Official church statement on Joseph Bishop

[Not Buying It]

Excellent summary on Reddit:

Best comment on the article thus far:

Let's look at a timeline of events to understand the Church's values:

-The church finds out that she recorded a conversation she had with the MTC president and their response was to try to push legislation to make Utah a two-party consent state.

-Since then, they have actively been trying to negotiate a non-disclosure agreement with her to make sure she went away AND to keep it from the press. Thus preventing other victims of his to speak up to corroborate her accounts of his sexual abuse.

-Someone on the inside then leaked the tape and the Church's first response was to try to destroy the woman's reputation by saying she was "briefly" a Mormon missionary and became a former member. Briefly a Mormon missionary BECAUSE SHE WAS RAPED BY THE MTC PRESIDENT!

-His own son, an attorney himself, goes on victim blaming and accusing her of falsely claiming rape against other men and is trying to push the narrative that she has a very checkered past.

I'm not sure what religion you all believe, but I don't think the Mormon God is worth following if this kind of cover-up happening NOW is what you should expect for your daughter or your mother who may have been victimized in the past or in the future. You members defending him should be ashamed of yourselves. I should say that I'm shocked, but sadly the church is all about protecting itself, not our women.

[Mormorrisey]

I have to link to A Response to the LDS Newsroom’s Statement on Sexual Abuse in the MTC on Feminist Mormon Housewives. This is an incisive and scathing response. I could not have done better.

What a great read. Thanks for pointing this out, Corsair.

So glad that FMH is back up and running after a brief hiatus. It was must reading for me during my faith transition, and it seems to have regained some of its fire.

[Hagoth]

The story made it on the local TV news last night (KUTV) and they covered it in pretty creepy detail. When they read the church's response about how shocked they are to learn about this behavior it really came across as particularly insincere (of course, I knew more details that they were reporting):

"If the allegations of sexual assault are true, it would be a tragic betrayal of our standards and would result in action by the Church to formally discipline any member who was guilty of such behavior, especially someone in a position of trust."

Really? Are you the same people who tried to change the law to bury the recording? The same ones who knew about this for decades and sent a GA to talk to the victim but not the predator? The same ones who didn't bother to discipline him for all of these years? The same ones who quietly erased him from the official web site and book store?

When they read this statement on the news I heard it in the same sarcastic tone of voice as Sam Kinison's Judas saying "Is it Me, Jesus?"

[Hermey]

The Church has quietly revised their original statement. Hoping someone had saved a copy of it.

[Mad Jax]

Every time you guys post something like this, it further reverses my regret that I was too old to serve a mission upon joining the church.

[Just This Guy]

It has now gone national.

New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/0 ... sault.html
*Note paywall has limited number of articles you can read.*

Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/22/re ... rself.html

I do find it interesting that despite both outlet running the same AP article, the NYT is 15 paragraphs longer.

[StarbucksMom]

The Church has quietly revised their original statement. Hoping someone had saved a copy of it.

Any update on this??? I tried some searching but can't find the first statement. It's no surprise they revised it since LDS Inc could write a book on gas lighting, but I want to discuss this with my husband. I usually avoid church topics w/ him, but I won't on this. I just want the original "cast doubt on the victim" response.

[wtfluff]

The Church has quietly revised their original statement. Hoping someone had saved a copy of it.

Any update on this??? I tried some searching but can't find the first statement. It's no surprise they revised it since LDS Inc could write a book on gas lighting, but I want to discuss this with my husband. I usually avoid church topics w/ him, but I won't on this. I just want the original "cast doubt on the victim" response.

I just did some text comparisons to the first version that was saved on the wayback machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180321193 ... march-2018 (March 20, 2018, 21:27:39 UTC)

And the current version active on lds dot org. There are no changes. I also searched and compared some of the first posts on message boards where folks copied the entire text and there are no differences.

Hermey, you have a source for any changes?

[StarbucksMom]

Thank you wrfuff. I didn't actually read the 1st statement, but like i mentioned on the 1st page of this post, the FMH post specifically talked about the church making the point that the victim was no longer a member, and that she came home early from her mission. But I don't see that info in their current statement, or the wayback thing you posted.

I'm confused.

[Hermey]

Thank you wrfuff. I didn't actually read the 1st statement, but like i mentioned on the 1st page of this post, the FMH post specifically talked about the church making the point that the victim was no longer a member, and that she came home early from her mission. But I don't see that info in their current statement, or the wayback thing you posted.

I'm confused.

Yeah, I believe what was on the wayback machine was the revised version. They toned it down from the original. Also, the "L." is gone from his name as well. It seems they are trying to subtly distance themselves from him. The Church loves to include the initial. Stripping that away is intentional. In fact, every word from them is deliberate.

