Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Rape is not at issue (at least not according to the des news piece):

She uses the word "rape" repeatedly in her federal lawsuit.

And "sexual assault and batter" are legal terms often used for "rape."

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It kind of sounds like, at least according to this, that it's already been whittled down to a case of fraud from Denson's perspective:

Not really.  She alleges sexual assault and battery against Bishop, and she accuses the Church of having "aided the rape and sexual assault of DENSON by failing to take appropriate action to prevent further sexual assaults by BISHOP despite having actual or constructive notice that BISHOP was assaulting women after BISHOP disclosed his sexual predilections and past red flag sexual improprieties toward women to Elder Wells. Defendant COP is directly liable for BISHOP’S assault and battery, or as an accessory," and that the Church "ratified the wrongful conduct described herein by failing to report it to law enforcement authorities, prospective LDS members, current LDS members, their families, victims, and the public" (paragraphs 38-39).

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know if this fraud, then is levied against the Church or Bishop or both.  I guess both:

Here's a copy of the federal complaint.  The claim for fraud is alleged against both the Church and Bishop (pp. 13-16).

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I suppose this question will come down to whether or not it is credible that Denson did report the misconduct to her Church leaders, that they looked into it, and all of that--within the appropriate time frame starting in 1984.

Actually, I don't think it will come down to that.  Her ability to file a civil lawsuit within the timeframe contemplated by the statute of limitations is not affected by whether she reported the misconduct to the Church.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

"In short, even assuming Ms. Denson’s allegations are true, she knew by at least early 1984 that, contrary to any alleged representation by (the church), Mr. Bishop was not 'safe, honorable, and trustworthy,'" he wrote. "Accordingly, the three-year statute of limitations for her fraud claim began to run at that time. Thus, Ms. Denson’s fraud claims expired in early 1987 — over 30 years ago."

If there remains reason to think Denson did report it

I think Denson reported something to Leavitt, but not a rape or attempted rape.  And I also think Leavitt failed to notify the Church about this disclosure.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

(and by it that'd be more than them watching porn together, as awful a thought as that is)

I agree that showing her porn, if that is what happened, would have been genuinely awful.  But it 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

to Church leaders, then perhaps the Church's attorney is just blowing smoke here.  

I don't understand your point here.  Regardless of what she reported to Leavitt (showing her porn or "more than" that), the statute of limitations for a civil claim for either form of misconduct would have expired long ago.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

What is sad in it all, of course, is that it seems generally agreed that Bishop did something awful to at least this one person. 

Yes, I think that's the general consensus, from both critics and supporters of the LDS Church.

The differences arise as to what that "something" was, what the Church knew and when, and what sort of remedy is available from the Church.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

There appears to be other victims,

Yes.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

and it appears he was buoyed up by the Church, and used his Church influence to do these ugly things.  

I don't understand this.  I don't think the Church knew about his misconduct until long after it had happened.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, the lawsuit is being discussed here.  But my comment wasn't about the lawsuit.  My comment was about the Church's behavior. 

Okay.  I befuddled by what "behavior" by the Church is problematic.  We have no evidence that the Church knew about Bishop's misconduct until long after the fact.

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And, for reasons I explained, I find the Church's behavior disappointing and not consistent with its own standards. 

I don't understand your position.

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't disagree that the Church is on solid legal ground with this dismissal.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I befuddled by what "behavior" by the Church is problematic.  We have no evidence that the Church knew about Bishop's misconduct until long after the fact.

I don't understand your position.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

The behavior I find disappointing:

1.  Attacking the victim.

2. Leaving key details out of their press releases.

3. Not acknowledging any wrongdoing.

4.  Failure to discipline Bishop.

5.  Not a word from our Prophet.

 

I believe the Church has acted well within the law.  But I see them acting like a corporation in self-preservation mode, not like a Church ministering to its members.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote

You'll get no argument from me about Leavitt's failure to report.  He should have.

and

Quote

Apart from that, I think the Church has lived up to its own standards.  

Hi Smac. I'm curious how you square these two statements. 

They seem to square up fairly well.  A bishop in the 1980s received a disclosure that he should have reported, but he did not.  Reporting allegations of sexual abuse is a difficult topic.  Victims often fail to do so.  Friends and family members fail to do so.  And even when such claims are reported, they are often left uninvestigated and/or unprosecuted by law enforcement and prosecutors. 

In this case, it appears that Bro. Leavitt failed to do so.  He should have.

As for the Church, it now has some pretty good resources in place.  The Handbook has fairly specific guidelines for bishops on reporting allegations of abuse.  The Church maintains a "hotline" for bishops to call when they have questions about this sort of thing. 

In the present case, it appears that the Church first learned about the allegations against Bishop in 2010:

Quote

Allegations of sexual assault by a former president of the Provo Missionary Training Center against a sister missionary have resurfaced after 34 years.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement Tuesday to clarify the path the allegation has taken over the decades, and the controversial audio leaked Monday.

