gandalfe
Well-Known Member
They knew about it. They never reported it to the authorities, and never did anything about it themselves.
Sounds like a shield to me.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using JazzFanz mobile app
McKenna Denson brings it; gets put down
- Thread starter Harambe
- Start date
They knew about it. They never reported it to the authorities, and never did anything about it themselves.
Sounds like a shield to me.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using JazzFanz mobile app
The didn't act on multiple reports. Is that not shielding?
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
They investigated and felt like there was nothing further they could do, which is a completely reasonable response after such a long time. What, they're supposed to report every claim made to them 30 years after? Claims that should have been and should be reported to authorities by the victims or their representation? Be a little more realistic.
Yes, I think they should report every rape claim made 30 years later. Same with kidnapping, murder, arson and some other high level crimes.
I’ve never been in a “position of authority” in the Church (Bishop or Stake President), but my understanding is that they kind of have to take the “offenders” word for it. Meaning they talk to the old guy. He still denies he raped her. What is the Church supposed to do? I’m legitimately curious. The law has already been involved. Does he have to be excommunicated based on her word?
I am in no way condoning the cover up of any misconduct, especially the sexual kind. But I’m not sure what can be done. Let her have her say? Let her stand there in front of little kids (there were kids there of all ages) and talk about how that man raped her? How is that appropriate? By all means, let’s allow a woman that no one there knows stand in front of little kids talking about rape. Sorry, but if my eight or six year old kids were there, I wouldn’t let her do that either. Why does she get to do that?
I am in no way condoning the cover up of any misconduct, especially the sexual kind. But I’m not sure what can be done. Let her have her say? Let her stand there in front of little kids (there were kids there of all ages) and talk about how that man raped her? How is that appropriate? By all means, let’s allow a woman that no one there knows stand in front of little kids talking about rape. Sorry, but if my eight or six year old kids were there, I wouldn’t let her do that either. Why does she get to do that?
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
She reported it at the time, 30 years ago. They did nothing.
I mean, unless I'm confusing this with another case where the head of the MTC raped a girl. That's possible.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
I've not heard this. The articles posted make it sound otherwise.
What I've read is they have a hotline for bishops and what have you. One statement I read was don't call the hotline, call the authorities. Seems like a pretty reasonable first option (with additional support and advice for those who dont) dont you think?
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
Here's a bit of a Wikipedia article talking about this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases#Joseph_Bishop_case
She says she reported it in '84 or '85. LDS church states they have no record of that. She did report it to her bishop in 87, who has confirmed it and says he did NOTHING about it. Literally nothing.
Of course, you should report it to the authorities. But the church teaches that they ARE the authorities, that God's law is more important than man's, so who would a naive 18 year old girl report it to?
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
The condemnation I responded to wasn't aimed towards this bishop.
That is not true in the least. I've never heard the LDS Church claim they are above the law. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I thought the phrase I've heard is "respect and uphold the law", so I googled it. D&C 134 covers this well enough. Maybe ask Colton or jazzspazz, but I think that was written at a time the church was being persecuted.
Story after story after story is told about women who have reported sexual crimes against them to their bishops, as they have been taught to do. Back in the 80s, it was very common for these women to be told not to report to the authorities. I know many of these women personally. Many of them were told that taking it outside the church would "unnecessarily ruin the man's life," and that's if the woman was even believed in the first place. Most of the women I know were punished more severely by the church for speaking up than the man who committed the assault. And we let it happen, because we believed our leaders were inspired and because we had it ingrained in us that we were lesser and it was our fault.
After sexual misconduct by some leaders were finally publicized, they started advising contacting authorities. But this church, like the Catholic Church, did nothing until they were embarrassed and shamed into it.
And why is it still the default position that in a he said/she said situation that the man's claims are the ones most often believed. If one out of four women have been sexually assaulted, and most accused men are innocent - well, someone explain the math to me. And that statistic holds up, because easily one in four of the women I know and have known have been sexually assaulted.
Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
After sexual misconduct by some leaders were finally publicized, they started advising contacting authorities. But this church, like the Catholic Church, did nothing until they were embarrassed and shamed into it.