[wtfluff]

Thank you wrfuff. I didn't actually read the 1st statement, but like i mentioned on the 1st page of this post, the FMH post specifically talked about the church making the point that the victim was no longer a member, and that she came home early from her mission. But I don't see that info in their current statement, or the wayback thing you posted.

I'm confused.

3rd paragraph, first sentence:

This matter was brought to the attention of the Church in 2010, when this former Church member, who served briefly as a missionary in 1984

[StarbucksMom]

3rd paragraph, first sentence:

This matter was brought to the attention of the Church in 2010, when this former Church member, who served briefly as a missionary in 1984

Good catch Wtfluff, thanks. Wonder what they changed then besides dropping Bishop's middle initial? (Which I find both ridiculous and hilarious.)

[Hagoth]

Also, the "L." is gone from his name as well. It seems they are trying to subtly distance themselves from him.

That's hilarious! I do the same thing when I'm talking about Thomas Monson or Russell Nelson. It's a way of stripping away a badge of rank.

[wtfluff]

Also, the "L." is gone from his name as well. It seems they are trying to subtly distance themselves from him.

That's hilarious! I do the same thing when I'm talking about Thomas Monson or Russell Nelson. It's a way of stripping away a badge of rank.

They'd likely refer to him as President Joseph L. Bishop if they weren't trying to strip him of his ranking too... Once a Prez. always a Prez. (Unless you get caught acting like the founder of the corporation...)

[oliblish]

Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/22/re ... rself.html

I found the title of the article on Fox interesting:

Police: Ex-Mormon official asked to see woman's breasts

They make it sound like Joseph Bishop is an ex-mormon. It might be more accurate to say:

Police: Soon to be ex-Mormon official asked to see woman's breasts

[Hagoth]

Police: Ex-Mormon official asked to see woman's breasts

Man, I hope the media doesn't miss the point and make this about a guy looking at breasts, when the real story is about how the institution shames victims and protects offenders. Even if this story was entirely made up and the guy was senile the way the church handled this is a bone-chilling peek into their internal attitudes and processes.

[Not Buying It]

President Newsroom added the following today:

Updated Statement
March 23, 2018
We share the anger and distress Church members and others feel to learn of incidents where those entrusted with sacred responsibilities violate God’s commandments and harm others. Such behavior is repulsive and sinful. The Church is looking into all aspects of the assertions on the recording of Joseph Bishop. This includes the work of outside legal counsel, who are interviewing priesthood leaders, family members, law enforcement officials and others with knowledge of these incidents.

We are aware of one other woman (who is referenced in the December recording) who informed her local ecclesiastical leaders that she was sexually abused by Joseph Bishop while he served as president of the Missionary Training Center. When she reported the alleged abuse to her local Church leaders in 2010, they provided emotional support as well as professional counseling services. Mr. Bishop’s local ecclesiastical leaders were contacted and they confronted him with her claims, which he denied, and local leaders did not feel they could pursue church discipline for Mr. Bishop.

On Wednesday, the Church, along with media outlets, received the unredacted police report from BYU Police, which included an admission of inappropriate sexual conduct. We are committed to bringing accountability for what has occurred.

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.

Hmmm...President Newsroom be getting forgetful, he didn’t mention knowing about the other victim when he made his first announcement...and what does it say that neither victim was believed when she went to her ecclesiastical leaders...

[wtfluff]

President Newsroom added the following today:

< GIANT SNIP>
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.

<EVEN MORE SNIPPING>

The church's abuse helpline? The ONLY thing the church's abuse helpline does is protect the church. The church's abuse helpline literally goes to Kirton|McConkie, and they literally advise the "leader" to do what will legally protect the church "best". It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what is best for the victim.

[2bizE]

I watched two tv news stories tonight about the new church statement. The church now says there was a second woman. Wait, everyone seemed to know that but the church, which received the tapes back in January. Hummmmm... I'm puzzled. The church must think everyone is stupid. Do you know what I think? The church has purposefully chosen not to investigate because anything they find would be discoverable in the certain lawsuits. The church plays the role of the ostrich with its head in the sand, and everyone seems to see now that the church is in fact the ostrich.

[Not Buying It]

Great comment on Reddit:

The church always responds to social pressure. This updated post is just one more example of it. They may be late, they may drag their feet, they may fight against it, but time after time, they do move to align with what the rest of society deems good . Often it is disengenuous, but they'll say what they think society wants, eventually.

They're not leaders. They're not courageous. They're like insecure bullies who are the last ones making fun of someone until they turn around and realize nobody else thinks it's cool to pick on the little guy anymore. They then try to act like the little guy's best friend, but the problem is, they're always the last one.