“These allegations are very serious and deeply disturbing,” the church statement says. “If the allegations of sexual assault are true, it would be a tragic betrayal of our standards and would result in action by the Church to formally discipline any member who was guilty of such behavior, especially someone in a position of trust.”

According to the statement, the matter was first brought to the attention of the church in 2010, approximately 26 years after the alleged assault. The woman, who served briefly as a missionary in 1984, told leaders of the Pleasant Grove Utah West Stake that she had been sexually assaulted by Joseph Bishop, then- president of the Provo Missionary Training Center.

“They listened carefully to the claims being made and then this was immediately reported to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the police interviewed her at that time,” the church statement said. “The church does not know what she said in that interview, but the church received no further communication from the police concerning the matter.”

Captain Michael Robertson of the Pleasant Grove Police Department acknowledged on Tuesday the department was aware of the allegations, but said Pleasant Grove's involvement was not about the allegations. 

"The woman contacted the church leaders. She made threats she could possibly hurt someone," Robertson said. "We went out to her home to visit her and make sure she was OK. We never investigated the alleged abuse."

According to mormonnewsroom.org, the church referred these allegations to Bishop's local ecclesiastical leaders. They met with him and he denied the allegations.

“Unable to verify the allegations, they did not impose any formal Church discipline on Mr. Bishop at that time,” the statement continues.

Two years ago, the same woman contacted a stake president in Pueblo, Colorado. In January of this year, the church was contacted by a lawyer representing her.

So the Church became aware of the allegations against Bishop is a roundabout way.

The Church's authority over its members is necessarily very limited per D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

The Church can't fine or imprison Bishop, only discipline him.  The Church's policies regarding disciplinary matters are governed by section 6.10.4 of Handbook 1, and includes the following:

Quote

If the member admits to the misconduct, proceed to number 5 below. If he denies the reported misconduct, present evidence of it or ask someone else to do so. This evidence may include the written or oral statements of witnesses, reliable documents, and the substance of the member’s confession (if he has confessed and given consent). The member must be given an opportunity to question any witnesses who give evidence against him. 

So Bishop "denie[d] the reported misconduct."  That triggers some procedural elements.  These include the presentation of evidence, which - apart from Denson's allegations - were likely completely lacking.  Denson had reported allegations to local leaders in Plesant Grove, but was she available and willing to testify against Bishop (wherever he was living)?  We don't know, but I suspect . . . not.

If there is evidence that Bishop's local leaders in 2010 prevented or discouraged Denson from testifying against Bishop, I'd like to see that (or if they made no attempt to contact her and make such inquiries).

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Was not Leavitt the representative of the Church for Denson? 

Yes.

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If the Church has lived up to its own standards are you saying the Church's standard is to fail to report? 

Here's what I said (with emphasis): "You'll get no argument from me about Leavitt's failure to report.  He should have.  Apart from that, I think the Church has lived up to its own standards."

The local leaders in Pleasant Grove did what they were supposed to do.  The stake president in Pueblo (apparently) did what he was supposed to do (since the Church was aware that Denson had contacted him).

I also look at stories like this:

Quote

An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.

...

The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . Kirton & McConkie.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

I also have in mind stories like the Knox Smartt matter.  The Church heard about it and took remedial steps (they immediately released him, sent him home, removed him from any interaction with missionaries, excommunicated him, provided the sister missionaries with support and counseling, etc.).  

I also have quite a few personal experiences with the Church following its own guidelines as pertaining to allegations of sexual abuse.

I don't excuse Leavitt's failure to report Denson's allegations 30+ years ago, but I also think that was quite a while ago, and the Church has gotten considerably better at handling such matters since then.

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Or are you saying Leavitt is not really a representative of the Church and thus the Church did not rail to report, but only Leavitt did?  

I think Leavitt's failure to report this matter is not sufficient to condemn the Church in the aggregate.  The Church now has some pretty good safeguards in place.  The Law of Chastity.  Clear policies for when priesthood leaders are meeting with youth or women (they are to be chaperoned).  A published-to-the-world "zero tolerance" policy for abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.  A helpline staffed with lawyers to help local leaders navigate legal complexities that can arise.

Sadly, there are still bad people in the world who will work to circumvest these safeguards.

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wonder because it seems to me, from Denson's side, the case is going to hang on whether the Church had a report that it did not act on. 

Nope.  Notice that neither of the motions to dismiss address that point in any meaningful sense.  What she reported to the Church and when is essentially irrelevant for the purposes of the statute of limitations.  She had 3-6 years (depending on the claim) to file a civil suit, and she is decades out from that timeframe.

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If it turns out true that Denson did meet with Asay, and Leavitt is lying, then we may be seeing a big old ugly problem here.  

I don't think so.  The statute of limitations is a "threshold issue," meaning that in order for her to continue in her lawsuit, she must be able to survive the recently-filed motions to dismiss which argue - correctly, I think - that her claims are barred by the statute of limitations.  Whether she met with Asay or not, whether Leavitt is lying or not, will never be explored through the legal system if she cannot get past the statute of limitations issue.  If she can't get past it, then the case is dismissed.  If the case is dismissed, there is no discovery (exchanges of evidence/documents, depositions, etc.) and no trial.

