The MTC Abuse Story

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Just to ensure there is consensus - there is no expectation that only honest and virtuous (however you define those) people get horrifically abused.  Souls bleed after being cut.  Some are really messy bleeders, too.  And yes, i agree that goes both ways.

Note, i know that nobody was saying otherwise explicitly - but just want to mention it.

Indeed nobody was saying that...  What we have been saying that we want facts and proof so that the right person can be held accountable.  Its not enough to make a claim, such claims need proof.  When the case comes down to "He Said... She Said" well that is not proof...  But if you have to make a judgement anyway well then the character of the accused and the accuser matters because that is all you have.

 

[lostinwater]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Totally agree.  The issue here, though, is that some folks want us to believe that any person a “damaged soul” bleeds over, must have necessarily cut that soul in a particular way.

Thank-you Sir.  

Interesting analogy.  i don't know - i wonder if others are trying to say that, or if it just feels that way.

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed nobody was saying that...  

Thank-you.

Happy as a clam then.

Honestly, my guess is that what both sides want is generally correct.  But both sides view themselves as being the answer, as opposed to seeing themselves as one half of the answer.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Honestly, my guess is that what both sides want is generally correct.  But both sides view themselves as being the answer, as opposed to seeing themselves as one half of the answer.

Insofar as the "other side" wants justice for rape victims, I'm with them 100%. But that is manifestly not what they want. They want blood. They want all charges of rape to be accepted at face value. They realize that women do in fact make spurious charges of rape, and that therefore innocent men will be punished. But -- and here's the rub -- they don't care. Innocent men being charged with and convicted of rape doesn't bother them, at least many of them. At most, these people (if speaking honestly) would say, "It's a regrettable cost that men must pay for having raped women for millennia" -- as if I or my sons or my brothers are somehow responsible for what some men may have done over the past ten thousand years.

No, I'm having a difficult time imputing any but the basest motives to those on the "other side", unless they're hopelessly blind or stupid, or less than seventeen years old. Witness the aggrieved outcry from them in response to a simple and obvious, "We can't render judgment until we know what really happened." Watch them bristle as anyone dares to bring up Sister ******'s lies, previous false charges, and criminal activity. See them roll their eyes in dismissive contempt as her ex-husband says that, yes, she was untrustworthy.

Because nothing else matters. She claimed rape, and that is the only relevant fact.

[lostinwater]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Insofar as the "other side" wants justice for rape victims, I'm with them 100%. But that is manifestly not what they want. They want blood. They want all charges of rape to be accepted at face value. They realize that women do in fact make spurious charges of rape, and that therefore innocent men will be punished. But -- and here's the rub -- they don't care. Innocent men being charged with and convicted of rape doesn't bother them, at least many of them. At most, these people (if speaking honestly) would say, "It's a regrettable cost that men must pay for having raped women for millennia" -- as if I or my sons or my brothers are somehow responsible for what some men may have done over the past ten thousand years.

No, I'm having a difficult time imputing any but the basest motives to those on the "other side", unless they're hopelessly blind or stupid, or less than seventeen years old. Witness the aggrieved outcry from them in response to a simple and obvious, "We can't render judgment until we know what really happened." Watch them bristle as anyone dares to bring up Sister ******'s lies, previous false charges, and criminal activity. See them roll their eyes in dismissive contempt as her ex-husband says that, yes, she was untrustworthy.

Because nothing else matters. She claimed rape, and that is the only relevant fact.

Thanks @Vort

Who knows.  i can't speak to another person's motives - especially those you know that i don't.  Only to my own, and my interpretation of the people i know well.  

i think the those on your "other side" are rather nice and good people.  Get past our firewalls of righteous indignation, and i have found you usually find pretty reasonable people, who just see the world differently because they've experienced the world differently.  Maybe God sprinkles His Wisdom about a little bit, so any balance we achieve requires working with, listening to, and learning from one another.

i don't agree with a lot of what you say, and at times, i find myself imputing some rather nasty motives (yeah, i'm a hypocrite) - but the more i see you post, the more i can catch myself and realize you're just a very good and passionate person who sees things from a (very) different point of view.

