Did Mckenna Denson Meet With Thomas S. Monson After MTC?

[provoman]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

In my estimation, the Church should have...taken more seriously the "confessions" Bishop said he cleared with priesthood authority for years.  In the context of him talking about that, he was alluding to mistreatment of women.  Instead the Church gave him more authority over more vulnerable women.  That's the first thing the Church should have done--reversed it's attempts to exalt him amongst people.

After the Church should have not given him authority over others, they should have evaluated his membership status, so when it came time, the ladies who were mistreated wouldn't have seen him as a great Church leader.  That influence he used made this all the worse, and is exactly the way the Church is involved here. 

What was confessed to Wells remains unknown, which is why Craig Vernon wants Wells to be deposed. So it becomes an issue of what did Wells know, and should Wells have said anything in terms of JLB and future callings.

Now if the Church did neither of those things, which it didn't, the Church should have taken her claims to her bishop (her immediate representative of the Church) seriously.  The bishop apparently just shrugged it off, probably has a bad memory of what was told him, since he himself suggested it was inconsequential.  

Hindesight is 20/20, and the Bishop has given his reason as to his action and it has been discussed.

I also do think she met with Asay.  I don't think she made that up.  It fits perfectly with who she could have met with at that time.  And, the Church did nothing in response.  It should have done something.

Fewf!.  A lot of the Church should haves...and we're not done

It seems a lot of your claims for "should have" are based on making assumptions about contradictory evidence.

Consider the Church did not do well in all of the scenarios above....the Church should have taken more seriously the allegations made in 2010.  They did not, instead they took seriously her threats on Bishop's life (which is fine).  The Church seemed to shrug, perhaps asked bishop at most, and dropped it.  It appears there was plenty of reason to already accept that he did something by then, because as he put it he already apologized to one victim and confessed his misdeeds.  The Church did nothing.

In 2010 Bishop wa spoken too, and he denied...so what should have been done

Ok, so we assume now the Church did nothing all the way up until Dec 2017, which is exactly what happened.  Now the Church gets notice.  But it keeps quiet.  it keeps his books for sale at Deseret book.  he remains a member for months later.  Then the story is leaked.  Suddenly the Church decides to act--"take his books off the shelf....call that old bishop of hers a few times and make sure we get that all settled".  Way too little way too late.

Except the Churvh did something in 2010. The  Bishop from 1987 has spoken for himself. So what more should have been done. Have you NEVER heard a story that yoy did not believe but it turned out to be true?

 

 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Provoman...it's a pain to quote your post in response and get the above.  now I have to get back and copy and paste to respond.  Do it how you want, of course.  Just trying to make it easier by making these suggestions.

Quote

What was confessed to Wells remains unknown, which is why Craig Vernon wants Wells to be deposed. So it becomes an issue of what did Wells know, and should Wells have said anything in terms of JLB and future callings.

I doubt the lawyer would get much out of him.  It's easy enough for him to say, "I don't remember".  And it's quite possible he doesn't remember or if he remembers anything he doesn't remember it correctly.  But I get that's a step needed in the case.  The problem is in the context of Bishop molesting girls and mistreating women, he said he confessed to Wells.  That's enough for me to say the church should have done something.  

Quote

Hindesight is 20/20, and the Bishop has given his reason as to his action and it has been discussed.

So?  it's obvious he was terribly off base to do what he did.  He should have done something...and he was the Church representative at that time.  I'm just pointing out what should have been done, as you asked.

Quote

It seems a lot of your claims for "should have" are based on making assumptions about contradictory evidence.

Of course ti seems that way to one who is want to defend.  But I think the pieces put together tell the story well enough.  I'm not judge and jury....just me viewing it as I would view it.  

Quote

In 2010 Bishop wa spoken too, and he denied...so what should have been done

Tons.  Particularly since the church claims a no tolerance policy.  Asking a perpetrator if they did it is not sufficient.  Apparently he said he already confessed a number fo times.  He also said he apologized to a girl he molested, in person.  If the church can piece things together enough to try paint Denson as bad it surely can figure out more to do than just ask Bishop.  "uh...hey..thanks for all your service over the years.  We had some crazy sounding lady call and say you, um...assaulted her.  Is that true?"  