What we will be left with, then, is . . . nothing.  A dismissed case that included only unsubstantiated allegations.

But let's assume, for the moment, that the case survives the motions to dismiss.  How do you propose that Denson's attorneys could establish that Leavitt is lying about what Denson reported to him?  It pretty much comes down to his word against hers.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The behavior I find disappointing:

1.  Attacking the victim.

You mean in an internal document, written by an attorney in a litigated matter, that was not intended for public consumption and that ended up getting leaked to the media?

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

2. Leaving key details out of their press releases.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

3. Not acknowledging any wrongdoing.

This assumes that there was "wrongdoing."

If I accuse you of a horrendous crime, and if you deny it, would you find it reasonable for me to say "I'm disappointed that you are not acknowledging your wrongdoing"?

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

4.  Failure to discipline Bishop.

Are you familiar with the Church's policies regarding discipline?  The Church's policies regarding disciplinary matters are governed by section 6.10.4 of Handbook 1, and includes the following:

Quote

If the member admits to the misconduct, proceed to number 5 below. If he denies the reported misconduct, present evidence of it or ask someone else to do so. This evidence may include the written or oral statements of witnesses, reliable documents, and the substance of the member’s confession (if he has confessed and given consent). The member must be given an opportunity to question any witnesses who give evidence against him. 

Bishop denied the allegations in 2010.  I suspect that his local leaders did not have access to Denson, or that she did not respond to their inquiries, or that she declined to appear at a disciplinary council and testify against him (as required by the Church's pre-existing policies and procedures).

If that is the case, then the Church investigated the matter, but could not proceed with disciplining him for lack of evidence and/or a complaining witness.  These minimal "due process" safeguards have been in place for quite a while, and for good reason.

Again, look at this from your own perspective.  If you were a member of the Church, and if you valued your membership, and if someone from your distant past accused you of some horrendous crime (such as rape), and if you denied it, wouldn't you want to be protected by some semblance of due process?  Surely you wouldn't agree that such an unsubstantiated allegation, on its own, is sufficient for the Church to discipline you?

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

5.  Not a word from our Prophet.

Isn't this the same Rockpond who has been ignoring remarks by Russell M. Nelson for years regarding the Church's policies re: same-sex marriage?

And same-sex marriage is an issue that affects the entirety of the Church, unlike Denson's lawsuit, which is a relatively minor issue for those who choose to be interested in it.

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe the Church has acted well within the law. 

So do I.

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But I see them acting like a corporation in self-preservation mode, not like a Church ministering to its members.  

I don't understand what this means.

Consider, for example, the Knox Smartt matter.  The Church heard about it and took remedial steps (they immediately released him, sent him home, removed him from any interaction with missionaries, excommunicated him, provided the sister missionaries with support and counseling, etc.).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

and

Hi Smac. I'm curious how you square these two statements.  Was not Leavitt the representative of the Church for Denson?  If the Church has lived up to its own standards are you saying the Church's standard is to fail to report?  Or are you saying Leavitt is not really a representative of the Church and thus the Church did not rail to report, but only Leavitt did?  

I wonder because it seems to me, from Denson's side, the case is going to hang on whether the Church had a report that it did not act on.  If it turns out true that Denson did meet with Asay, and Leavitt is lying, then we may be seeing a big old ugly problem here.  

Did Churvh Leaders following the standards of the Church in 1987. Was it standard pokicy in 1987 for a Church leader to report an allegation of abuse to Church HQ or to police

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You mean in an internal document, written by an attorney in a litigated matter, that was not intended for public consumption and that ended up getting leaked to the media?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

This assumes that there was "wrongdoing."

If I accuse you of a horrendous crime, and if you deny it, would you find it reasonable for me to say "I'm disappointed that you are not acknowledging your wrongdoing"?

Are you familiar with the Church's policies regarding discipline?  The Church's policies regarding disciplinary matters are governed by section 6.10.4 of Handbook 1, and includes the following:

Bishop denied the allegations in 2010.  I suspect that his local leaders did not have access to Denson, or that she did not respond to their inquiries, or that she declined to appear at a disciplinary council and testify against him (as required by the Church's pre-existing policies and procedures).

If that is the case, then the Church investigated the matter, but could not proceed with disciplining him for lack of evidence and/or a complaining witness.  These minimal "due process" safeguards have been in place for quite a while, and for good reason.

Again, look at this from your own perspective.  If you were a member of the Church, and if you valued your membership, and if someone from your distant past accused you of some horrendous crime (such as rape), and if you denied it, wouldn't you want to be protected by some semblance of due process?  Surely you wouldn't agree that such an unsubstantiated allegation, on its own, is sufficient for the Church to discipline you?

