With all due respect to the church, never trust a church leader to do what is
right. If a crime is committed, report to the cops, not the church.
This dear Sister was willing to serve a full time mission for the Lord. She
believed in the ecclesiastical order of making things right ten times. She even
entrusted her first born to the church through social services for adoption. She
has shown the highest faith and sacrifice. Please be considerate of who she is
-a child of God. We are the Church.
In cases such as this, where a crime is charged -- which should be tried in
civil court, not in Church court (See D&C 134:8 below), the Church is highly
unlikely to assume authority to pronounce a judgment, thus encroaching upon the
civil court's domain and interfering with the established lawful judicial
procedure and process of the land... (D&C 134:8) -- "We
believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature
of the offense... by the laws of that government in which the offense is
Many are saying that they hope that the church makes this right.What
does that even mean?You can't unring a bell - the reputation of
Joesph Bishop is gone, maybe he deserves it, maybe he doesn't, he's at
least partially at fault here but the extent to which is being claimed lacks
proof and the accuser doesn't have a credible past. how does the church
fix that? Changes in operation already went into effect long ago.The accuser has clearly had many problems through life, that being said people
who are abused sometime have struggles as they are dealing with emotions that
humans shouldn't deal with - and while my heart goes out to her due to her
past regardless of the veracity of this accusation - how does the church make
that right?There is nothing to be made right, and the person who
decided to leak this did the damage that the church was hoping to avoid and that
would make the church unlikely to settle now (private settlements legally are to
keep things private, once you make it public what's the point? true or not
this damage the church's image for some people).I can only
conclude that those saying that are hoping to see the church hurt in some
The way that I see it (and most will or will not agree). Yes, She was apparently
was sexual assaulted in one way or the other. She also reported it multiple
times! Yes, the statute of limitations has more than ran out... however, and
this gets me... Why didn't the church act on this? She is only coming out
with this when she found out that nothing had been done! Again, Why not? So here
is my opinion... Since she did report it again and again and the church failed
to protect her by taking care of the situation... I feel even though the statue
has ran out... I think we also should take into consideration the
70's & 80's still had a different attitude against women. Sexual
assault is just now really coming to the front that it wrong? Look at Bill Cosby
and all the Famous actors, Producers, etc. that are finally being addressed!I know this church is true! however it is ran by flawed people! The
purpose of life is to become more Christ like... (some people more than others).
So... I do kind of think the Church should be accountable! They
should settle in one way or the other! Anyone in this situation would feel
@ AZcoug8 - thanks for clarification, I mistakenly thought it was a newspaper
article and it was a TV interview instead.
@ Strom Thurmond:"There is no statute of limitationsThis
is a civil case"Where are you coming from?Do your
research before stating mistaken opinions as if they were facts:The
utcourts.gov URL won't post here. Google "utah statute of limitations
for civil cases" and you will find the following:A statute of
limitation is the time allowed to file a court case. Statutes of
limitation apply in both civil and criminal cases.The statute of
limitations for some cases is as short as six months, while some serious
criminal offenses have no limit and can be filed at any time, even decades
after the crime occurred. Most statutes of limitation range from one to
eight years.I'm grumpy because I was told to stop spoiling the
What part of this motion wasn’t expected? Denson’s lawyers tried to
be as creative as possible to skirt around the SOL issues, but I don’t
think very much of the complaint is going to survive the 12(b)(6) motion. The
parties could be fighting on appeal for years before the defendants even have to
file an answer to the complaint, if they ever do. The scope of what remains,
and what there is to corroborate it, will determine the settlement value of the
i don't see why there should be exceptions to the law for her.
I find those who condemn her for not reporting the rape within the statute of
limitations incredibly clueless about sexual assault. She was 21, he was the
pres of the MTC. Do the math.I hope the church makes this situation
right. I have been disappointed so far.
I don't care what feminists say. It will always be innocent until proven
guilty. Also evidence is important.