"nope"

"Alright.  Keep doing what you're doing then.   see ya on the other side"

Quote

Except the Churvh did something in 2010. The  Bishop from 1987 has spoken for himself. So what more should have been done. Have you NEVER heard a story that yoy did not believe but it turned out to be true?

Well, yeah I have.  So are you saying the Church took a true story about sexual assault deviance and thought, "it's not true" without doing much about it?  So much for the claim of zero tolerance, I guess.  

[provoman]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Provoman...it's a pain to quote your post in response and get the above.  now I have to get back and copy and paste to respond.  Do it how you want, of course.  Just trying to make it easier by making these suggestions.

I doubt the lawyer would get much out of him.  It's easy enough for him to say, "I don't remember".  And it's quite possible he doesn't remember or if he remembers anything he doesn't remember it correctly.  But I get that's a step needed in the case.  The problem is in the context of Bishop molesting girls and mistreating women, he said he confessed to Wells.  That's enough for me to say the church should have done something.  

So?  it's obvious he was terribly off base to do what he did.  He should have done something...and he was the Church representative at that time.  I'm just pointing out what should have been done, as you asked.

Of course ti seems that way to one who is want to defend.  But I think the pieces put together tell the story well enough.  I'm not judge and jury....just me viewing it as I would view it.  

Tons.  Particularly since the church claims a no tolerance policy.  Asking a perpetrator if they did it is not sufficient.  Apparently he said he already confessed a number fo times.  He also said he apologized to a girl he molested, in person.  If the church can piece things together enough to try paint Denson as bad it surely can figure out more to do than just ask Bishop.  "uh...hey..thanks for all your service over the years.  We had some crazy sounding lady call and say you, um...assaulted her.  Is that true?"  

"nope"

"Alright.  Keep doing what you're doing then.   see ya on the other side"

Well, yeah I have.  So are you saying the Church took a true story about sexual assault deviance and thought, "it's not true" without doing much about it?  So much for the claim of zero tolerance, I guess.  

 

Yeah sorry about the format.

Please CEASE from trying to villify me by saying I am defending. I am attempting to view the sutuation without bias..are you?

Again as for the confession to Wells, NO ONE KNOWS the specifics or even vague references to hard evidence. 

How do you define Zero Tolerance. I ask because our understandings of the phrase might be different.

Edited May 11, 2018 by provoman

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Except the Churvh did something in 2010. The  Bishop from 1987 has spoken for himself. So what more should have been done. Have you NEVER heard a story that yoy did not believe but it turned out to be true?

Well, yeah I have.  So are you saying the Church took a true story about sexual assault deviance and thought, "it's not true" without doing much about it?  So much for the claim of zero tolerance, I guess.  

But if, way back then, they thought it was not true then the zero tolerance policy does not apply. It would only apply if they had sufficient evidence that it was true. 

[Calm]

Quote

.  In the context of him talking about that, he was alluding to mistreatment of women

CFR please any specifics he gave (as opposed to just saying "yes" to general questions from Denson, which could be admissions or could be the agreeableness of the elderly who aren't quite following the conversation...with my mother and other elderly I have talked to, they have agree to things that as soon as I ensure they understand what I am asking them, it turns out they actually want or believe the opposite of what I was asking, which is why asking my mom's even simple wishes these days takes forever as I try to ensure she does not assume because I telling her an option that I want her to accept it, took three days and four conversations to establish whether or not she wanted to go out to eat for her birthday today).

I am wondering what you are thinking of as mistreatment of women.  Iirc the only cases specified prior to the MTC were women doing something to him on their own initiative (woman taking off her top in front of several leaders in a hot tub in Wyoming according to Denson/similar but not hot tub and in Utah per Bishop...if several leaders were involved more likely hot springs imo though it could be a hotel pool with a hot tub attached; Florida sun suit woman flirting; his wife at the dinner table has no suggestion of him asking her to do it, let alone pressuring her).  One possible 'starting something but going nowhere' as a young missionary that does not specify mistreatment that I can remember.