Isn't this the same Rockpond who has been ignoring remarks by Russell M. Nelson for years regarding the Church's policies re: same-sex marriage?

And same-sex marriage is an issue that affects the entirety of the Church, unlike Denson's lawsuit, which is a relatively minor issue for those who choose to be interested in it.

So do I.

I don't understand what this means.

Consider, for example, the Knox Smartt matter.  The Church heard about it and took remedial steps (they immediately released him, sent him home, removed him from any interaction with missionaries, excommunicated him, provided the sister missionaries with support and counseling, etc.).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Their attorney created a dossier on the victim and shared it with the alleged perpetrator's attorney/son.  Well within the law but now how I want my church to act.

Their very first press release, in my opinion, attacked the victim and left out key details to make sure she was presented in the worst light.  Legal?  Yes.  Acting like a church?  No.

The wrongdoing is that the church has a system whereby a members bishop is the authority they are instructed to go to.  That bishop failed to act appropriately.

The BYU PD has refused to release all the evidence of the case.  Perhaps the Church which owns and manages the BYU PD could instruct them to cease withholding evidence.  It does not appear that they have.

And, no, I have not been ignoring President Nelson on the subject of same sex marriage.  I disagree with him but I haven't ignored him.

And, as a member of the church with daughters in the church, this issue is important to me and I'd like to hear from our Prophet.

I don't expect you to agree with my POV on this but these are my reasons for being disappointed with how the Church has handled this incident.  I am well aware that there are cases that have been handled in a stellar manner.  But doing good things doesn't mean I can skip out on apologies for wrongdoings.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Their attorney created a dossier on the victim and shared it with the alleged perpetrator's attorney/son. 

And since he was a party to the litigation, there was nothing improper about that.  Moreover, Greg Bishop does not appear to be the source of the leak:

Quote

The LDS Church turned to Salt Lake City attorney David Jordan to investigate the woman’s allegations and to communicate with her Idaho lawyer Craig Vernon, who was seeking a financial settlement on her behalf.

Jordan, who did not return a request for comment made to his office, launched an inquiry. In a nine-page letter to the woman’s attorney, he notes “inconsistencies” in her story and details a string of episodes in the accuser’s life, ranging from the church discipline she had previously faced to her criminal record, and from failed relationships to lawsuits, even job firings.

...

Jordan shared his letter with Bishop’s son, Greg Bishop, who is acting as his father’s attorney, to use in any settlement efforts. Jordan did not share his letter with reporters, but Greg Bishop, who declined to comment for this story, copied some of the information about the victim — omitting mention of the adopted daughter’s name — and sent it to various news outlets as a way to defend his dad.

The full letter has since leaked out.

...

Jordan “did extraordinary research on this woman … to make it clear that the church was not going to settle,” said Salt Lake City attorney Greg Skordas. “I am sure he did not intend for Greg Bishop to share it [or part of it] with the media.”

But none of the parties did anything “unethical, illegal or improper,” Skordas said. It is reasonable for all three parties — the LDS Church, the accuser’s attorney and the alleged abuser’s lawyer — to share information about the case.

So nothing "unethical, illegal or improper" here.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well within the law but now how I want my church to act.

Your Church hired an attorney, who did his job and did it well.  Again, "it is reasonable for all three parties — the LDS Church, the accuser’s attorney and the alleged abuser’s lawyer — to share information about the case."

Litigation is a difficult thing.  Attorneys are obligated to explore the facts of the case.  The attorney here wasn't teaching a sunday school lesson.  He was acting as an attorney.

I have a friend who is in a bishopric, and who is also a recently-retired detective.  It would be a bit odd for me to have driven past him, observed him tackling a fleeing burglary suspect, and for me to call out "Hey, Brother Smith!  That's now how members of bishoprics should act!"

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The wrongdoing is that the church has a system whereby a members bishop is the authority they are instructed to go to.  That bishop failed to act appropriately.

The key word here, I think, is "the church has a system."

Was that system in place in the 1980s?

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The BYU PD has refused to release all the evidence of the case. 

Does BYU PD have an obligation to release "all the evidence of the case?"

And BYU PD ≠ LDS Church.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps the Church which owns and manages the BYU PD could instruct them to cease withholding evidence. 

"Witholding evidence" from whom

What "evidence?"

Is there a legal obligation to disclose such evidence?

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It does not appear that they have.

The BYU PD is supposed to function as a law enforcement entity.  It is supposed to comply with the law.  It is not supposed to be a private investigative entity working for the LDS Church or answerable to the LDS Church in the way you suggest.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And, no, I have not been ignoring President Nelson on the subject of same sex marriage.  I disagree with him but I haven't ignored him.

I'll not press the matter.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And, as a member of the church with daughters in the church, this issue is important to me and I'd like to hear from our Prophet.

As you like.  I'd prefer the prophet to focus on his responsibilities.  The Church has a Public Affairs Department, after all.

This is not a doctrinal or moral issue.  It' a legal dispute that has been formally addressed by the Church.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't expect you to agree with my POV on this but these are my reasons for being disappointed with how the Church has handled this incident. 