[Vort]

When I hear many women saying substantially similar things, especially women like zil who have gained my trust, it forces me to reexamine my own beliefs. I do not pretend to have a perfect understanding of such things. But I do know what a false accusation is, and I know full well that they happen (and not uncommonly).

If a woman I loved and trusted claimed that she had been raped, I would be out for the blood of her accused rapist. But by the same token, if a man I loved and trusted denied a shaky allegation of rape, I would again be out for the blood of his accuser. And if it's true that rapists often get off with a slap on the wrist or less, it is equally true that a false rape allegation can ruin a man's reputation.

No one here has justified the ex-MTC president. Most seem to agree he sounds like a pervert and a creep. But rape is another ballgame altogether, and demanding more proof than an allegation from an untrustworthy source seems obvious.

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Just to ensure there is consensus - there is no expectation that only honest and virtuous (however you define those) people get horrifically abused.  Souls bleed after being cut.  Some are really messy bleeders, too.  And yes, i agree that goes both ways.

Note, i know that nobody was saying otherwise explicitly - but just want to mention it.

Tell me if I'm understanding this correctly.  But here's the example that comes to mind.

A particular girl (she was really young at the time of offense) was abused by someone.  I never got the details of just how bad it was.  But any abuse in this particular situation was completely unacceptable and inexcusable.  I suppose you could say any abuse in any situation is inexcusable.  Maybe.  But I just want to say that this particular case gets my blood boiling.

The thing is that for many years afterward, the girl in question started acting out.  While we'll often think that such behavior would be expected.  In some cases yes.  That doesn't make it right.  And the things she did by "acting out" were unacceptable as well.  But on that score, some leeway is expected because of her age.  There were some things she obviously did not understand and some things she couldn't square away in her mind.

Trust me when I say that I have compassion for the girl who was abused -- because she was abused.  And her abuser should have been punished.  He wasn't.  But I also believe she is still to be held responsible for her acting out.

There was nothing good about this entire scenario.  And no amount of earthly justice would have set things straight.  And there would probably have been some damage done by applying earthly justice as well.

On the positive side, she grew up to be a very strong and capable woman.  Some call her a tiger lady.  Her husband was about as laid back as you could find. And she 99% forgave her abuser.  As for that 1%, I don't blame her.

[NeuroTypical]

The more you look into the horrible world of child/youth sex abuse, the more dark horrible stuff you discover.  Yes indeed, it's absolutely common for abused kids to act out and turn into abusers themselves. It can span generations.

I've witnessed a young kid acting out.  She couldn't be left alone with her younger sister.  She physically attacked me.  She had found mom's wine and was sneaking as many gulps as she could, whenever she could.  She was like 9 or 10.  Heartbreaking.  Just the decade-old memory of the thing still hurts.  Poor girl.

This crap is a cancer, that spreads best in the dark.  The less it's talked about, or thought about, the more successful it can be.  It's why I started the thread here, and why I'm often so gung-ho to discuss it.   Y'all take whatever side in whatever public debate you see fit.  But if something like this actually grabs someone within your stewardship - you dang well better figure out the truth and do what needs to be done.  Your complacency may burden you forever, and may speak out against you at the final judgment. 

I'll just testify that it is possible to Love thy Neighbor even as you speak out against them in court, and try to influence parole boards to keep him locked up, and sever ties with your parents because of the whole thing.  Hard, but possible.

Edited March 29, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[lostinwater]

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Trust me when I say that I have compassion for the girl who was abused -- because she was abused.  And her abuser should have been punished.  He wasn't.  But I also believe she is still to be held responsible for her acting out.

Thanks Carb.  i should/could have been clearer. 

What i meant to convey is that not every person who was abused will have a 'good' track record before or after the abuse.  That many people live out the effects of their abuse long after it has stopped.

What perhaps was heard is that i am suggesting that anyone who is abused is entitled to an unlimited number of get out of jail free cards in life because of what happened to them.

i didn't mean to convey that at all.  And in retrospect, i should have explicitly stated that.  

My apologies.

[mirkwood]

It is bad when it is real.  It is bad when it is made up, but the other direction.  Some people do not understand that.  Whichever one of these two is in the wrong deserves the punishment they are going to get.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

It is bad when it is real.  It is bad when it is made up, but the other direction.  Some people do not understand that.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? To me, at least.