IJ - have you been a victim of sexual assault by a person who holds a high
position in the church? Have you had the details of your life examined and
answered questions from 15 men while the person who assaulted you is also in the
room? Have you been told that you cannot have a support person (your spouse) in
the room with you as you testify and answer questions because it would
"violate the accused's privacy"? I have experienced all of this - I
am also an active, participating member of the church who thinks there needs to
be a lot of changes made in how sexual assault and sexual abuse disclosures are
The trouble for everybody involved is that the story is out. The truth no
longer matters, except for those on both sides whose reputations are besmirched
by the story. For them there should be sympathy.
The law is the law, if it's supposed to be thrown out over procedural
matters then it should be thrown out, but of course, it being thrown out
wouldn't mean the alleged claims aren't true.
Often in these comments sections you see two groups:One that wants to see
the LDS church bleed at any and every turn.One that wants to defend the
LDS church and its leaders at all times.I think in a situation like
this, it helps to change the parties involved in the dispute and see if your
response would be different. If this were a woman complaining of a sexual
assault by a university professor 30+ years ago, now attempting to sue or
prosecute that professor and the university, would you respond differently?Also substitute the name of the university for that of your favorite and
least favorite university and see if your response would be any different.Obviously, statutes of limitations exist for a reason, and were created
independent of the parties involved in a lawsuit in order to avoid cases that
lack evidence and would be more prone to emotional sentiment than fact.
According to Utah law, for civil suits for personal injury, the statue of
limitation is four years. For all other possible civil issues the longest time
limit is 6 years. Defendants have to petition the judge to dismiss based on the
statue of limitation’s expiration.34 years is a long time to
wait to file. Her attorney knows this. They filed because they want the Church
to settle out of court. Nice try, but it doesn’t look like the Church is
Claim and counter claim but ultimately no evidence, regardless of the statute of
limitations.If she has made accusations against men before as has
been noted, the judgements of those claims made by her will be taken into
account if her prior claims were spurious.Interesting that her
lawyer pushed for a financial settlement 2 months ago though when she claims she
just wants the church to change the way it deals with cases of alleged sexual
assault. Why would her lawyer push to settle prior to going to court when she
supposedly wants change that a high profile case could bring?Too
many things don't add up here.
In 1984 ANY of my daughters would have called home from the MTC if one was
raped. I would have been on a plane to Provo within hours.The facts
do NOT line up. She should have been crying and very upset. Her companion
would have noticed it. Something would have been done within the hour.Instead, she hides it and has the fortitude to still stay in the MTC and then
serve the rest of her mission?Maybe that really is the case, but I
doubt it.When this came out one of her former missionary companions
wrote about her in the comments. Are any of you out there? Anybody remember
her from the MTC?
@strom thurman:You're right that this is a civil case, but you
seem to think the statutes of limitation don't apply to civil cases. They
bed or no bed,It's the MTC, there are clearly tons of beds and
desks and chairs - so let's establish that there are for sure storage rooms
with beds in them.About the room - I'm rather sure that every
building in the MTC in Provo has multiple storage rooms. Some say it has a bed,
some say it didn't - are we even talking about the same room? Maybe the
bed was there and 10 years later i slept on it when it was put to use - nobody
knows. (this is why there are statutes of limitations)Having a bed
doesn't mean that something bad happened once or routinely.it
reminds me of something a girl I knew said about a rule at Rick's College
about not letting your feet leave the ground with guys in your apartment, she
just said "what will that stop them from doing?" What does
it matter? a bed doesn't cause nor prevent rape.I think
we'd all know by now if it was a big pimp bed with red sheets and mirrors
around it - but as it stands it's a detail that really doesn't add
much of anything except for those who visually creative in judgment.
readers,There is no statute of limitationsThis is a
This statute of limitations issue is not as cut-and-dried as some posters seem
to think. Under current Utah law, there's no statute of limitations for
rape; under the old law, there was. It'll be up to the judge to determine
whether the Legislature intended to let long-ago rapists off the hook, while
still holding later rapists accountable.Also, for those of you who
are arguing that the Church did nothing wrong, that's not so clear either.