Fair enough.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I am well aware that there are cases that have been handled in a stellar manner. 

It would be nice for those to be included in the equation of how the Church is doing, then.

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But doing good things doesn't mean I can skip out on apologies for wrongdoings.

So the Church should apologize because a bishop failed to report something to the Church 31 years ago?

And what sort of apology does the Church owe you for any wrongdoing by Bishop to Denson?  How were you wronged?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Two hours ago this happened. But LDS church has no comment yet.

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-news/lds-church-former-mtc-leader-file-motion-to-dismiss-sexual-assault-lawsuit/1182767207

LDS Church, former MTC leader file motion to dismiss sexual assault lawsuit.

https://media.good4utah.com/nxsglobal/good4utah/document_dev/2018/05/16/MTC lawsuit_1526484103471_42764559_ver1.0.pdf

Is this old news to you on this thread, am I just learning of it? What do you think?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Two hours ago this happened. But LDS church has no comment yet.

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-news/lds-church-former-mtc-leader-file-motion-to-dismiss-sexual-assault-lawsuit/1182767207

LDS Church, former MTC leader file motion to dismiss sexual assault lawsuit.

https://media.good4utah.com/nxsglobal/good4utah/document_dev/2018/05/16/MTC lawsuit_1526484103471_42764559_ver1.0.pdf

Is this old news to you on this thread, am I just learning of it? What do you think?

It is new news. The motions to dismiss were fiked yesterday. Todays news is reporting in the motions.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

And since he was a party to the litigation, there was nothing improper about that.  Moreover, Greg Bishop does not appear to be the source of the leak:

So nothing "unethical, illegal or improper" here.

Your Church hired an attorney, who did his job and did it well.  Again, "it is reasonable for all three parties — the LDS Church, the accuser’s attorney and the alleged abuser’s lawyer — to share information about the case."

Litigation is a difficult thing.  Attorneys are obligated to explore the facts of the case.  The attorney here wasn't teaching a sunday school lesson.  He was acting as an attorney.

I have a friend who is in a bishopric, and who is also a recently-retired detective.  It would be a bit odd for me to have driven past him, observed him tackling a fleeing burglary suspect, and for me to call out "Hey, Brother Smith!  That's now how members of bishoprics should act!"

The key word here, I think, is "the church has a system."

Was that system in place in the 1980s?

Does BYU PD have an obligation to release "all the evidence of the case?"

And BYU PD ≠ LDS Church.

"Witholding evidence" from whom

What "evidence?"

Is there a legal obligation to disclose such evidence?

The BYU PD is supposed to function as a law enforcement entity.  It is supposed to comply with the law.  It is not supposed to be a private investigative entity working for the LDS Church or answerable to the LDS Church in the way you suggest.

I'll not press the matter.

As you like.  I'd prefer the prophet to focus on his responsibilities.  The Church has a Public Affairs Department, after all.

This is not a doctrinal or moral issue.  It' a legal dispute that has been formally addressed by the Church.

Fair enough.

It would be nice for those to be included in the equation of how the Church is doing, then.

So the Church should apologize because a bishop failed to report something to the Church 31 years ago?

And what sort of apology does the Church owe you for any wrongdoing by Bishop to Denson?  How were you wronged?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, the system of bishops being the authority that members can go to was in place in the 80's.  That system failed Denson.

The church owns and manages BYU PD.  They could have them release the evidence.

BYU PD (last I heard) is still withholding evidence from the Bishop-Denson case and has not complied with GRAMA requests.

Yes, the church has public affairs department.  And we have a prophet who leads the church.  And, as I said, I would like to hear HIM address this issue to us as members... with daughters growing up in the church.  You don't have to feel the same.  And I don't expect you to ever agree with me on this but I have explained my disappointment with the church and the way in which they have not lived up to the church's own standards (even though they have complied with the law).  We ought to be caring for the sheep and, above all, that includes the sister missionary who had her life tragically altered by a man who was allowed to serve in a position of authority and abused it.  But YEAH!, the Church has followed the law, the Prophet has avoided the subject with membership, if it is true that Bishop has resigned it would mean that the Church does not have to take a stand on his actions, and the Church can move on without having to deal with the sister who "served briefly" and is "no longer a member".  All is well in Zion!

 

Edited by rockpond
Clarification
Link to comment
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

DN article on the request for dismissal:  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900018712/lds-church-ex-mtc-leader-ask-judge-to-dismiss-colorado-womans-sexual-assault-suit.html

More spin and misrepresentation by the Church.  Denson did actually report the incident to the church early on (Leavitt has confirmed that).  And Bishop confessed to some of the allegations.

Protect the hierarchy and corporation at all costs.  So disappointing. 

Reporting the abuse early on would actually hurt her case. That would start the statute running much earlier.

Though I don't practice in Utah, it is standard that the statue starts running as soon as one is aware of the damage. Her reporting the abuse in the late 80s would indicate that she was aware of it back then and (according to the law) should have prosecuted the case at that point.

