The MTC Abuse Story

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not necessarily.  JohnsonJones is actually NOT my full real name (and may in fact be a combination of mine and an ancestor's name).  Of course, on a legal document I would use my full real name, but going by a nickname doesn't necessarily make one a Con artist or criminal.  I believe there have been some LDS prophets that went by nick names (most recently would be Thomas S. Monson who even referred to his nickname at times with Tommie or Tom) as well as some US presidents (though some might say those are all crooked) such as Teddy Roosevelt as one of the more famous of those (even had a stuffed animal named after him...the Teddy Bear).

I don't think a nick name is necessarily indicative of anything regarding the person (unless it's something with them being a gangster and the nickname being something like Slick Al, Big Boss Capone...or something like that).

@Grunt is right about this. Someone who plows through names like you or I change socks is often times up to something. Sure, there are different times when a nickname (like Tommy, or @MormonGator) are fine, but in most cases when someone changes their name multiple times that's not a good sign. At all. 

That doesn't mean what she said happened didn't happen. It's strictly about the name issue. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by MormonGator

[zil]

It's one thing to ask your friends to call you a nickname, it's a whole other thing to have legal documents with multiple, widely different names which bear no resemblance to the name on your birth certificate.  (Add all the caveats which ought not to need adding like last name changing marriage/divorce, or the witness protection program, or escaping jerk parents who named you "Buried Underwood" or something.)

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Grunt is right about this. Someone who plows through names like you or I change socks is often times up to something. Sure, there are different times when a nickname (like Tommy, or @MormonGator) are fine, but in most cases when someone changes their name multiple times that's not a good sign. At all. 

That doesn't mean what she said happened didn't happen. It's strictly about the name issue. 

Absolutely.  It very well could have happened.  My only point is 34 years ago this incident supposedly happened.  Skip forward and we have an aging defendant and a woman with alleged criminal behavior that includes faking incidents like this in the past.   

 

[Maureen]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Grunt is right about this. Someone who plows through names like you or I change socks is often times up to something. Sure, there are different times when a nickname (like Tommy, or @MormonGator) are fine, but in most cases when someone changes their name multiple times that's not a good sign. At all. 

So what about someone who gets married multiple times? I have a friend who was born with her father's surname. She changed her name when she married the first time and has a different name now being married a 2nd time.

What about people whose parents gave them an odd name, so they chose to change it legally. Having different names does not equate to being a criminal.

M.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Maureen said:

So what about someone who gets married multiple times? I have a friend who was born with her father's surname. She changed her name when she married the first time and has a different name now being married a 2nd time.

What about people whose parents gave them an odd name, so they chose to change it legally. Having different names does not equate to being a criminal.

M.

Oh I agree, it's certainly not all cases, like the ones you mentioned. I never said it's case with all people by a long shot. 

I know of a few people who have changed their names multiple times without being married or in the circumstances described by @Maureen. All three did so because they served time for felonies and wanted a fresh start.  
 

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

You know who else goes by "nicknames"?

Astronauts and NASCAR drivers!

 

[JohnsonJones]

 

3 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Astronauts and NASCAR drivers!

 

Also Fighter Pilots...or at least that's what all those Military airplane movies would have me believe.

[clwnuke]

I can't tell you how unreal all of this is! Her picture brings it all back. If President Bishop did anything immoral with her then he should face justice. That I don't know for certain.

All I can say is that I'm glad I confronted her and asked her to stop seeking out the  Elder in my district, and even though he thought she was just being friendly at the time, he is also very glad now that he didn't accept her invitation to "take a walk". I've been told that other Elders were not so wise and consequently made early exits from their missions, but I can't independently confirm that, and I doubt it will be reported by the media even if it is true. 

