactively and then hang someone out for doing what was the normal of the time.

 

I completely agree.  It's sad that we can now look back and see how much some of these church leaders (Throughout all religions) have failed us.  Yes they are only human, just like anyone else, but I think many of us, myself included, expect more out of them.

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, erog84 said:

I completely agree.  It's sad that we can now look back and see how much some of these church leaders (Throughout all religions) have failed us.  Yes they are only human, just like anyone else, but I think many of us, myself included, expect more out of them.

While some did indeed fail...   A large chunk of these so called failures simply not being able to predict the future... (or divine truth from falsehoods based solely on peoples words) and that is hardly a shameful thing

[Just_A_Guy]

Most of Denson’s claims against the Church, and all the claims against Joseph Bishop, were thrown out today.  

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46375388&nid=148&title=judge-dismisses-sex-assault-lawsuit-against-ex-mtc-president-only-1-claim-remains-against-lds-church

[NeuroTypical]

Sadness and misery all around.  No decent person, on any side of an issue like this, ever has reason to rejoice.  

[Guest MormonGator]

53 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sadness and misery all around.  No decent person, on any side of an issue like this, ever has reason to rejoice.  

My thoughts completely. 

[Anddenex]

12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sadness and misery all around.  No decent person, on any side of an issue like this, ever has reason to rejoice.  

Although I believe I am understanding the point, I feel the need to make this point (I assume a pedantic nature in me), if Joseph Bishop is innocent of this claim then his family, his relatives, and close friends all have reason to rejoice. I wouldn't consider their reason to rejoice as not being decent people.

 

[Vort]

13 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sadness and misery all around.  No decent person, on any side of an issue like this, ever has reason to rejoice.  

If it were my father or brother who had been accused of rape, and I believed him not guilty of the charge, I would certainly be rejoicing. I do not believe that makes me an indecent person. I see that Anddenex has already made this point, but I thought it worth repeating. (And I'm not even worried about possibly being pedantic.)