If a rape victim reports the crime to church leaders, and those leaders ignore
the problem, they can, in fact, be held accountable in some cases.Before a trial, we're all guessing at the facts because we're not
privy to all the information held by the parties. The Church is saying that
even if the woman was raped, that's irrelevant because this crime was
committed so long ago. A judge may not agree and a trial would give all of us
more information to evaluate the case.
@taatmkI didn't give an opinion on it. Cinci Man asked for the
article. I helped him- judgement free. You see how that works?
Let this go to a jury, and they can decide.And, yes, the janitor
said there was a bed. Try looking a little harder.
TaamtkTry this search. The first article is from 2News"janitor confirms mtc bed"He did confirm the existence of
a bed."The former employee, who asked not to be identified, says
the room did have a bed, TV and VHS Player. ""The employee
said the room was in an otherwise unfinished area in a lower junction part of
the building. The area provided access to the building’s water pipes,
electrical lines and tunnels connected to other campus structures. It was only
accessible after passing through more than one locked door. The employee said
the room itself had no windows, but was fully furnished inside. The furnishings
included a single bed, similar to those used in the MTC dorms, and a TV and VHS
player on a mobile cart.""That’s why the fully built
out little room down there was so odd. It had nice floors, walls, ceilings but
no windows. It looked like almost any other training room in the MTC with the
exception of the bed of course. It was just really odd and totally out of
place.”“There is no earthly reason she should’ve
known that room existed, and no reason anyone should’ve been in the room
alone with her.”
@taatmkKUTV: "When asked about these new details, Eric Hawkins,
spokesperson for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said,
'Yes, Joseph Bishop had an secondary office in the basement of the MTC.
People we have interviewed who were familiar with the office report it did not
contain a bed.'"Notice that Hawkins did not say that ALL
the people interviewed reported that the room did not contain a bed.An important distinction.
"The right thing is to admit this man did at least inappropriate things to
which he has confessed. The consequence is to excommunicate this man because of
the position he held."You sure about that?Culture in
the world and church has evolved in major ways since the 1980's. There are
things that we all look back on and say "wow, were we really allowed to do
that back then, so risky" and yet I look back on the things where I now
perceive shouldn't have happened, and nothing bad happened back then.He had an room which may or may not have had a bed in it - and in the
MTC you of course have tons and tons of beds in storage - again 20/20 hindsight
I'm sure the MTC has wrapped all extra bed in plastic wrap and store them
upright.He had a one on one meeting, or perhaps a series of them.
Recently the rule was not to do that.What happened in that meeting
isn't actually known.which of those mistakes should he be
excommunicated for? excommunication isn't a punishment, it's an
opportunity to repent, if he's not confessing do you excommunicate him for
having a bed in a storage room?I'm not saying he's
innocent, but i'm questioning if he's guilty, and you don't know
@ AZcoug8 - Mesa, AZIn that same article you refer to, others
report that the room did not contain a bed. It was described as a secondary
office, without a bed. Who to believe?
I read through the long transcripts.first of all, the man is
recovering from surgery, elderly, and on medication.second,
he's remarkably blunt in many things, things that one wouldn't bring
up to others, and goes into some detail on some embarrassing things that may be
interpreted in various ways. but repeatedly, he denies his involvement with her
over and over again in the case of rape.I'm glad I'm not a
judge in this matter, and I don't think it's my business - but she got
him to confess to everything from speeding tickets to late library books and
tells her repeatedly that he wishes he could ease her pain but he doesn't
remember it that way.third, as Bishop is speaking he's dropping
a few marbles from time to time. He brings up things that are out of place and
can be misinterpreted on the subject matter, he doesn't sound like he has a
sound mind.fourth - the MTC has about 8000 beds in it, so a basement
storage room might have some beds in it too. Bishop absolutely
displayed some poor judgment 30+ years ago - there is a predator here, is it the
one who made more than 10 similar claims on other men or Bishop - we really
won't ever know and I'm glad I'm not the judge.