Quote

Apparently he said he already confessed a number fo times

CFR, I am only recalling the time with Wells.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Calm

[stemelbow]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 2:30 AM, Calm said:

CFR please any specifics he gave (as opposed to just saying "yes" to general questions from Denson, which could be admissions or could be the agreeableness of the elderly who aren't quite following the conversation...with my mother and other elderly I have talked to, they have agree to things that as soon as I ensure they understand what I am asking them, it turns out they actually want or believe the opposite of what I was asking, which is why asking my mom's even simple wishes these days takes forever as I try to ensure she does not assume because I telling her an option that I want her to accept it, took three days and four conversations to establish whether or not she wanted to go out to eat for her birthday today).

I am wondering what you are thinking of as mistreatment of women.  Iirc the only cases specified prior to the MTC were women doing something to him on their own initiative (woman taking off her top in front of several leaders in a hot tub in Wyoming according to Denson/similar but not hot tub and in Utah per Bishop...if several leaders were involved more likely hot springs imo though it could be a hotel pool with a hot tub attached; Florida sun suit woman flirting; his wife at the dinner table has no suggestion of him asking her to do it, let alone pressuring her).  One possible 'starting something but going nowhere' as a young missionary that does not specify mistreatment that I can remember.

I don't know how to respond to this.  You ask me to support it then tell me that you won't accept his statements because he's an old man.  If you don't think him saying yes to the question of whether he molested someone is not him agreeing that he molested someone, or mistreated that woman, then I don't know how to respond.  This makes very little sense to me, and if you would offer some clarification I'm all ears.  

 

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 2:30 AM, Calm said:

CFR, I am only recalling the time with Wells.

in the transcript he talks about confessing to a bishop in Florida about an incident with a girl in her swimming suit.  Context is

 

Quote

McKenna:  you know what? We're not talking about -- wait a second. I understand addiction, I do. I understand apologies. I understand compassion, which I am throwing out there for you. But don't poor  me .  had her own situation. I have my own situation. Her childhood and my childhood were very, very similar. But that has absolutely nothing to do with what you did to us. 
Bishop:  I agree. 

The us is McKenna, and the other girl mentioned that she knew and he remembered.  He also talks about molesting someone else.  Then as she asks if there are others, he says he confessed to a bishop in Florida about a girl in her swimming suit.  He doesn't specify what it was, but to me, the context is clear, he did something to her too.  Then later he says:

Quote

When I was a young missionary, in Argentina, [inaudible 01:15:08], there was a lady. I went to the mission president, halfway confessed, didn't tell him all that happened, so you can't blame him for not [inaudible 01:15:30]. There was nothing .. when I was in Florida, there was this lady I just told you about. 

He really comes off as a big old liar, pathological, but wants to come off as honest.  He's afraid to say what he did do to any of these women and girls.  It's likely when he says he half-way confessed, he means he didn't specify what he did.  This ocmes off as a life time of mistreating women to me.  

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know how to respond to this.  You ask me to support it then tell me that you won't accept his statements because he's an old man.  If you don't think him saying yes to the question of whether he molested someone is not him agreeing that he molested someone, or mistreated that woman, then I don't know how to respond.  This makes very little sense to me, and if you would offer some clarification I'm all ears.  

 

in the transcript he talks about confessing to a bishop in Florida about an incident with a girl in her swimming suit.  Context is

 

The us is McKenna, and the other girl mentioned that she knew and he remembered.  He also talks about molesting someone else.  Then as she asks if there are others, he says he confessed to a bishop in Florida about a girl in her swimming suit.  He doesn't specify what it was, but to me, the context is clear, he did something to her too.  Then later he says:

He really comes off as a big old liar, pathological, but wants to come off as honest.  He's afraid to say what he did do to any of these women and girls.  It's likely when he says he half-way confessed, he means he didn't specify what he did.  This ocmes off as a life time of mistreating women to me.  