And why is it still the default position that in a he said/she said situation that the man's claims are the ones most often believed. If one out of four women have been sexually assaulted, and most accused men are innocent - well, someone explain the math to me. And that statistic holds up, because easily one in four of the women I know and have known have been sexually assaulted.
Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
Last edited:
I don’t know if this part is in response to what I posted or not, but let me clarify what I meant. If a woman goes to a Bishop and says she was assaulted, I believe the leaders are supposed to contact authorities. My comment about the believing the man was in reference to Church discipline. Meaning the church doesn’t pursue disfellowship/excommunication if he denies it. But yes, the leaders are supposed to get the law involved.
Now the leaders contact authorities, but they didn't then. That was the basis of many of the lawsuits against them when these types of scandals first broke. See Rob Porter situation for a public example of an abused wife told not to report it to authorities.
And thanks for your clarification. But how is it right when a wife tells her bishop that her "righteous" husband beats her, and when her husband denies it, the bishop chastises her? The man is still going to be believed unless there is overwhelming evidence against him, like he puts her in the hospital or kills her.
Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
Last edited:
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
Well, they're SUPPOSED to contact the authorities. But I bet that a lot of them handle it exactly the same way. The only difference is that now they get sued directly instead of the church as a whole, because they've said that their policy is to call the cops, and, hey, if this volunteer bishop did his job wrong, that's not their fault.
Like I said, I’ve never been in that type of position (I HIGHLY doubt I ever will be), but I’m pretty sure they’re not supposed to chastise her. Again, I’ve never read the guidelines, but why would he chastise her? IMO, if he does, he’s doing it wrong.
If a law was broken, or reported it was broken, the bishop should make sure it is reported. If there are victims involved, the bishop should encourage that person to report it to the police as quickly as possible. In the case of rape, the victim should go to the hospital asap.
As far as the church part of things, when it's one person's word vs another person's word, there is not much a bishop or stake president could do without proof or other witnesses. Church discipline cannot happen without more proof, just the same as a legal conviction couldn't happen without proof. They could go hand in hand though, in that legal proceedings could/should lead to church discipline as that could count as proof of sin. Even just the accusation should be enough imo to consider releasing someone or in the least passing the concern up to the next level of leadership.
I'm not old enough to know what leaders were instructed 30 years ago as to how to handle things like this, clearly there are cases where it was not handled in the best way or we wouldn't have things like this happening 30 years later.
Do I think the Church or it's leadership want to cover up sin for anyone, absolutely not. Do I believe people in positions of authority make mistakes or handle things poorly at times, absolutely. Do I think a man should be believed over a woman in a situation like this, absolutely not. Do I believe something should not be reported because it would "ruin someone's reputation", absolutely not. If you have been wronged you do what you can and must do to get healing for yourself, and do what you can to ensure others are not hurt in the same way you are.
Doing this in sacrament meeting is not going to lead to healing, but is an attempt at justice. Maybe she wants some form of justice before she looks for healing? They are not connected in what I've seen in life, while both should be sought, healing is not directly connected to justice from what I've seen. I would say there are better ways to go about this, but at the same time her prior attempts to report this to church leaders were not passed on, so why would she go that route again?
It's complicated from both sides. The church as a whole are not hiding things for people, but at the same time they do not publish what people do that is wrong. McKenna should not have done this in sacrament meeting, but at the same time, where should she have done this when the proper channels did not work for her in the past?
Complicated.
As far as the church part of things, when it's one person's word vs another person's word, there is not much a bishop or stake president could do without proof or other witnesses. Church discipline cannot happen without more proof, just the same as a legal conviction couldn't happen without proof. They could go hand in hand though, in that legal proceedings could/should lead to church discipline as that could count as proof of sin. Even just the accusation should be enough imo to consider releasing someone or in the least passing the concern up to the next level of leadership.
I'm not old enough to know what leaders were instructed 30 years ago as to how to handle things like this, clearly there are cases where it was not handled in the best way or we wouldn't have things like this happening 30 years later.
Do I think the Church or it's leadership want to cover up sin for anyone, absolutely not. Do I believe people in positions of authority make mistakes or handle things poorly at times, absolutely. Do I think a man should be believed over a woman in a situation like this, absolutely not. Do I believe something should not be reported because it would "ruin someone's reputation", absolutely not. If you have been wronged you do what you can and must do to get healing for yourself, and do what you can to ensure others are not hurt in the same way you are.