Do what is right, let the consequence follow.The right thing is to
admit this man did at least inappropriate things to which he has confessed. The
consequence is to excommunicate this man because of the position he held.As a faithful member, I hope the Church has nothing to do with this man
who violated sacred trust. And I hope that the Church in the future deals with
these issues more openly and severely.
Rape is a crime. She should have reported that to the police. If it can be
proven, there really shouldnt be a statute of limitations on rape. See what is
happening with the CA Rapists after 50 years. Does he get charged with murders
but is off the hook for the rapes? Better not.As for the Church
knowingly letting a predator lead young women, I dont believe that is the case
here. It is a shame this woman is basically saying that Mr Bishop had raped
women before and the Church knew about it and still gave him callings over young
women. Just because this man confesses to having a fixation on sex (no actual
acts were every described) that does not make him a predator. No one is prefect
and all the church can do is set up practices that help protect all people and
I am really glad to hear all these posters saying the statute of limitations can
not and should not be used. Bill they are calling for your prosecution and
conviction. Hillary, they are calling for your conviction for obstruction of
A person has not fully repented, nor can they expect full forgiveness, until
they face the consequences of the laws of the land when the sin involved
directly victimizing another soul. That is called recompense and restitution.
That is the counsel I have given the confessor when I have held leadership
@ Cincy ManIt's on KUTV- you can google 'MTC employee
@Br. Jones - East Coast, MD"a former MTC employee did come
forward and confirm the presence of a basement room with a bed in it. Look at
past Deseret News and Tribune articles for the info."I searched
and found nothing. Can you direct us to an article that states what you say?
Thanks, sincerely. This would likely affect the actions of the Church on this
matter.Every article I've read so far states that Ms. Denson
talks about the room and bed. I would imagine that if such a witness exists,
there would be more mention of that in every article.
All those immediately jumping to the church's defense, just PLEASE for one
second think that there's at least a chance she's telling the truth.
Don't let your love for the church blind you to the fact that no matter
what did happen (and I happen to believe her), she is HURTING, and likely has
been for 30+ years. Pain is real, and slinging mud is not going to
help- on either side.
@Cinci Man"I just cannot wrap my arms around the fact that there could
be a bed in a storage closet thatno one else has come forward to have seen
it."Former employee confirms 'odd' MTC basement room
with bed and TV
There are four courts here.1) Court of the Land with a judge,
attorneys, and a jury.Whether or not we like it, the law must be followed.
If there is a statute of limitations, the judge must abide by the law and
dismiss the case. If the statute of limitations can be shown to not apply, then
the case will move forward.2) Court of Public Opinion with everyone
serving as armchair judges, attorneys, and juries.Based on what
information we can glean from biased news reports we convict both plaintiff and
defendant. This will continue regardless of the unknown truth.3) LDS
Church court with a stake president and high council serving as jurors and
judges. This court is held in private and we do not know what happens. The
plaintiff is claiming the church leaders over decades did nothing. We do not
know and cannot know the truthfulness of this claim.4) Court on
High, with Jesus as the judge. This is when there will be Hell to pay. The truth
will be known and a fair/unbiased judgement rendered.For me, the
first three courts are irrelevant as I am doing my best to prepare myself for
the last. court.I'm grumpy because I was told to stop spoiling
To Impartial&:re: "Depends on the Judge, if he/she is a
member. Then, the suit will be dismissed, to be filed in another
district."You're not being very impartial here. In my
experience, LDS people are often more harsh on themselves than they are on
others. Your comment may say more about personal biases than it does about the
judge or outcome of this case.
Scott - have you ever been invited to sit on a disciplinary council? How do you
know what you are saying is true? I have been called to serve several times in
positions that require me to sit on these councils and 1) it is not something
one aspires to 2) all have been councils of love and concern for both the victim
and the perpetrator 3) there has never been preferential treatment to anyone; if
anything, those in leadership positions are dealt with in a "more harsh"
manner than the rank-and-file members. 4) these kinds of proceedings are not
publicized because it is none of your business. These councils are in place to
help individuals repent, and repentance is between the person and the Lord and
is none of your business. If there are legal actions that need to take place,
then we defere to the law enforcement authorities; then it becomes public.