Of course none of that makes the alleged assault OK, but it does make me wonder whether she was pursuing Mr. Bishop in the same manner she was pursuing the Elder in my district and the other Elders I saw her frequent. That's a very different story from the one being told by the lawsuit of an innocent and naive sister missionary being groomed by a predator. While she has acknowledged past criminal mistakes, she has not acknowledged that she was also preying on missionaries while at the MTC.

In the end I pray that both parties can find peace, forgiveness, justice and mercy. I don't think lawsuits and money bring any of that.

Edited April 6, 2018 by clwnuke

[John_Pack_Lambert]

There are hard questions here, but they tend towards the hard questions people are not quick enough to ask, not the easy questions that they rush to.

The biggest one after the law suit was made public and the lawyers plans revealed is, what exactly did Bishop tell Elder Robert Wells. The answer to that question is very important. It is easy to rush in and say "Elder Wells should have moved to remove Bishop as mission president, have him excommunicated, and clearly stopped him ever being made MTC president."

 

The problem is that such a conclusion would require the revelation to Wells focusing on actions. The problem is that when Bishop talks of having a "sexual addiction" this does not mean that he has ever engaged in sex with other than two people, himself and his wife. For some a sexual addition is pornorgraphy and masturbation. That does not equate to rape. 

 

If the mission president admits to doing those two acts as mission president, is removing him advised? This is a question that I am less than sure on. I think under current guidelines the answer would be an affirmative yes. However we do not know what Bishop admitted to Wells. If a mission president has been in a year, and admits he had a problem with pornography and masturbation that he had not confessed to leaders, but can fully assure you that he has not reverted since before he was issued the call as mission president, is the drastic action of removal still reccomended? How far back is such an action still reccomended.

 

I know a man who used to cheat on his wife with other women while on business trips, but has confessed and worked through these problems, and actively works in recory, has a calling to work with youth. Now his past issues do not deal with age and power issues, but some who crave sex with use any means to get it. Where is the balance at? 

 

Multiple people seem to have made wrong calls in this case, and Bishop seems to have been not as morally upstanding as one would expect of a MTC president. It seems that he admitted to asking a sister missionary to expose her breasts to him. That is totally wrong, and if what that woman claims he did he did, he should go to prison, although due to statutes of limitations he won't. 

 

It is tempting to find fault with many others. However we need to be restrained in this. Hind sight is 20/20, however there are many people who keep wrong actions hidden for a long time, confess them long after they should have probably done so and while having engaged in sincere turning away from them shown by how long they have not done that, who we would start needlessly faulting. If every person who broke the law of chastity with another person was excommunicated there would be more excommunications.

 

Some would respond "but Bishop acted in non-consensual and power abusive ways." While this is what he is accused of, even the second he apparently denies, no matter what he may have been recorded as saying in December. Even more to the point it is not clear that anything he told Elder Wells would fall under either of those headings. That opens another can of worms as well. Those admitting that they were involved in breaking the law of chastity most often either portray the actions as mutually consensual. Well, presumably, though I don't know. Some will bring up incidents where they were unwilling participants with eccesiastical leaders. Others will at times admit that they acted in unilateral ways without clear consent. However the most worrisome cases are men who do not see their actions as without consent of the other, and a determination of consent can not be easily done without calling in. While I can see good to having clear guidelines to follow up on any accusation of non-consenual sexual contact, forced followup on any accusation of allegedly consensusal contact, even in the guise of trying to determine if the contact was consensual, runs counter to the notions that confession is a step to repentance. 

 

[John_Pack_Lambert]

5 hours ago, clwnuke said:

I can't tell you how unreal all of this is! Her picture brings it all back. If President Bishop did anything immoral with her then he should face justice. That I don't know for certain.

All I can say is that I'm glad I confronted her and asked her to stop seeking out the  Elder in my district, and even though he thought she was just being friendly at the time, he is also very glad now that he didn't accept her invitation to "take a walk". I've been told that other Elders were not so wise and consequently made early exits from their missions, but I can't independently confirm that, and I doubt it will be reported by the media even if it is true. 