I understand what @Calm is saying about the elderly being agreeable without understanding. But in this case, JLB is not just sayin yes to questions, as you point out, he’s offering up additional information.  Mentioning other women.  Bringing up past confessions.  Calling himself a sex addict.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I understand what @Calm is saying about the elderly being agreeable without understanding. But in this case, JLB is not just sayin yes to questions, as you point out, he’s offering up additional information.  Mentioning other women.  Bringing up past confessions.  Calling himself a sex addict.  

Sounds good.  If we are so skeptical that old folks can answer questions why are we stuck with old people leading the Church?  "Can't trust what he says...he's old...my parents are old and they just say stuff without really paying attention."  I suppose the question and answer session after Pres Nelson was swarn in, and the seeming embarrassment it turned into, might shed more light on it.  They simply can't answer questions and respond.  They are best if they are fed things to say, maybe?  

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds good.  If we are so skeptical that old folks can answer questions why are we stuck with old people leading the Church?  "Can't trust what he says...he's old...my parents are old and they just say stuff without really paying attention."  I suppose the question and answer session after Pres Nelson was swarn in, and the seeming embarrassment it turned into, might shed more light on it.  They simply can't answer questions and respond.  They are best if they are fed things to say, maybe?  

Good point.  JLB is eight years younger than the man currently leading the Church.

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I suppose the question and answer session after Pres Nelson was swarn in,

Those who serve in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are called and set apart by the laying on of hands, not [sic] "swarn in".  As you are a member of the church I would have thought that you would know this, unless this is an attempt by you to ridicule the Prophet.

[Calm]

stem and rockpond, if there are additional statements beyond saying "yes" that verify he molested anyone before being called as MTC, I would be very interested.

The swim suit description has the woman flirting with him and another man.  He says nothing about what he did, so I don't see how that qualifies as molestation.

Same with the apparently public (others were there) hot tub incident except he isn't even the one who provides that info, all he says is something similar happened and then corrects Denson's story by saying no hot tub and in Utah.

One can view oneself or be diagnosed as a sex addict (though the diagnosis is questionable in the view of some psychologists) without being involved in molestation, for example someone who sees themself as addicted to porn.

I believe he abused sisters at the MTC, he provided enough detail in order to convict himself there.  The problem is the detail about anything prior to that describes what two women did to him.

It is not just the fact that he is elderly that causes me to question his "yes" responses, it is his tone of voice (contrast that---flat, weaker---to when he is providing detail himself----sharp, more energy, intense, especially the Asay story), lack of detail, and the stuff he gets wrong.  He confesses in less than totally present tones twice to confessing to Wells that he abused MTC sisters when the confession took place prior to the MTC, so it would be impossible for him to do so unless he was clairvoyant.  Imo, listening to how he is telling Denson at the beginning before there is any discussion she is a good writer (how would he have a clue?), how he has no real self control over what he is saying but goes into telling her his second wife has major problems from having a cheating husband (this is prior to any sexual discussion brought up by Denson) and goes on about how her issues that pretty much destroyed her life saved his life just because he apparently had a heart attack and was operated on by a particular doctor...grandiose claims are not uncommon from narcissists...but hardly a coherent story to be told in the context of spiritual experiences that would be helpful to future mission presidents, and how he is admitting to impossible things...it is more than just age, in my view it is dementia.  I think it is pretty mild, the equivalent of being hard of hearing where he latches on to one thing she says and doesn't pay attention to full context (an example is when she tells him she threatened to kill him and from his response he is not troubled by it at all, but is only curious and just wants to know if she had biker friends, probably imo because he is trying to imagine how she would get a gun or put out a hit on him and he fixates on that rather than the shock of the person in front of him admitting she wanted him dead).  He is also jumping from one thing to another, telling set pieces that don't really make sense in the context (the details he relates about his son in Costa Rica for example).

