Joseph Bishop (old MTC president sexual assaulting sister missionaries) situation

He was president of the MTC when I was there, but the only think I remember about him was the Lamanite’s guarding the MTC story, which I was skeptical of even then (much more so now, though).

I do know of real people where abuse has been “covered up” by the church so I know it happens. When the story first broke, I wondered the usual things – why so long, why only one, etc. And, the guy is senile now and can’t defend himself. But now there are two which makes it more credible IMO (not that we shouldn’t believe just one, but the guy has been in leadership a long time and if he’s prone to this it seems like there’d be several). Like all things, I don’t think this should be tried in the media and he, like all Americans, is innocent until proven guilty. The reports that the church knew about both, although also apparently much later, is troubling.

This is probably all I will say about it for fear of being accused of being sexist or apologetic for the church, both of which have happened. I’m just stating my opinion like everybody else who might post – I wondered at first, I’m more convinced now, but either way I believe if it did happen it’s deplorable and should be punished no matter how old and senile he is.

I find it very disturbing that Sam Young who started a petition to cease youth interviews behind closed doors with bishops is being threatened with church discipline. He has 13,000 signatures. All he wants is to end a practice that has resulted in hundreds of documented (yet not verified) cases of abuse. When the church sides with status quo and leaders over victims, it’s not on the side of right. Being a victim doesn’t automatically mean you are at odds with the church. It’s only when the church sides with abusers that such is the case.

What I find hard to reconcile is Bishop’s success, by his account, as a mission president in Argentina and in other high church callings and his admitted abuse of women over the years. Is this a case of repentance, forgiveness, and blessings alternating with transgression or is it priesthood actions being recognized by God in spite of the holders personal unworthiness?

I’m still having trouble with this one, and have gone back and forth as to what Bishop may or may not have done, and to what degree he was manipulated in that ersatz interview. It seems clear he’s not innocent, but exactly how awful might be debatable. In this day and age, we’re very quick to jump on the bandwagon and grab our pitch forks to slay the abuser, but let’s remember we’re still in the land that demands guilt be proven. It’s tough that even completely innocent folks can have their lives changed by an untrue accusation. Many of us so badly want to see the church take one in the face, and so many of us want every abuser to suffer for the pain we’ve felt or seen in our loved ones that we become like those we complain about on here… Categorical, closed to alternative explanations, and full of confirmation bias.

I’d encourage everyone to hold off judgment, and if you care enough to have an opinion, try to disprove your initial thought on the matter. Seem evidence that disconfirms your belief.

Then if he still floats, string him up!!

I think the issue is not Bishop as much as a system that allows someone like him, that is aligdly (by his own words in the recording) sexually assaulting people and he just keeps getting promoted decade after decade. It feels like if you say the right thing, born in the right family, have the right haircut, act like you are church broke – then any warning signs will be completely ignored.

But don’t get me started on the church’s response. They start by discounting the victim (she didn’t serve a FULL mission, she is no longer a member) and then being 2 faced and saying things like we turned the issue over to the police making is sound like the police didn’t find enough evidence. What the police said is they would have pressed charges except the statute of limitations had been exceeded and they deemed the threats by the victim not to be credible. That is disingenuous at least and moves into the realm of spinning normally used in politics. They then go on to mention they don’t have the tools to investigate such matters. So the spirit DOESN’T guide even the top church leaders when they make callings – interesting they would admit that. If they really believed the statement they issued then it should be church policy that any accusations of abuse be immediately turned over the law enforcement. Like I said – don’t get me started. 😈

Since the Church responds to fault by saying “No one is perfect. Even we make mistakes”, you would think they’d to a better job of preventing such awful mistakes from happening.

The last guy to officially admit the Church makes mistakes got demoted out of the First Presidency.

Do you think the point of missionarying is more about converting the missionary rather than converting the world? Spend two years selling a product certainly helps cement your belief in the product. But I digress…

Great points above. It’s certainly a problem with the system, and probably at least a little related to this being such a very large church. Obviously no scripture or church doctrine teaches us that this behavior is okay. Well… Okay… Obviously nothing in the gospels teach us that this behavior is okay. Too bad we didn’t see this coming. I mean, we did put all those windows in the classrooms at church and made sure not to have a male teacher alone with the primary kids. I guess we don’t trust the primary teachers (just the male primary teachers… women would never do anything inappropriate with a student.. 🙄). A male leader one on one with a minor is totally fine, because how else could they ask all the questions about sex?

I get it that there is agency. Leader A might feel inspired to call Brother X but Bro X can still decide to get “frisky” , which shouldn’t be a condemnation if Leader A. We can’t expect leaders to be omniscient. God supposedly is and He still lets agency run its course, and doesn’t seem to protect these victims. We can, however, expect leaders to be forward thinking, to pay attention to red flags, and to work together to change a flawed system that supports and protects potential abusers within the system. Trouble is, most of the leaders are working within the paradigm that good men won’t do bad things, that God is directly involved and will alert them if something is awry, and that Bishops and presidents and leaders possess some special ability to counsel anyone within their stewardship–that they are in fact God’s vessel to minister to that part of the flock.

I find it very disturbing that Sam Young who started a petition to cease youth interviews behind closed doors with bishops is being threatened with church discipline. He has 13,000 signatures. All he wants is to end a practice that has resulted in hundreds of documented (yet not verified) cases of abuse. When the church sides with status quo and leaders over victims, it’s not on the side of right. Being a victim doesn’t automatically mean you are at odds with the church. It’s only when the church sides with abusers that such is the case.

This is at the heart of my angst toward the church. For an organization with a divine commission, it’s deeply disturbing that when the organization makes a mistake, there is rarely an apology. We have seen a few over the years — the disavowal of the priesthood ban, admission of polyandry — but buried deep in LDS.org and no official announcement. Raise the essays in church and leaders are shocked you would bring them up — they are primarily for dealing with doubters or people who raise these concerns privately. These was one apology from DHO about Mountain Meadow Massacre on the PBS.org special on the Mormons, which I appreciated. But these expressions of apology are rare, and there is an arrogance associated with the church making mistakes on a local level. Seen it many times.

Then there is the thin argument that starts with “what is the church?” as if nothing can stick to it from a mistake perspective — it is all the mistakes of people. To me that is avoiding responsibility. A church is its policies, its mechanisms for handling complaints, its means of installing and monitoring the behavior of leaders, and its people. To say “the church is perfect but the people aren’t” is to me, like saying “The church is perfect but the Church isn’t”. The people ARE the church, along with the policies, systems, structures and other features of the organization.

I am now somewhat thankful for my commitment crisis. It’s almost like I have eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And my eyes have been opened. I now have a balanced view of the church, and not a rose-colored one. And these problems with abuse also exist in our church. We need to acknowledge that, own it, and deal with it.

To me, a divine organization admits to, apologizes and makes restitution for its mistakes. it doesn’t whitewash them or refuse to acknowledge them.