Of course none of that makes the alleged assault OK, but it does make me wonder whether she was pursuing Mr. Bishop in the same manner she was pursuing the Elder in my district and the other Elders I saw her frequent. That's a very different story from the one being told by the lawsuit of an innocent and naive sister missionary being groomed by a predator. While she has acknowledged past criminal mistakes, she has not acknowledged that she was also preying on missionaries while at the MTC.

In the end I pray that both parties can find peace, forgiveness, justice and mercy. I don't think lawsuits and money bring any of that.

She had apparently admitted that she made a false claim of being rapped. On the other hand there seems to be at least one other person who has made accusations against Bishop. It seems that at some point in his life Bishop had succumbed to sexual temptation. However weather this was ever actually more than masturbation, and even when he succumbed to the later, is going beyond easy reading.

 

One has to realize that those who have suffered through true sexual additiction, which is more often manifested by heavy consumption of pornography unless you are very wealthy like Tiger Woods, become hyper vigilant, and worry about things and fault themsevles for looking at things that others don't. As I once had one leader explain it, some men can glance at lingerie adds and be unaffected, other men on seeing a lingerie add will struggle for two days to stop themselves acting out through masturbation.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

On 3/26/2018 at 7:09 AM, Midwest LDS said:

I think we need to be careful about any rush to change a whole bunch of aspects of the church due to the actions of one evil individual. Just because one man abused his priesthood in a horrendous and disgusting way, does not mean that there is a church wide problem that needs a massive overhaul to fix. For example, the suggestion that our leaders need to stop interviewing our youth about sexual indiscretions or that they should do it in a more open format (ie a window in the office). Have we thought about the consequences of doing that? As someone who has needed to use the bishop to help with repentance, both as a teen and as an adult, I would not have talked to him if I did not know it was completely confidential and a window would have convinced me to never come in out of embarrassment even if it was just in the clerk's office. Confidentiality encourages people to talk who otherwise would not come in like me. In addition, do we really tell our young people sorry you are struggling with corrosive sin but you need to wait until your 18 to get it taken care of? I reject that idea. Let's not trip over ourselves trying to change something inherantly good just because of the actions of one evil and reprehensible individual.

This is a good point. Although, I think we also have to admit that it is less than clear what Bishop did. Those closest to Bishop insist that the only thing that happened was this woman exposed herself to Bishop after her mission. On the other hand, abusers are often very good at confusing those closest to them. On the other hand, one of Hugh Nibley's children accused him of abuse, but she also lied through her teeth in provable ways in books she wrote. 

 

There are three things here. What this woman apparently reported in the 1980s to her YSA bishop amounts to the MTC president showing her and her companion pornography in a basement room of the MTC. That would be behavior that one would think if known would get the MTC president removed, but is hard to count as abuse of power. What he seems to admit in an interview, in which he may not have been fully mentally with it, is asking her to expose her breasts. That is abuse of power and wrong. If he actually committed rape however that is many orders of magnitude worse. Add to it all though, due to laws that existed at the time, a criminal prosecuation will not happen, and so that avenue of getting answers is closed. 

 

The civil law suit is not often a way to go towards truth. In this cause even more so since some seek to spread as much negative on the LDS Church as possible. 

 

One major issue is that as set up, the MTC president does not normally interview missionaries there. That is done by their MTC branch president. So this is not, as some are trying to make it, an issue related to how interviews are done. 

 

In fact, if anything needs to change, it changed years ago. An issue like an MTC sister who has been through sexual abuse under current guidelines would be handled by trained licensed psychologists. It would not be an issue discussed in much detail with eccesiastical leaders. The only question I have is how far back the MTC regularly sent missionaries to such psychologists. I know they did in 2000 when I was there, but can not date things back further than that.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

On 3/26/2018 at 8:50 AM, estradling75 said:

Some times we see what we wish to see...  So I issue you a challenge.  For every case were you hear of a MTC president abusing his position find the name of 30 MTC Presidents that did not.  For every Bishop who does find 100 that did not, for teacher of youth find a thousand... etc...  I think you get the idea.  I guarantee that they exist, the only hard part is the simple fact that no one cares when they are not accused of being abusive.  You only hear about the cases that they mess up because that is what sells.