[wenglund]

20 hours ago, lostinwater said:

i think the those on your "other side" are rather nice and good people. 

That is what an ardent feminist thought...until she made a documentary on the Men's Right Movement:

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[lostinwater]

18 minutes ago, wenglund said:

That is what an ardent feminist thought...until she made a documentary on the Men's Right Movement:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is a great clip - thank-you @wenglund.

i agree with everything she said.

A beautiful portrayal of how much could be gained by putting aside our biases and suspicion and seeing the best of our "other sides".  At least that's what i take away after watching.  Though maybe i am misjudging the message she is attempting to get across?  Welcome your thoughts.

[Vort]

I don't know whether to feel happy that a woman managed to look past her own biases, recognizing them for what they were, and see the reasonable and even truthful points being made by her erstwhile "enemies", or to feel profoundly discouraged that this woman represents possibly one half one one percent (or less) of feminists who otherwise utterly refuse to acknowledge any argument against their position and immediately politicize everything into a polarization of "good-if-you're-with-me-evil-if-not". I'm leaning pretty heavily toward the latter.

[lostinwater]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't know whether to feel happy that a woman managed to look past her own biases, recognizing them for what they were, and see the reasonable and even truthful points being made by her erstwhile "enemies", or to feel profoundly discouraged that this woman represents possibly one half one one percent (or less) of feminists who otherwise utterly refuse to acknowledge any argument against their position and immediately politicize everything into a polarization of "good-if-you're-with-me-evil-if-not". I'm leaning pretty heavily toward the latter.

Thanks.

My guess is most overly militant people on both sides just have a reasonably fragile shell of anger and indignation that could be broken with just a little kindness and listening - revealing something (pleasantly) surprising - which it seems like is what she found.  Though it seems the immediate reaction - at least of myself most times - is to attempt to break that shell by boot-stomping them into the ground - which just makes the anger and misunderstanding escalate.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, now we know where Greg Bishop got his info on the accuser.

In hindsight, cc’ing him on the letter seems to have been a poor decision.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, now we know where Greg Bishop got his info on the accuser.

In hindsight, cc’ing him on the letter seems to have been a poor decision.  

This news story is very disturbing.  Can you shed some light on this JAG? 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This news story is very disturbing.  Can you shed some light on this JAG? 

May I ask what in specific you found disturbing about it?  I am an attorney and could perhaps shed some light.  Was it the fact the church did a background investigation?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

7 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

May I ask what in specific you found disturbing about it?  I am an attorney and could perhaps shed some light.  Was it the fact the church did a background investigation?

Thanks DoctorLemon. It wasn't the background check.  It was other things...

"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!  

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...

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This news story is very disturbing.  Can you shed some light on this JAG? 

It’s written in a way that’s calculated to make the Church look nefarious; but here’s the timeline as near as I can work it out based on this article as well as broader context and some educated guessing:

1). Accuser gets her recording of Joseph Bishop.

2). Accuser hires a lawyer (Craig Vernon), gives him the recording and sics him on the Church.

3). Vernon contacts the Church and says “For x dollars, I won’t go public and drag you guys into court.”

4). Church refers matter to outside counsel, David Jordan of Stoel Rives.

5). Jordan does some due diligence to get an idea of how credible the accuser is; including criminal/court history, employment history, etc.  Apparently he also gets the some form of accuser’s church membership records, possibly including some sort of ecclesiastical discipline history.  Apparently he also makes contact with Joseph Bishop, who in turn apparently delegates his lawyer son Greg to be his go-between.  This is all pretty standard lawyering stuff.  It raises my eyebrows a bit that Jordan had access to the victim’s ecclesiastical history, and that would never be admissible in court—but it’s not professionally unethical for a lawyer to access a client’s otherwise-protected records.

6).  Jordan engages in e-mailed negotiations with Vernon.  During the standard back-and-forth, Jordan says “look, we aren’t really that afraid of facing your client in court, because to show the Church mishandled a rape you’ve first got to show there was probably a rape, and your client as a witness will have major credibility issues.”  Again—by my lights, this is pretty standard lawyering.