The defense of laches states that waiting around to start a lawsuit is unfair and prejudices the defense.

Edited by Danzo
Link to comment
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I wonder because it seems to me, from Denson's side, the case is going to hang on whether the Church had a report that it did not act on.  If it turns out true that Denson did meet with Asay, and Leavitt is lying, then we may be seeing a big old ugly problem here.  

Actually her reporting to Leavitt, in my opinion, kills the case. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, the system of bishops being the authority that members can go to was in place in the 80's.  That system failed Denson.

"That system" was disregarded by the local bishop.  The system was not used.  If it had been used . . . well, we'll never know.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The church owns and manages BYU PD.  They could have them release the evidence.

How do you know this?

Personally, I'd prefer for the Church to take a hands-off approach re: BYU PD.  What BYU PD should disclose or not disclose should be a matter of what is required, or not required, under civil law, and not a matter left to the preferences of "the Church."

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

BYU PD (last I heard) is still withholding evidence from the Bishop-Denson case and has not complied with GRAMA requests.

"Witholding evidence" denotes an obligation to disclose such evidence.  There is currently a lawsuit addressing that legal issue.  It will be decided by a judge, not the Church.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, the church has public affairs department.  And we have a prophet who leads the church.  And, as I said, I would like to hear HIM address this issue to us as members... with daughters growing up in the church.  You don't have to feel the same. 

Okay.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And I don't expect you to ever agree with me on this but I have explained my disappointment with the church and the way in which they have not lived up to the church's own standards (even though they have complied with the law). 

Yes, your disappointment with the Church has been clear for a looong time.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We ought to be caring for the sheep and, above all, that includes the sister missionary who had her life tragically altered by a man who was allowed to serve in a position of authority and abused it. 

A bishop messed up in the 80s.  We know very little about Denson in the decades since then.  Has she sought assistance from the Church?  We don't know.  Has the Church rejected her requests?  We don't know.

I continue to be perplexed by your expectations about what the Church should have done differently.  Leavitt should have reported the misconduct.  That's a given.  Everything else, though, is contingent on the Church knowing about Bishop's misconduct.  We simply have no evidence that the Church knew anything about her allegations until 2010.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But YEAH!, the Church has followed the law,

Yes, it has.  That merits some attention.  We are discussing a legal issue.  The Church does not have civil authority to prosecute Bishop.  It can't fine or imprison him.  It can only mete out what disciplinary measures are available to it within the meaning of D&C 134:10.

We have no evidence that the Church (other than Leavitt) knew anything about Denson's allegations until 2010.  We have no evidence that Denson sought out assistance from the Church and was denied it.  And the Church followed its own policies and procedures as far as disciplining Bishop.  

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

the Prophet has avoided the subject with membership,

I don't think that's a reasonable characterization.  

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Bishop resigned so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions,

CFR, please.  Documentation substantiated that A) Bishop has, in fact, resigned his membership in the Church, and B) that he resigned "so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

Chapter and verse, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"That system" was disregarded by the local bishop.  The system was not used.  If it had been used . . . well, we'll never know.

How do you know this?

Personally, I'd prefer for the Church to take a hands-off approach re: BYU PD.  What BYU PD should disclose or not disclose should be a matter of what is required, or not required, under civil law, and not a matter left to the preferences of "the Church."

"Witholding evidence" denotes an obligation to disclose such evidence.  There is currently a lawsuit addressing that legal issue.  It will be decided by a judge, not the Church.

Okay.

Yes, your disappointment with the Church has been clear for a looong time.

A bishop messed up in the 80s.  We know very little about Denson in the decades since then.  Has she sought assistance from the Church?  We don't know.  Has the Church rejected her requests?  We don't know.

I continue to be perplexed by your expectations about what the Church should have done differently.  Leavitt should have reported the misconduct.  That's a given.  Everything else, though, is contingent on the Church knowing about Bishop's misconduct.  We simply have no evidence that the Church knew anything about her allegations until 2010.

Yes, it has.  That merits some attention.  We are discussing a legal issue.  The Church does not have civil authority to prosecute Bishop.  It can't fine or imprison him.  It can only mete out what disciplinary measures are available to it within the meaning of D&C 134:10.

We have no evidence that the Church (other than Leavitt) knew anything about Denson's allegations until 2010.  We have no evidence that Denson sought out assistance from the Church and was denied it.  And the Church followed its own policies and procedures as far as disciplining Bishop.  

I don't think that's a reasonable characterization.  

CFR, please.  Documentation substantiated that A) Bishop has, in fact, resigned his membership in the Church, and B) that he resigned "so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

Chapter and verse, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know, for a fact, that Bishop has resigned.  My apologies, I'm just going off of what has been reported here.  If he has or does resign than it allows the church to avoid having to take a stand on his actions (because the don't have to discipline him).

As for your other questions, the Church owns BYU and BYU PD is part of BYU.  Pretty easy equation there.

