The simple answer is of course, my faith is in Jesus Christ, I know men fail.
However the bigger answer is that God gives people agency, and allows them to misues it, to lie and to decieve. The gift of discernment does not mean false brethren and wolves in sheep clothing never have appointments in the Church. Otherwise Joseph Smith would have never put so much trusts in John C. Bennett, and Brigham Young would not have had to send Lorenzo Snow, Ezra T. Benson and Joseph F. Smith to Hawaii to remove Walter Gibson after he received communication from Jonathan Napela and probably other faithful Hawaiian brethren who reazlized that Gibson's actions, such as selling the priesthood, were not only out of line from the message they had learned from missionaries such as George Q. Cannon, but clearly violated the teachings of the Book of Mormon and New Testament. If there was ever a man who engaged in priestcraft in the Mormon Church it was Gibson, and Napela as the co-translator of the Book of Mormon into the Hawaiian langauge would clearly have realized that Gidson was guilty of this great evil.
Beyond this, the exact nature of Joseph L. Bishop's crimes are not clear. What he confessed to Robert E. Wells is less than clear. It seems alleged that while a missionary, presumably in the 1950s, Joseph Bishop confessed to his mission president inapropriate relations with females. To what extent these would fall under abuse of power and sexual harrassment is very hard to say, and what exactly he confessed, let alone what exatly he did is less than clear.
Some indications, such as one Deseret News article, suggest that while mission president in Argentina Bishop had some sort of connection with a woman that was not fully in line with the law of chastity especially for a married man. The exact nature of this relation is not clear, nor why it did not lead to his being released and excommunicated. The fact it didn't makes me think that at least the way he conveyed it to Elder Wells did not rise to the level of adultery.
The suit also attacks Bishop for his time as president of Weber State College (now University). I read the whole Ogden Standard-Examiner report on those accusations. It involves saying he was unethical, a bad example of a Church member, and some people felt he was dismissive of female employees, well one, and claims he tried to hound out lesbian students or something along those lines. It is not very clear at all. Two major problems with including that in the law suit. Trying to protray those actions as in any way a red flag that Bishop was likely to abuse power, sexually harrass and allegedly rape is a major stretch, and only vaguely works by 2018 definitions, not 1978 definitions. Beyond this, the suit avoids admitting that especially in Utah state educational institutions and hyper intent on showing distance from the LDS Church, so it is not clear the LDS Church could have obtained any direct information from Weber State.
When and how Bishop's accuser shared her claims is also a major point of contention. A man who apparently was her bishop in the 1980s only states that she told him the MTC president took her and her companion to a basement room in the MTC and showed them pornographic videos. His dismissal of this as a non-believable story is not the right reaction. However, that as a single incident as it seems to have been described would not constitute sexual harrassment per say, although it is clearly a violation of the rules and norms of the LDS Church, especially for mission leadership. Now if the woman had included other allegations of what Bishop did during this time, either sexually explicit actions or statements, or even how he looked at them, it might rise to sexual harrassment, but showing a pornographic video on one occasion does not in and of itself constitute sexual harrassment, especially as the term was understood in the 1980s.
What if anything the woman ever told Carlos E. Asay is not knowable, since he is dead and if he met with her he never made any report of it to any other person with the Church leadership.
On the other hand, in 2010 the Church reported the issue to police. Due to various factors the police only focused on the current threat, not the then 26 year old rape allegations. In 2017 a report was given to the BYU police, who then forwarded it to the Utah County Prosecutor's office. In this case it was seen as a criminal probe against Bishop. However although at least these people felt the accusations were credible, they did not pursue criminal charges due to the statute of limitations on rape in the 1980s.
What Bishop ever admitted to is still contested. Bishop's son says the only thing Bishop admits to is that the woman exposed her breasts to him at a meeting they had after her service as a missionary. What is not clear from this is weather anyone has followed up on this admission with intensive questions of Bishop to see if he touched her at all in any way during this exchange. If she voluntarily exposed herself after she was a missionary, with no prompting from him, and he responded by touching her exposed breats, would this count as a sex crime. If a man and woman are standing in close proximity and the women trears open her shirt in a suggestive way, is consent to touch assumed, at least in a tentative way, or is there a need for clear consent.
Now there is a claim by BYU police that Bishop told them he asked the woman to expose her breasts. The woman claims rape. What did actually happen is one big question.
The other issue is her suit seems to be proceeding on the grounds that the LDS Church not excommunicating Bishop is somehow an actionable tort for the woman. The very reasoning of the logic, that you can sue to financially punish a Church for not imposing excomunication on someone, is highly questionable.
No comments:
Post a Comment