To me this simple fact means that there is not an organizational "problem."  But rather this is the problem the church has been trying to counter since its inception...  aka an individuals tendency to sin and not follow Christ.  And is a problem that can't not be eliminated and still retain Agency

The media at times tries to deliberately malign the Church in these matters. The classic was when a person who was serving as a Sunday School teacher was revealed to have been involved in sexual relations with teenagers. The problem is that the accused had not met these teenagers at Church, but through his job as a Public School Teacher, but for some reason the media chose to emphasize that the person was a Mormon Sunday School teacher. Then there was a case in Nevada where a man allegedly abused a member of a family he was assigned to be the home teacher of. The misleading language such as calling him a "Mormon homeschool teacher" was outrageous. Another headline blasted "Mormon high priest accused of abuse". In a Church where basically everyone who comes to church has a calling, any abusinve action by any member will be linked to that calling, even when the calling has no connection to the abuse that occurs.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

On 3/29/2018 at 4:24 PM, 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.

This is so true. I have heard people so intent on defending the "Dear College" letter that established a preponderance of evidence standard that they are willing to lie through their teeth and claim that somehow the mere fact that Secretary De Vos is considering backing down from it will lead to the demise of women's sports. Of course, most unionized teachers suffer from anti-De Vos derangement and a lack of being able to think indepdently, or talk coherently. The classic example of that latter is when the union rep at my school went straight from telling me it was union action that had killed our promised bonus for working at one of the most dysfunctional schools in the city of Detroit, we are at 1 percentile in most tests, and have first graders who can't make it to lunch without uttering the F-word, pushing two desks with all their might, and screaming about having to wait a minute to get candy. Someone our idiotic union rep went stright from telling me the union had messed up my life by killing a promised bonus by claiming it was unfair that those of us working in the sub-standard school would get paid more than those working at say the Foriegn Language and Cultire Immersion School where admission is by application only with a request that I join the union. I will never join a union that promotes the killing of babies, or one that works against me getting paid for my actual work, especially since teachers who have been with the district get paid way more than me, and generally do less because they just reuse last years lesson plans.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

On 3/29/2018 at 9:10 PM, Vort said:

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

Yet there are hundreds of people who have faked hate crimes and never been disciplined for it. Don't even get me started on idiots like Tamu Smith and Vranes and their attempts to malign other Mormons with claims of use of the N-word. I'm white, but have lost track of the number of times I was called the N-word in 2018. At least 20, all by 1st graders. Then in 2017 one such use was accompanied by an attempt to steal my grandson while the person was punching me in the neck. Tamu Smith has never shown she knowns southern dialect enough to tell what word the person was actually saying.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

On 4/1/2018 at 7:54 AM, NeuroTypical said:

 Wait, are we still talking about Bishop’s comments on the released audio? Because yes indeed, she accused him of rape, and he did deny it. Also, the “gotcha” interview happened to days after he had had emergency heart surgery. He was still under the influence of some pretty hefty drugs. Plus, he’s in his 90s, and I think his son has been claiming he’s been showing some early signs of dementia. 

 Have you listened to the audio leak?

Bishop is actually 85. On the other hand President Nelson is 93, and no one questioned President Hinckley's cognisance at age 95. Then there are people totally wiped out by Alzheimer's by age 60.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

On 4/1/2018 at 12:19 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I also wonder (not that I'm drawing a conclusion, just wonder) how one could walk from a hidden room in the MTC with ripped blouse and torn skirt, companion-less, to one's room to change, etc., without anyone noticing or asking what was wrong/what happened. Of course that well may have happened and the answer may well have been "Nothing. I'm fine. I....tripped..." or some such.