If BYU PD currently feels that they are exempt from the GRAMA requirements, than I believe that the Church should be instructing them to release all evidence.  This is what I'm referring to... I don't want my church to simply follow the letter of the law, I'd like to seem them go above and beyond.  Instead of using the law to seek protect itself, the church should be completely open.

Regarding what happened in 2010 or before... that's not what my comment referred to.  It's how they have handled things this year that is disappointing to me.

 

Edited by rockpond
Link to comment
Just now, rockpond said:

I don't know, for a fact, that Bishop has resigned.  My apologies, I'm just going off of what has been reported here. 

Okay.  It's important that we distinguish fact from speculation.

Just now, rockpond said:

If he has or does resign than it allows the church to avoid having to take a stand on his actions (because the don't have to discipline him).

So you are merely speculating.  Assuming the worst.

Just now, rockpond said:

As for your other questions, the Church owns BYU and BYU PD is part of BYU.  Pretty easy equation there.

Not really.  The law enforcement authority given to BYU PD comes from the State of Utah, not the First Presidency.

Moreover, I don't want the Church to exercise undue control over the BYU PD.  I want it to be governed by civil law.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 hours ago, kllindley said:

Interesting. So you know what opportunities individual Church leaders did or did not offer Ms. Denson over that period of time? 

It's funny you accuse the DN of mischaracterizing Denson's actions as "nothing" and then turn around and do the same to Leavitt. Did he do nothing? Or did he just not pass on the information? Did he offer counseling services for Denson? That wouldn't be nothing. 

Do you know for a fact that the Church did not offer support and reparations in 2010? 

They offered it to the second victim even though Bishop denied any wrongdoing.  Local leaders might be different, but there is no reason to assume up front that it was different in Denson's case...except I suppose they may have decided with the gun threat, that it was best not to put others in a position where they were at risk.

It also appears Denson neglected at least two opportunities to report the assault, the meeting with the therapist after the claim of rape on her mission and the meeting with Elder Monson.  The Church offered counseling in at least this case, even though they may not have known the reason she needed it.  That she refused to take advantage of it because she didn't like the therapist is not their fault.

Denson claims she met with Elder Asay.  If she is telling the truth, then Leavitt did report it and church leaders did do something. Bishop denies talking to him about it, but he denies everything prior to the 2017 interview, so I see no reason to trust him.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Quote

It's interesting that in the other case when she told her leader and was told, I'll look into it and get back to you, she heard nothing.  In the case of Leavitt, she claims, he said I'll report it up, and she claims she did visit with Carlos Asay after that.  I realize the Church says, there is no record of such a meeting, but that tells me the Church does make note of such meetings.

We haven't heard from her stake president.  You are assuming she is telling the truth here even though there may be good reason to withhold acceptance of what any party claims.  It seems strange to me you think the Church is capable of destroying records, but give Denson a pass on lying...even though there is a history of her doing so, including identity theft back in February when she must have known she would likely be under scrutiny given she had released the recording herself to the media.  That seems rather compulsive in that one case.

And I am not sure why you assume there is official tracking/records when they said no record.  They could have said that because they made the effort to look through Elder Asay's personal papers as were done by a journalist and found nothing.  Plus they simply could have known there was no record because they didn't keep that type of record or left it up to the leader, given that many victims may have preferred not to have records out there.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don't know, for a fact, that Bishop has resigned.  My apologies, I'm just going off of what has been reported here.  If he has or does resign than it allows the church to avoid having to take a stand on his actions (because the don't have to discipline him).

As for your other questions, the Church owns BYU and BYU PD is part of BYU.  Pretty easy equation there.

If BYU PD currently feels that they are exempt from the GRAMA requirements, than I believe that the Church should be instructing them to release all evidence.  This is what I'm referring to... I don't want my church to simply follow the letter of the law, I'd like to seem them go above and beyond.  Instead of using the law to seek protect itself, the church should be completely open.

Part of the result of the insistence on getting less redacted material (by consig iirc) got the second victim's name released to the public.  Not particularly impressed by that.  She has a right to privacy if she wants it.  It is a shame she gets to be victimized again (other people making her choices for her) because of their demand of their right to know all.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

They seem to square up fairly well.  A bishop in the 1980s received a disclosure that he should have reported, but he did not.  Reporting allegations of sexual abuse is a difficult topic.  Victims often fail to do so.  Friends and family members fail to do so.  And even when such claims are reported, they are often left uninvestigated and/or unprosecuted by law enforcement and prosecutors. 

In this case, it appears that Bro. Leavitt failed to do so.  He should have.

As for the Church, it now has some pretty good resources in place.  The Handbook has fairly specific guidelines for bishops on reporting allegations of abuse.  The Church maintains a "hotline" for bishops to call when they have questions about this sort of thing. 

