NOM

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.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:07 am 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.

Hermey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:26 am The Church has quietly revised their original statement. Hoping someone had saved a copy of it.

StarbucksMom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:39 pm

Hermey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:26 am 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.

StarbucksMom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:54 pm 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.

StarbucksMom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:54 pm 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.

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

wtfluff wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:31 pm 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

Hermey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:13 pm Also, the "L." is gone from his name as well. It seems they are trying to subtly distance themselves from him.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:30 am

Hermey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:13 pm 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.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:12 pm Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/22/re ... rself.html

oliblish wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:52 pmPolice: Ex-Mormon official asked to see woman's breasts

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.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:03 pm 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 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.