So I accept details as a confession when he is the one giving those details it, but when he is just agreeing with her or not disagreeing strongly (as in the hot tub story that Denson tells him he told her about in the private sessions), I don't see it as automatically what he would have said himself if Denson had slowed down, stayed focused herself (her interruptions and moving quickly from one topic to the next, while understandable was not helpful in getting him to present a coherent story, there was at least one spot she interrupted what could have been very useful detail because she got distracted herself) and made sure he was registering what she was saying.

I am not suggesting he wasn't involved in abuse prior to the MTC, I am only saying I don't see him as actually confessing to it.  Thinking he molested the two women (the nonhot tub and the sun suit incidents) when there were other people present isn't realistic, imo.

add-on:  I have from the beginning as soon as I read the transcript stated I believed he had some dementia because the way he was responding reminded me so much of my mother and other dementia sufferers as well as what I had studied about them, anyone can check my posts if they think I have gone this direction to defend 80+ year old leaders.  The audio convinced me of that even more, though it provided a stronger 'upper limit' for me (I was relatively sure originally given the detail he initiated he was coherent in his own thoughts even if he couldn't follow Denson's all the time, the audio made it obvious where he was processing the conversation at a depth and when he was only dipping here and there into what she was actually saying or implying).

Edited May 15, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

By the way, you can hear the "inaudibles" on the young missionary story.  The first is him saying he had forgotten about that time, the second is him saying can't blame the MP for not getting after him as he hadn't been open (this word is iffy, but fits context).  The following "there is nothing" may have been related to that rather than the following as the "..." is actually Bishop stumbling over words and then it sounds like he is either shifting gears or finding the right ones.  

He also emphasizes "lady" in such a way (it is also not respectful as in 'she is quite the lady' kind of remark) that I highly doubt he was talking about a younger woman, so it lessens the likelihood imo that this was a case of molestation.

This is a good time to listen to his tone to contrast with the very brief, flat "yes" responses.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qYVoDnU-gP8

Starts at 1:14:50

Shortly before that she asks him how many sisters he molested or raped in Argentina and he says "None". Little bit later she asks again how many and it says "inaudible", but he has just enough time to stumble out "I" and then she interrupts him.

Earlier in response to being asked about other women, he says there weren't many, just two and then he specifies the sun suit woman, but she doesn't ask him who the second was, but gets distracted by the time and then asks him about the second woman at the MTC.  We have no way of knowing if he was talking about the "lady", the second victim at the MTC, or someone else, but given the context he provides with the sun/swim suit woman where another man is there and the woman is flirting with the two of them and he suggests she was doing it because she was "into" something, it would be inappropriate to assume either case he is thinking of was actually molestation, imo.  Instead, it looks like he is bringing up any time he sees himself as bothered by sexually inappropriate thoughts, but not necessarily acted on or involving molestation.

He responds to one "how many" question with "point well taken" but then itemizes only two (young missionary and sun suit) before going off into blaming his wife.

Denson creates the perception of more women by repeating insisting there were more and asking him to tell er about them (aggressively at times), but he never confirms that there were more than two, specifies he molested someone only in the case of the back rub, and he denies with a definite "none" that there were any in Argentina which would have been the closest situation to the MTC.

Thanks for reminding me about the other two confessions he relates.  He clearly states there was no actionable information shared with the MP in the first one and shared no actionable info with Denson in relating the sunsuit incident of the second Florida bishop confession.  And I see nothing actionable to confess to Wells prior to the MTC.  Definitely actionable while at MTC, but he never claims he confessed those iirc and we know he denied it twice in 2010 (assuming the Church statement is true).

Edited May 14, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

stem and rockpond, if there are additional statements beyond saying "yes" that verify he molested anyone before being called as MTC, I would be very interested.

The swim suit description has the woman flirting with him and another man.  He says nothing about what he did, so I don't see how that qualifies as molestation.

Same with the apparently public (others were there) hot tub incident except he isn't even the one who provides that info, all he says is something similar happened and then corrects Denson's story by saying no hot tub and in Utah.

One can view oneself or be diagnosed as a sex addict (though the diagnosis is questionable in the view of some psychologists) without being involved in molestation, for example someone who sees themself as addicted to porn.

