Update on Case Against Former MTC President and LDS Church

Hello again, everyone! As some of you may recall, there has been wide public discussion on the alleged abuse of a female missionary by her former MTC president, Joseph Bishop. Earlier today, KSL shared this report to provide an update on the latest relating to that matter. In the article, KSL reports that the judge in the case is considering a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the missionary in question against Bishop and the Church.

This is a very thorny problem, and it is difficult to sort out my feelings on the matter. On the one hand, I know that the Church does not condone abuse on any scale by anyone in a position of authority, and should take action once they hear of such incidents. On the other hand, I recognize that if Bishop originally denied doing what he was accused of, and if it could not be verified that he was lying, there was only so much Church leaders, both general and local could do.

It does get even trickier, because I also recognize that, if the accusations are true, the perpetrator should face consequences for what he has done. Even if the statute of limitations has expired so he can not legally be held accountable for his conduct, there should be some measure of Church discipline in this case.

It is also true that the victim had to live harboring guilt over the situation, and has likely suffered a great mental, emotional, and spiritual anguish over this, which cannot be ignored. But whether or not the statute of limitations prevents legal process from taking place, I don't think the victim in this case is justified in claiming that the Church and its' general and local leaders, through their negligence in investigating this matter, should rightfully be sued and provide compensation.

The really hard thing about all of this is that, when any Church leader interviews someone about anything, all they can do is trust they are hearing the truth from each individual with whom they interact. At the end of the day, only the Lord knows whether or not the answers provided to such questions are true or false. And unfortunately, with all of the pertinent details of this case being brought to light in the United States, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

And as the article I cited above notes, the recollections of the people on both sides of this issue may or may not be accurate. The crux of the case hangs on an admission by this former mission president to the missionary he abused in which he clearly states he has done what he was accused of. And if any of his priesthood leaders had been aware of the sexual addictions which he said he had, that should have raised warning flags about his eligibility to serve.

But the crux of whether or not the lawsuit is legally justified may also be a tangled problem. Although the victim has suffered greatly because of the incident, I find it hard to side with her belief that the Church was willfully negligent in responding to her reports on this issue. While recollections may change, and while the Church has vowed to hold abusers responsible for their conduct, at the same time, if the Church had no reason to doubt what the perpetrator told them in relation to this incident, there was not a lot they could have done.

There may have been a reason to investigate this more fully, but the fact remains that if the statute of limitations has expired on both the crime and on the potential to sue for legal and financial redress, that is something for which the Church cannot and should not be held responsible. If the Church leaders that may have interviewed Bishop believed him to be sincere in claiming his innocence, it may not have been fair to assert that the Church should have done more to deal with this.

Striking the proper balance between seeing justice served, both legally and religiously, and ensuring that mercy comes into play when certain aspects of the case are in doubt, may be as tricky to accomplish as it has been for the victim in this case to recover from the ordeal she experienced.

Either way, it is heartbreaking to consider that it took so long to bring any credibility to these accusations. I am sure that she attempted to get this resolved years ago, but the fact that it could not be seems to be more the fault of the perpetrator than it is of the Church whose leaders believed the perpetrator when he claimed his innocence.

That said, I hope the judge considers all of this when he issues a ruling on this case. And I have no doubts that the Church has wasted no time whatsoever in doing further investigation on what happened, why it was not discovered sooner, and what, if any, disciplinary measures should be taken against the perpetrator.

Even if he somehow manages to escape legal, emotional, or mental responsibility, he either has been or will yet be subject to Church disciplinary measures, since the Church does not have a statute of limitations of any kind in relation to disciplinary measures for proven transgressions of Church policies, and since Church leaders have recently reiterated their zero-tolerance policy relating to accusations of such conduct. And the fact that Bishop held a position of authority in the Church will also play into the next steps that are taken regarding this matter.

In the meantime, I continue to monitor the developments relating to this matter, and I will be sure to pass word of those along to you all as I become aware of any updates. That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated. Thank you for the privilege of your time. If you enjoyed what you read here and would like to do so, please feel free to subscribe to stay informed of new content, whether new posts or comments from others. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.