7). For some reason Greg Bishop had been cc’d on the email chain.  With the benefit of hindsight, knowing Bishop would leak out the info—it was a bad call.  That said, I can see how it seemed like a good idea at the time.  My personal style in negotiations is to get all of the stakeholders in on the discussions as early as possible; and I tend to be pretty trusting.  I can *easily* see myself falling into the same trap.  If Vernon didn’t want Greg Bishop in on his negotiations with Jordan, he needed only to say so; but it appears he didn’t object and negotiations proceeded to the point where Jordan distributed the dossier on the accuser’s background.  I think Jordan had every reason to believe that the dossier would be kept confidential, both because the rules of civil procedure dictates that settlement negotiations are to be kept inadmissible  and because he was counting on Greg Bishop’s professionalism.  

8). In the midst of negotiations, MormonLeaks blows the story open.  MormonLeaks says their info did not come from the accuser.  Either they’re right, and MormonLeaks has a mole in the Church’s General Counsel Office; or they’re lying, and the accuser deliberately blew the story (while trying to make it look like it wasn’t her) because she had decided that settlement discussions were deadlocked and wanted to bring public pressure to bear against the Church.

9). Greg Bishop, anxious to defend his papa against public humiliation, goes rogue (this is why you don’t hire family members to handle your litigation, folks!)  and informs the press of the accuser’s background.  I suspect Jordan sincerely had no idea Greg Bishop would do something like this, and would have prevented it if he could.  On the other hand, to the extent that Greg Bishop is only distributing publicly-accessible info about court cases and completed police investigations and the like; there’s basically nothing the Church can do to stop him. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This news story is very disturbing.  Can you shed some light on this JAG? 

I reread the article.  The methods used are par for the course for most civil litigation.  For example, I have defended people in car crash cases in the past where the plaintiff falsely claims to be more hurt than they are.  It is par for the course to take surveillance video, for example, of the plaintiff skiing when they claim to be too injured to move, or to see if some of plaintiff's conditions were preexisting and have nothing to do with the accident.

Now, in a rape context, things are a little more sensitive than normal litigation.  There are special evidentiary rules so that rape victims are not retraumatized on the stand by having their past delved into, if I recall correctly.  This is as it should be.

In my opinion, the Church is in a very difficult position in this case.  I honestly believe 95% of rape victims are telling the truth, but false accusers unfortunately do exist.  In this case, it looks increasingly like Bishop was likely a bad egg who belongs in jail.  However, given the fact that false accusers do exist, and in this case in specific the accuser reportedly accuse ten different men previously, is it really so wrong for the church's attorneys to bring this point up, investigate, ask some questions before forking over millions and admitting guilt?

My opinion is I don't think the church is trying to silence or intimidate people.  We are just seeing the cold hard realities of our litigation system which sometimes look really harsh to the outsider, but is just the way the judicial system is and the church is merely working within that framework.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet 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...

Certain things are going to surface in court cases such as this. In matters of rape, or allegations of such, certain info is going to be brought up. Of course people are going to wznt to know the details of both parties surrounding an incident as it helps to either build a case or defend a case. Theres no fault here on either side, its the process of getting to the truth on a matter.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Apparently he also gets the some form of accuser’s church membership records, possibly including some sort of ecclesiastical discipline history.

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

Thanks JAG, @DoctorLemon, and @Rob Osborn  for your comments. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Thanks DoctorLemon. It wasn't the background check.  It was other things...

"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!  

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...

For what it is worth, I want to state that I totally sympathize with many rape victims for whom our justice system fails them.  Like I said, usually rape victims are telling the truth (as in, probably 95% of the time) and it is unfair that they are so.etimes wrongfully doubted.  It appears the accuser in the present matter may very likely be telling the truth herself, with a second accuser coming forward and several confessions by bishop.  

Perhaps the judicial system needs some work in this area?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

For what it is worth, I want to state that I totally sympathize with many rape victims for whom our justice system fails them.  Like I said, usually rape victims are telling the truth (as in, probably 95% of the time) and it is unfair that they are so.etimes wrongfully doubted.  It appears the accuser in the present matter may very likely be telling the truth herself, with a second accuser coming forward and several confessions by bishop.  

Perhaps the judicial system needs some work in this area?

Thank you.  I really appreciate this.  It's just so hard . . . 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

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

Thanks JAG, @DoctorLemon, and @Rob Osborn  for your comments. 

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?

 

Edited March 31, 2018 by DoctorLemon