Unless Utah law is dramatically different from other states' when it comes
to statutes of limitations, this seems like a pretty simple call. The delayed-discovery rule generally only applies when you didn't
discover you were harmed until later, not when you learn what a third party did
or didn't do in response to the harm.The underlying harm here
is the original assault.
Alma 36:13 13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I
was tormented with the pains of hell; yea, I saw that I had rebelled against my
God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments.Alma's
memory was enhanced, as to remember all of the wrong he had done! This is an
eternal faculty that is temporally restored to awake our consciousness to help
us repent. This same faculty will be fully restored at our resurrected state,
and remembrance of everything we have not forsaken or repented of, will be
restored or remembered! At the end justice will prevail, I am so sorry for this
Because of the man's position of power, he should have been excommunicated
on the spot for even minor offenses to which he has already confessed. If an
MTC president asks a women to disrobe...he should be excommunicated. Not
because of the severity of the act, but because he has brought blight upon the
name of the church and violated sacred trust.If MTC President's
can't behave themselves, then we pretty much are at the point we need to
teach all of our children that anything is possible in the church...even abuse
at the hands of very high ranking authorites.Teach your children
that men are fallible and that if anybody asks or does something questionable,
the child has zero responsibility to acquiesce to anything and should report it
immediately to parents and authorities. I'm active LDS, devoted
and sustain the leadership of the Church. I hope they've all learned
lessons on how to deal with this crap soon, more seriously and without a hint of
cover up. Not a single hint...
The church is involved in this part. Not the assault. "negligent and
intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, fraudulent nondisclosure
and fraudulent concealment." This is all currently happening, thus no
statute of limitations.
There is something about this story that bugs me. I get that she says that she
talked to Church leaders and she didn't know what they did. However, she
apparently didn't talk to a District Attorney, who would tell her what he
was doing about it. She says the man raped her. That is a crime punishable by
jail time and the statute of limitations runs out when you don't press
charges. It isn't a question of whether you talked to the Church or your
visiting teachers--it is a question as to whether you talked to the police and a
District Attorney chooses to prosecute. If he did do it he
deserves jail time. I have no desire to shield a rapist. I am glad the statute
of limitations was apparently changed, and wish it was longer for other crimes.
I think a minimum of 7 years is appropriate for any crime, and rape and sexual
assault should be open ended.I am an active LDS member and I love
the Church. But if there is one thing I would change in the LDS culture, it is
that when a crime is committed you go to the police first, and the presiding
authority second. The Church is not equipped to investigate crimes--the police
A few on here have said that what happens to Mr. Bishop discipline-wise is none
of our business. I disagree.The church seems to give a higher
status to its local and general leaders. To me it is kind of like a good ole
boys network. Leaders can sit in meetings and secretly discuss the dirty
laundry of members, but it is forbidden for members to criticize their
leaders.If a rank and file member had been accused of this, the
leaders would have been like flies to a light to remedy it. However, if a
leader is accused, it is much less believable and pretty much ignored.
My dad is now 87 and his memory is so bad that he sometimes thinks I am his
father. If someone accused him of anything there is no way he could defend
himself no matter what it was. Maybe that's the reason this
wasn't brought up years ago.
Those of you complaining about the statute, I’d like to know your thoughts
when you are accused of doing something (even 10 years later) and not asking
your attorney to file a motion to dismiss the claims due to the statute of
Perhaps the most interesting thing about this case is that the federal
government concerns itself with a rape allegation.She was of age,
not a minority and it all took place (allegedly) within the State of Utah. Why
is this a federal case?Don't they have better things to do,
like asylum cases at the San Diego border station?
When you hire an attorney for a civil complaint, you're not looking for
justice...it's all about the money!
My heart goes out to Mrs Denson! I can’t imagine how painful this has
been for her through the years. I hope she can somehow get justice. I’m
just not sure this is the LDS church’s responsibility to make this right.