If the clothing was ripped, as alleged, it would almost certainly create a witness trail. Finding such witnesses is difficult after 34 years, which is one reason most crimes have statues of limitation (murder does not, rape and other sexual crimes more and more do not as well). As the lawsuit progresses the lawyers for the accuser will seek to discredit any testimony from others who served as missionaries that casts doubt on the incident as Mormon group defending and lieing, sort of like how the opening salvo here accused Mormons of lieing to protect sexual abusers. 

 

People who make such accusations need to read up on the case in Wyoming where a non-Mormon ob/gyn sexually abused many Mormon women. Keep in mind that a lot of the coverage of that amounts to victim blaming and shaming, trying to make Mormon women look stupid for not sensing immediately an ob/gyn was engaging in sexual abuse. Never mind that Nassar was able to do it with college students for 20 years when he claimed that treating back injuries required digital penitration of the vagina.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

On 4/2/2018 at 1:16 AM, paracaidista508 said:

Knowingly accepting privileged info from the cop to honor code the girl. Also, co mingling title 9 and honor code folks is just a nice way of discouraging the reporting of sexual assault. 

The cop got disciplined for essentially stealing a policecreport and delivering it to byu. Byu then used it against the girl. That is not ethical....the ends does not justify the means..well maybe at byu it does.

Barney clearly violated the honor code on multiple occasions by her own addmission. Even at that BYU only requested that she meet with someone from the honor code office, they only ended her admission when she refused. Much of this comes out of misrepresenatation and outright lies against the honor code office, many perpetrated by the drug addict and violator of the law of chastity Barney.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

Why do we tolerate malicious attacks on BYU on here. It is not unethical for BYU to seek to exclude from enrollment those who regularly lie to get in as Barney did.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

On 4/2/2018 at 9:50 AM, mirkwood said:

I forgot to respond earlier:  percentage?  I don't know what would be accurate, but it sure isn't 95%.   A much greater number are real than are not real.  

Total and complete hogwash. This is what the radical feminist want us to believe as they work do deny due process rights to male college students.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

On 4/3/2018 at 2:17 AM, paracaidista508 said:

Im pretty sure BYU is substantially funded by tithing dollars. 
 

And if you do not believe that the prophets are inspired of God you do not have to pay any tithing. And if you want to use drugs and sleep around in college you are more than welcome at the University of Utah and should leave space at BYU for people who actually support the mission of the Church. Instead of ones like Barney who lie in wait to deceive, and when their sexual appetites are stopped make up lies of rape.

[John_Pack_Lambert]

On 4/3/2018 at 11:15 AM, NeuroTypical said:

I totally agree. 

Side note: I had a doctor willing to sign a medical exemption for me, so I could attend BYU with goatee intact.  I wish things had been slightly different in my past.  I would have enjoyed attempting to not smirk in smug self-righteousness when presenting that medical exemption to every zealous BYU student who took it upon themselves to tell me I was doing something wrong.  I probably would have eaten more apples.  

 

This seems to be a proclamation of a willingness to engage in fraud.

Edited April 6, 2018 by John_Pack_Lambert

[John_Pack_Lambert]

A bigger question is to what extent can be spirit of discernment remove problems? If we think the spirit of discernment can help us know the truth of others intentions, then why have interviews at all? If you can know by the spirit if a person is good or not, then why interview them?  

 

It is clear that accusations of abuse need to be followed up on and not dismissed out of hand. 

 

It remains unclear to me if Bishop is guilty. I am also less than convinced we will ever know for sure. If the alleged incident between Bishop and his accuser did happen, it may have happened in the building in which her MTC room was. Depending on timing most people could have been elsewhere, such as for an MTC devotional. I assume the MTC president is normally at such, I don't remember either way, I don't even remember who the MTC president was when I was there. However if Bishop was plotting to break the law of chastity he could have told others he was not feeling well enough to attend.