I believe he abused sisters at the MTC, he provided enough detail in order to convict himself there.  The problem is the detail about anything prior to that describes what two women did to him.

It is not just the fact that he is elderly that causes me to question his "yes" responses, it is his tone of voice (contrast that---flat, weaker---to when he is providing detail himself----sharp, more energy, intense, especially the Asay story), lack of detail, and the stuff he gets wrong.  He confesses in less than totally present tones twice to confessing to Wells that he abused MTC sisters when the confession took place prior to the MTC, so it would be impossible for him to do so unless he was clairvoyant.  Imo, listening to how he is telling Denson at the beginning before there is any discussion she is a good writer (how would he have a clue?), how he has no real self control over what he is saying but goes into telling her his second wife has major problems from having a cheating husband (this is prior to any sexual discussion brought up by Denson) and goes on about how her issues that pretty much destroyed her life saved his life just because he apparently had a heart attack and was operated on by a particular doctor...grandiose claims are not uncommon from narcissists...but hardly a coherent story to be told in the context of spiritual experiences that would be helpful to future mission presidents, and how he is admitting to impossible things...it is more than just age, in my view it is dementia.  I think it is pretty mild, the equivalent of being hard of hearing where he latches on to one thing she says and doesn't pay attention to full context (an example is when she tells him she threatened to kill him and from his response he is not troubled by it at all, but is only curious and just wants to know if she had biker friends, probably imo because he is trying to imagine how she would get a gun or put out a hit on him and he fixates on that rather than the shock of the person in front of him admitting she wanted him dead).  He is also jumping from one thing to another, telling set pieces that don't really make sense in the context (the details he relates about his son in Costa Rica for example).

So I accept details as a confession when he is the one giving those details it, but when he is just agreeing with her or not disagreeing strongly (as in the hot tub story that Denson tells him he told her about in the private sessions), I don't see it as automatically what he would have said himself if Denson had slowed down, stayed focused herself (her interruptions and moving quickly from one topic to the next, while understandable was not helpful in getting him to present a coherent story, there was at least one spot she interrupted what could have been very useful detail because she got distracted herself) and made sure he was registering what she was saying.

I am not suggesting he wasn't involved in abuse prior to the MTC, I am only saying I don't see him as actually confessing to it.  Thinking he molested the two women (the nonhot tub and the sun suit incidents) when there were other people present isn't realistic, imo.

I don’t have any list (mental or otherwise) of what I believe JLB to be guilty of.  There is very little evidence of anything.

My point is that the sum total of his statements and witness/corroborating statements leads me to feel that JLB should not have been serving as MTC president and that we likely have not yet fully addressed policy and culture within the church to minimize future incidents like this. 

And for me, that’s all that I need to know.  His guilt or innocence with respect to specific charges is not relevant to my life. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by rockpond

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don’t have any list (mental or otherwise) of what I believe JLB to be guilty of.  There is very little evidence of anything.

My point is that the sum total of his statements and witness/corroborating statements leads me to feel that JLB should not have been serving as MTC president and that we likely have not yet fully addressed policy and culture within the church to minimize future incidents like this. 

And for me, that’s all that I need to know.  His guilt or innocence with respect to specific charges is not relevant to my life. 

My CFR was solely dealing with the idea that church leadership should have known prior to the time that JLB was called as MTC president based on his confessions.  All the posts from the last few days were dealing with that one issue, iirc.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don’t have any list (mental or otherwise) of what I believe JLB to be guilty of.  There is very little evidence of anything.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

My point is that the sum total of his statements and witness/corroborating statements leads me to feel that JLB should not have been serving as MTC president

In hindsight, yes, it seems that way.

But in hindsight, Amasa Lyman should not have been an apostle.  Or Richard Lyman (Amasa's grandson).  Or George P. Lee.  Or Judas.

Do we have evidence that JLB engaged in disqualifying conduct before he became the president of the MTC?

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

and that we likely have not yet fully addressed policy and culture within the church to minimize future incidents like this. 