So if the Church wants to impose the statute of limitations on wrongful deeds it
has done, or done by its agent, then I get to rely on the same statute of
limitations for any of my misdeeds. This is a new twist!
The church is on the wrong side here.
This seems to be a play for a civil award of cash. Settlement out of court is
more than likely. Truth in this, he said she said, will be difficult to discern
and establish in a court of law. People need to seek an attorney when such an
@Partial7"Depends on the Judge, if he/she is a member. Then, the
suit will be dismissed, to be filed in another district. "Don't you ever get tired of saying things you have no clue in?
Why isn't Denson's lawyer also quoted in this article? It only
presents the rebuttals from Bishop's and the LDS Church's side.
Perhaps the reporting could be more equally representative.
@Cinci Man: a former MTC employee did come forward and confirm the presence of a
basement room with a bed in it. Look at past Deseret News and Tribune articles
for the info.
Lawyers stating the suit should be dismissed are not trying to minimize what
allegedly happened. Few rape accusations are false (possibly between 2-8% of
reported rapes but the number is likely closer to 2%) so the assumption is that
an allegation is true..The real issue is, as the article covers,
statutes of limitation. If you want them changed, talk to your legislators.
Limitations serve important purposes including encouraging more accurate
evidence (for and against) collection and management. How do you collect legal
evidence for something that occurred 30 years ago? In some cases (murder),
it's possible but rape not reported until many years later? If there is
physical evidence it will be submitted during the discovery process. Otherwise,
it comes down to one person's word against another. How is that a fair
trial for either party?A "confession" many years after the
incident isn't sufficient evidence. Memory is far from perfect. This
doesn't mean she's making up the allegation, it just means from a
legal standpoint it's difficult to prosecute or defend the case.This is a tragic event but there is no legal basis for the trial right now.
That might be unfortunate
Don't read too much into this either way. It is standard procedure for the
defense in every lawsuit. I would have been surprised and disappointed if the
defense had not asked for a dismissal. After the judge refuses to dismiss, then
there will be attempts to settle out of court.
The Church isn't hiding behind the law any more than anyone else would be
in a similar circumstance. Over 30 years is too long and justice would not be
served. At this point, it is a "he said, she said" situation. There is
never justice in these types of cases for either party. Only a "pound of
flesh". That is apparently what she wants.Whether or not the
Church did anything to Bishop years ago is irrelevant. Maybe he got church
discipline, maybe he didn't. In any effect, it's none of our business
what the Church may or may not have done to him internally. And it would have
been years ago and the repentance process would have run its course also, years
ago.I wouldn't have any problem with the Church assisting her
with her issues that supposedly come from that incident in the MTC through
counseling, job assistance, etc.
There is a statute of limitations for a reason. If the judge doesn't
dismiss the case, he/she is basically legislating from the bench and should be
prosecuted for usurping legislative authority.
"I hate to agree with the church, but women really need to learn go stop
sitting on this stuff. "You might have missed the part where she
alleges she tried to tell 10 different Church leaders about the abuse and
What would Jesus do?
She may be telling the truth. But I just cannot wrap my arms around the fact
that there could be a bed in a storage closet that no one else has come forward
to have seen it. No one moved it in or out. No one saw these two go in or out
of the closet. I imagine someone would have come forward by now. If not,
I'm sure the MTC has records of who were custodians, etc. And surely the
investigations would have uncovered more than we are being told.What
is the truth here?
"Why do you get to determine when it is "hiding behind the law" and
when it is justifiably using that very same law? You and I have no idea what the
church has or hasn't done, or will do, with this man. "That's what a trial is for--to draw out the truth of what the church did
or didn't do. They aren't even attempting to defend themselves on
that account. They're trying to say - "you waited too long, too
bad"Incidentally, it should be noted they're saying the
statute of limitations--as it existed back then--has run out. That law has
changed, and for good reason. Today, there is no statute of limitations on rape
(Utah Code Ann. 76-1-301). So all this discussion about why the law is in place
is deflection. As a society, since that time, we've decided those reasons
are invalid. This might also be how the church loses this particular appeal.