Doing this in sacrament meeting is not going to lead to healing, but is an attempt at justice. Maybe she wants some form of justice before she looks for healing? They are not connected in what I've seen in life, while both should be sought, healing is not directly connected to justice from what I've seen. I would say there are better ways to go about this, but at the same time her prior attempts to report this to church leaders were not passed on, so why would she go that route again?
It's complicated from both sides. The church as a whole are not hiding things for people, but at the same time they do not publish what people do that is wrong. McKenna should not have done this in sacrament meeting, but at the same time, where should she have done this when the proper channels did not work for her in the past?
Complicated.
What I mean by the bishop chastising her is that he blames her for the abuse or whatever it is that her husband is doing. If you talk to several women who have gone to bishops about abuse, about a cheating spouse, about a divorce, it will not be long before you hear some of these lines from the bishops:
"If you wouldn't make him so mad . . ."
"If you tried to be nicer to him . . ."
"If you satisfied his needs as often as he wants . . ."
"If you had tried to make yourself more attractive . . ."
"I'm going to have to take your temple recommend away if you keep telling these stories about your [innocent] husband"
etc.
The issue isn't so much what they are supposed to do, it is what some of them do. It is a minority, to be sure, but I know people who have had all of the above and more said to them, so it isn't rare and uncommon. The church claims no responsibility and will say that it is all the fault of the individual, that the person is the one that misunderstood their instructions and guidelines. But the church is responsible for its people, even if they are "volunteers," just the same as any organization is held responsible when their workers screw up.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
The way I see it is that if you have an inclination to rape women or children you will probably seek out some position that will afford you extra trust and or authority such as a; Bishop, Priest, coach, Troop leader, etc.
When institutions that grant people a title of trust fail to hold them not only to the highest standards but to the standards of the rest of us they deserve to lose our trust. When those institutions fail to report confessions or even suspicions opting to sweep it under the rug they deserve the condemnation that is thrown their way.
And they invite more rapists and molesters to secretly join their ranks. They might as well purchase a billboard:
Do people not trust you with their children? Is it difficult to coax a young woman into a dark room with you?
Apply today
We got your back
When institutions that grant people a title of trust fail to hold them not only to the highest standards but to the standards of the rest of us they deserve to lose our trust. When those institutions fail to report confessions or even suspicions opting to sweep it under the rug they deserve the condemnation that is thrown their way.
And they invite more rapists and molesters to secretly join their ranks. They might as well purchase a billboard:
Do people not trust you with their children? Is it difficult to coax a young woman into a dark room with you?
Apply today
We got your back
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
BTW
Noone is trusted alone with my children who does not understand that I would slowly cut them into a thousand pieces and eat them. That may sound extreme but honestly if you can't stomach doing that then you probably shouldn't leave your children alone with any grown man. Srs this **** is way too common. Someone will fool you
Noone is trusted alone with my children who does not understand that I would slowly cut them into a thousand pieces and eat them. That may sound extreme but honestly if you can't stomach doing that then you probably shouldn't leave your children alone with any grown man. Srs this **** is way too common. Someone will fool you
There are plenty of stories women can tell about inappropriate actions and comments from their bishops. Children can also tell a bunch. I have known many people who first ever heard of masturbation from their bishops, some of whom went into very explicit detail about what it is. I'm quite certain they weren't doing it because it told them to do so in the handbook, but because they got a perverse thrill out of it.
Children should never be alone with an adult male who is going to ask them sexual questions. It is ridiculous that it is ever believed to be appropriate. So Joseph Bishop gets no punishment, but they are going to probably excommunicate Sam Young for his efforts in preventing children from this.
Children should never be alone with an adult male who is going to ask them sexual questions. It is ridiculous that it is ever believed to be appropriate. So Joseph Bishop gets no punishment, but they are going to probably excommunicate Sam Young for his efforts in preventing children from this.
I must admit, this is one of those things that shakes my faith. The church claims that these callings are made by inspiration, and if that is the case then that means that the person making the calling is being inspired to call someone into a position where they will sexually abuse a woman or a child. Either that or it must be confessed that callings are not inspired. Either one of those things flies in the face of the very core teachings of the church. I do find it disturbing.