 

The woman with rip clothes might have been able to return to her room and change at that time without any notice. The logistics of doing so would have brought up the issue of her not being with her companion. Except I think I may have known one or two people who ended up not having a companion part of their time in the MTC. 

 

Some of this is why the Church previously was unable to get answers but they might come out in this inquiry. Some would say the Church could have proactively found and sought to interview those involved. I think though for probably could reason the Church seeks to avoid its procedures in any way feeling like a legal inquest. I don't think your MTC companion, let alone every member of your MTC district, is connected to your Church record. So to what extent the Church wants to become an investigative organization in a case like this is a good question. 

[mirkwood]

4 hours ago, John_Pack_Lambert said:

Total and complete hogwash. This is what the radical feminist want us to believe as they work do deny due process rights to male college students.

What is hogwash?

[Midwest LDS]

5 hours ago, John_Pack_Lambert said:

This is a good point. Although, I think we also have to admit that it is less than clear what Bishop did. Those closest to Bishop insist that the only thing that happened was this woman exposed herself to Bishop after her mission. On the other hand, abusers are often very good at confusing those closest to them. On the other hand, one of Hugh Nibley's children accused him of abuse, but she also lied through her teeth in provable ways in books she wrote. 

 

There are three things here. What this woman apparently reported in the 1980s to her YSA bishop amounts to the MTC president showing her and her companion pornography in a basement room of the MTC. That would be behavior that one would think if known would get the MTC president removed, but is hard to count as abuse of power. What he seems to admit in an interview, in which he may not have been fully mentally with it, is asking her to expose her breasts. That is abuse of power and wrong. If he actually committed rape however that is many orders of magnitude worse. Add to it all though, due to laws that existed at the time, a criminal prosecuation will not happen, and so that avenue of getting answers is closed. 

 

The civil law suit is not often a way to go towards truth. In this cause even more so since some seek to spread as much negative on the LDS Church as possible. 

 

One major issue is that as set up, the MTC president does not normally interview missionaries there. That is done by their MTC branch president. So this is not, as some are trying to make it, an issue related to how interviews are done. 

 

In fact, if anything needs to change, it changed years ago. An issue like an MTC sister who has been through sexual abuse under current guidelines would be handled by trained licensed psychologists. It would not be an issue discussed in much detail with eccesiastical leaders. The only question I have is how far back the MTC regularly sent missionaries to such psychologists. I know they did in 2000 when I was there, but can not date things back further than that.

I agree. Honestly, although I'm sure whoever it was gave a talk or two while I was at the MTC (2005), I can't remember who my MTC president was while I was there. I think he only interviewed people if there was a massive problem of some kind. I also agree that the case has gotten murkier. Bishop still sounds like a scumbag who should be ashamed of himself, and may have destroyed other souls with his lust, but I can't say for 100% certain wheter or not he is guilty of rape. I think it should be investigated fully, and that both accusers' (especially the second one, as the first accuser is looking very dishonest from what's been released) claims should be taken seriously, but overall the whole situation is just so sad. I expect better of our higher leadership (and those expectations are usually fulfilled), and if he couldn't control himself with missionaries of all people (assuming he isn't guilty of rape in which case he can rot in prison I don't care how old he is) he should have stepped aside. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[paracaidista508]

6 hours ago, John_Pack_Lambert said:

Barney clearly violated the honor code on multiple occasions by her own addmission. Even at that BYU only requested that she meet with someone from the honor code office, they only ended her admission when she refused. Much of this comes out of misrepresenatation and outright lies against the honor code office, many perpetrated by the drug addict and violator of the law of chastity Barney.

Yep they did request to meet barney...after the byu pd illegally accessed the police report in the Spillman database. Upon advice of her attorney, she refused to meet. Provo pd also asked byu to delay the honor code thing till the case was tried in court. They said...nope were doing it anyway.

Edited April 6, 2018 by paracaidista508