In the present case, it appears that the Church first learned about the allegations against Bishop in 2010:

So it sounds like you are saying then bishop Leavitt was not representing the Church/  If the church first learned about the allegations in 2010, then either LEavitt is lying and he heard nothing from Denson at all, or we can safely say Bishop's are not leaders of local wards, representing the Church.  I don't see how your statements square up.  They oppose each other, unless of course, as it seems you have done, Leavitt was never considered representing the Church.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So the Church became aware of the allegations against Bishop is a roundabout way.

The Church's authority over its members is necessarily very limited per D&C 134:10:

The Church can't fine or imprison Bishop, only discipline him.  The Church's policies regarding disciplinary matters are governed by section 6.10.4 of Handbook 1, and includes the following:

So Bishop "denie[d] the reported misconduct."  That triggers some procedural elements.  These include the presentation of evidence, which - apart from Denson's allegations - were likely completely lacking.  Denson had reported allegations to local leaders in Plesant Grove, but was she available and willing to testify against Bishop (wherever he was living)?  We don't know, but I suspect . . . not.

If there is evidence that Bishop's local leaders in 2010 prevented or discouraged Denson from testifying against Bishop, I'd like to see that (or if they made no attempt to contact her and make such inquiries).

Yes.

Here's what I said (with emphasis): "You'll get no argument from me about Leavitt's failure to report.  He should have.  Apart from that, I think the Church has lived up to its own standards."

The local leaders in Pleasant Grove did what they were supposed to do.  The stake president in Pueblo (apparently) did what he was supposed to do (since the Church was aware that Denson had contacted him).

I also look at stories like this:

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . Kirton & McConkie.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

I also have in mind stories like the Knox Smartt matter.  The Church heard about it and took remedial steps (they immediately released him, sent him home, removed him from any interaction with missionaries, excommunicated him, provided the sister missionaries with support and counseling, etc.).  

I also have quite a few personal experiences with the Church following its own guidelines as pertaining to allegations of sexual abuse.

I don't excuse Leavitt's failure to report Denson's allegations 30+ years ago, but I also think that was quite a while ago, and the Church has gotten considerably better at handling such matters since then.

I think Leavitt's failure to report this matter is not sufficient to condemn the Church in the aggregate.  The Church now has some pretty good safeguards in place.  The Law of Chastity.  Clear policies for when priesthood leaders are meeting with youth or women (they are to be chaperoned).  A published-to-the-world "zero tolerance" policy for abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.  A helpline staffed with lawyers to help local leaders navigate legal complexities that can arise.

Sadly, there are still bad people in the world who will work to circumvest these safeguards.

Nope.  Notice that neither of the motions to dismiss address that point in any meaningful sense.  What she reported to the Church and when is essentially irrelevant for the purposes of the statute of limitations.  She had 3-6 years (depending on the claim) to file a civil suit, and she is decades out from that timeframe.

I don't think so.  The statute of limitations is a "threshold issue," meaning that in order for her to continue in her lawsuit, she must be able to survive the recently-filed motions to dismiss which argue - correctly, I think - that her claims are barred by the statute of limitations.  Whether she met with Asay or not, whether Leavitt is lying or not, will never be explored through the legal system if she cannot get past the statute of limitations issue.  If she can't get past it, then the case is dismissed.  If the case is dismissed, there is no discovery (exchanges of evidence/documents, depositions, etc.) and no trial.

What we will be left with, then, is . . . nothing.  A dismissed case that included only unsubstantiated allegations.

But let's assume, for the moment, that the case survives the motions to dismiss.  How do you propose that Denson's attorneys could establish that Leavitt is lying about what Denson reported to him?  It pretty much comes down to his word against hers.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds like a tough sale for sure.  I dont' know what Denson's lawyers are going to do at all, or if they have all given up.  I guess we'll see.  

I'm not so concerned about the suit though.  I don't know if it'll come up with anything.  I think it's clear Bishop did some pretty ugly stuff to many women over many years.  I think it's clear the Church was quick to lean to the dishonest as it came out in recent months, which is too bad, and that there was some level of coverup over the years.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, provoman said:

Did Churvh Leaders following the standards of the Church in 1987. Was it standard pokicy in 1987 for a Church leader to report an allegation of abuse to Church HQ or to police

I would hope so.  If not, then the Church was failing pretty badly.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So you are merely speculating.  Assuming the worst.

No.  That is not speculation.  If Bishop resigns, the church does not have to deal with his actions in a disciplinary council.  They won't have to ever make a call on a potential excommunication.  That is a factual result of Bishop resigning, not speculation.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  The law enforcement authority given to BYU PD comes from the State of Utah, not the First Presidency.

Moreover, I don't want the Church to exercise undue control over the BYU PD.  I want it to be governed by civil law.  

Thanks,

-Smac

If BYU PD's authority comes from the State of Utah, than they should be required to say compliant with GRAMA requests.  As of now, it seems they are not.

If their authority does not come from the state but they are a private institution, than they are an institution owned/managed by the Church.  And, IMO, the Church should assure that those records are released (less the redaction of names and personal identifying information).

Either way, the records should be released.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...