I think we have addressed this at length.  Multiple times.  On several different threads.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

Just by way of interest, I’m hearing Joseph L Bishop is still a member and will be allowed to resign. Such “speculation” is obviously open to challenge. And I don’t see how it can possibly be accurate, but perhaps he holds a Get Out Of Jail Free card...

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Just by way of interest, I’m hearing Joseph L Bishop is still a member and will be allowed to resign. Such “speculation” is obviously open to challenge. And I don’t see how it can possibly be accurate, but perhaps he holds a Get Out Of Jail Free card...

I heard he already resigned a few weeks ago.

[provoman]

 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I heard he already resigned a few weeks ago.

I read the same, but the source I read is not exactly something to rely on.

Other note, the Church response to the lawsuit has not been uploaded to public docket yet, today is the due date excluding any extensions.

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

stem and rockpond, if there are additional statements beyond saying "yes" that verify he molested anyone before being called as MTC, I would be very interested.

 

I think rockpond said it well.  I agree.  It doesn't matter to me the extent of his wrongness.  he stated it.  I don't need more than that.  I've been trained to view molestation and assault that way--treat it seriously when it is accused, and more serious when it is admitted to.  I simply can't dismiss his words because he's old.  that, plus all the corroboration, all his statements in the context of mistreating and molesting girls and women is more than enough for me to realize this problem was ugly...his use of his church status was awful and disgusting.  there was more than enough caution to not continue to support him and promote him--keep in mind the Church kept his books in Des Book up until this story got out there.

Edited May 15, 2018 by stemelbow

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

there was more than enough caution to not continue to support him and promote him

What do you mean?

Was there more than enough that he should not have been Mission Pres in Argentina? If so what?

Was there more than enough that he should not have been Pres of the MTC? if so what?

Or are you only referring to the books?

[stemelbow]

Just now, provoman said:

What do you mean?

Was there more than enough that he should not have been Mission Pres in Argentina? If so what?

Was there more than enough that he should not have been Pres of the MTC? if so what?

Or are you only referring to the books?

I'm not sure I care to re-tread the cycle.  I've already addressed these questions.  In sum it's clear to me he's admitted to enough to convict him (maybe not in court but in my eyes).  The context of his confessions and the inconsistency of his statements leads me to believe he did far more than he said he did.  Also, I'm quite convinced others knew some of the things that happened, and some of those others included some of his Church leaders.  He basically tells us that.  

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure I care to re-tread the cycle.  I've already addressed these questions.  In sum it's clear to me he's admitted to enough to convict him (maybe not in court but in my eyes).  The context of his confessions and the inconsistency of his statements leads me to believe he did far more than he said he did.  Also, I'm quite convinced others knew some of the things that happened, and some of those others included some of his Church leaders.  He basically tells us that.  

I agree with you (and rockpond).  The degree that some here have gone to in order to lessen this situation is pretty amazing to watch, IMO.

And now, he was allowed to just quietly resign from the church?  No church court or discipline?  

It's shameful that there was never even an attempt to hold a disciplinary court on him, IMO.

Edited May 15, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree with you (and rockpond).  The degree that some here have gone to in order to lessen this situation is pretty amazing to watch, IMO.

And now, he was allowed to just quietly resign from the church?  No church court or discipline?  

It's shameful that there was never even an attempt to hold a disciplinary court on him, IMO.

I've kind of tuned this out lately. Did Joseph Bishop resign his membership? 

That's interesting because of the handbook instruction that DCs should still be held if there is cause and someone resigns to avoid the DC. 

[provoman]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've kind of tuned this out lately. Did Joseph Bishop resign his membership? 

That's interesting because of the handbook instruction that DCs should still be held if there is cause and someone resigns to avoid the DC. 

my source is reddit...so grain of salt

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've kind of tuned this out lately. Did Joseph Bishop resign his membership? 

That's interesting because of the handbook instruction that DCs should still be held if there is cause and someone resigns to avoid the DC. 

I agree.

Maybe Calm can give us more information.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70478-did-mckenna-denson-meet-with-thomas-s-monson-after-mtc/?do=findComment&comment=1209818701

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by ALarson