The judge will need to look at the language of the legislation of when this
change was passed to find intent--whether it was intended to change relative to
all outstanding and potential cases, or whether it is only valid from the point
the law was instituted forward.
Depends on the Judge, if he/she is a member. Then, the suit will be dismissed,
to be filed in another district. Hopefully, this gets dealt with outside of the
Utah justice system. If the church and Bishop really believe they have no
liability, they'd welcome a fair shake.
"Regardless of" the Statutes of Limitations.How does one resolve
the difference between: She says vs He says.She claims: . . .In
short, even assuming .. . she did not "discover" . .. And we expect He to be able to pull together a defence after 30 years!Back to the "Statutes of Limitations".Do we allow people
to make make accusations at any point in time? i.e. 100 years?Why wait 30
years and then expect to "change the world"?(Beside the
point - I believe there is a point that ALL will be resolved. )If waiting
30 years has worked, How is today going to make things better?
I hate to agree with the church, but women really need to learn go stop sitting
on this stuff. Stop acting like helpless little victims who are afraid to do
anything. I had a #metoo moment as a teen, but at least I reported it
right away. At least I tried. (Nothing happened, but at least that's not
on me.)I understand it can be hard to report things. But going on for 30
years like nothing happened and then deciding one day that you suddenly want
justice? Nah.How do we expect men to stop behaving this way when we
refuse to tell them, in the moment, NO? We need to start telling them, in the
moment, it won't be tolerated.
The church is not hiding behind the law. They were unfortunately made a part of
the law suit and have to protect themselves. They did nothing wrong and they
are doing nothing wrong now. It is a strange situation and I am not about to
judge any party.
@CTR Sister - Why do you get to determine when it is "hiding behind the
law" and when it is justifiably using that very same law? You and I have no
idea what the church has or hasn't done, or will do, with this man. We also
both don't really know what did or didn't happen between this woman
and him. Based on the tape, I personally think it's clear there were
definitely inappropriate and yes, perhaps illegal things that occurred but to
what extent, only those two know for sure. She could be exaggerating...or maybe
she's telling the full truth. Who knows. But that's underscores the
very reason why you can't legally wait 30 years to bring it up in a court
of law. The church is 100% justified in filing this motion. If the man wants to
take responsibility for whatever he did, that's entirely on his head.
I'm with the church on this one - toss this case.I listened to
that entire 3+hour nonsense recording, this seems like a money grab to me
So did her rape "run out" too? Sorry; time doesn't heal all wounds
and the woman deserves justice.
"The purpose of statutes of limitations is clear — they are
legislative expressions of public policy that encourage potential plaintiffs to
bring their actions promptly, before the causes get stale from lost evidence or
faulty memories," Bishop's lawyer Andrew Deiss wrote.This
would be an utterly naive statement if one thought the lawyer who wrote it
actually believed it.
If the things in the accusation really did happen, this guy should be drawn and
quartered and dragged over hot coals....but why is it coming to light only after
34 years? After all this time, the claim seems a little fishy. I could go
back and make a claim against the elementary school teacher that I had a crush
on, but that alone doesn't make it true, but maybe I could make a little
money on it, include the school district in the lawsuit, and on and on...which
is why there is a statute of limitations.Of course she wouldn't
ever know if the church took any action, as the church never releases those
kinds of things. If action were taken, it would be only between the person and
the Lord (and appropriate church leaders). The only way it gets released is if
the person releases it. Seems that these days, if someone makes a
claim, then the accused person is deemed guilty, just because the claim was
made, especially 34 years later... Something stinky going on here. Just one
It will be surprising if these motions are not granted. Whatever did or did not
happen is entirely irrelevant to the statute of limitations, the only thing that
matters is whether the claim was brought timely, and these were not.
Our church should be above and not hide behind the law (statute of limitations)
when it addresses the vulnerable souls that desperately need our care and
support. Our Lord is ever so mindful of that one lamb that was caused to be
lost. Let's not let him down.
Whatever the truth is, let it run its course.