Jump to content
JulieM

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

Recommended Posts

Consig just had a daughter come home from her mission...to think that he would not care is so wrong.  There are probably very good reasons why he cannot release names.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I like Consig..actually he is to me anyway an honest man and very knowledgeable. 

Which excuses his disgusting and reprehensible public bragging about knowing the identity of a purported sexual assault survivor?

That woman did not ask to be publicly identified.  It was Denson who has put her name out there, and Consig is now bragging to have it, with the apparent assistance of a "mole" who is divulging sensitive police information to private parties.  How many more people have this information?  How much greater is the risk of this woman's identity getting "leaked" thanks to Denson and Consig?

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

He seeks truth and so like you, I feel he has no reason to misrepresent. 

I'm not questioning his honesty (I don't know him from Adam).  But I find his judgment to be appalling.

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

He is full of facts...and conclusions can't be made without them.  If ego is any where represented..it is because we need the facts. 

You are suggesting we "need" the know that Consig knows the name of the purported second victim?  That he is at liberty to divulge it, but at present chooses not to?

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Facts are not harmful because we need them..so ..it might be even scary if they are helpful.

I think you would be singing a different tune if you had a loved one who had been the victim of sexual abuse, only to find out that the victim's identity had been disclosed to the police, one of which is a "mole" that passed on that information to an anonymous jerk who who then brags online about having that information.

There is a reason we have laws in place to protect the identities of victims of sexual abuse.  Are you really okay with that information getting out?  Without the victim's consent?  You like Consig, so his publicly bragging about having confidential information about a victim of sexual abuse is just hunky dory?

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Consig just had a daughter come home from her mission...to think that he would not care is so wrong.  There are probably very good reasons why he cannot release names.

Of course he shouldn't release names.  He shouldn't even be saying he knows the name as that will encourage others to go looking for it knowing it is possible.

You seem to be missing my point and Smac's about the problem with the victim's name.

Bravo he didn't go so far as to release it.  Shame on him that he bragged he knew it, but wasn't going to tell.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I like Consig..actually he is to me anyway an honest man and very knowledgeable.  He seeks truth and so like you, I feel he has no reason to misrepresent.  He is full of facts...and conclusions can't be made without them.  If ego is any where represented..it is because we need the facts.  Facts are not harmful because we need them..so ..it might be even scary if they are helpful.

Thanks,

Jeanne

Can you tell me where this new information by Consig is being discussed?  I listen to the RFM podcast, and I didn't see any new episodes, is there a blog or somewhere that he disclosed that he got an unredacted copy of the police report?  Everyone on this thread seems to know where this was disclosed originally, but I don't know what article is the source of this news.  Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which excuses his disgusting and reprehensible public bragging about knowing the identity of a purported sexual assault survivor?

That woman did not ask to be publicly identified.  It was Denson who has put her name out there, and Consig is now bragging to have it, with the apparent assistance of a "mole" who is divulging sensitive police information to private parties.  How many more people have this information?  How much greater is the risk of this woman's identity getting "leaked" thanks to Denson and Consig?

I'm not questioning his honesty (I don't know him from Adam).  But I find his judgment to be appalling.

You are suggesting we "need" the know that Consig knows the name of the purported second victim?  That he is at liberty to divulge it, but at present chooses not to?

I think you would be singing a different tune if you had a loved one who had been the victim of sexual abuse, only to find out that the victim's identity had been disclosed to the police, one of which is a "mole" that passed on that information to an anonymous jerk who who then brags online about having that information.

There is a reason we have laws in place to protect the identities of victims of sexual abuse.  Are you really okay with that information getting out?  Without the victim's consent?  You like Consig, so his publicly bragging about having confidential information about a victim of sexual abuse is just hunky dory?

-Smac

We will know more about all these questions soon.  I am sure that Consig has been in touch with the victim.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

We don't need the fact we don't have the second victim's name and he does.

Agreed.  I wonder what the victim thinks about her identity being leaked by a "mole" to Consig.  Are there others who also have this information?  How many?  

I fear it's just a matter of time before this woman's identity is disclosed, whether intentionally or by accident.  We saw it with McKenna Denson (Jana Reiss messed up).  

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

The only one who would be scared by that would be the second victim...pity that, but apparently consig was too eager to share the info he knew to consider that.

Yep.  Or else he simply hates the LDS Church so much that he simply doesn't care about the welfare of the second victim.  Omelettes and eggs and all that.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is just as likely he never even thought of her feelings, which might be worse.

Yep.  Or else he simply hates the LDS Church so much that he simply doesn't care about the welfare of the second victim.  Omelettes and eggs and all that.

There is no legitimate motive for him to be publicly bragging about knowing the presently-undisclosed identity of a woman who is apparently a survivor of sexual assault.  None.  It is disgusting that he is doing this.

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  It's possible that Denson "leaked" her statement to the BYU Police Department.  She "leaked" her audio recording, which was a pretty boneheaded move, given that her attorneys were using it as leverage in confidential settlement negotiations.

There was also no need for Denson to release her audio recording.  In fact, there was every reason to not release it.  And yet she did.  Without her attorney's knowledge or consent.

I don't think Denson's decisions are entirely rational or reasoned.  She appears to be something of a loose cannon.

Yes.

Yes, well.  Consig weighed the victim's privacy concerns against his hatred of the LDS Church and his desire to tear it down, and apparently found that the latter outweighed the former.

I agree.

I think we'll find some selective indignance at work.  Indignance where an inappropriate disclosure can be weaponized against the LDS Church, but indifference when it cannot.

Thanks,

-Smac

Mind reading again?  I don't see why you need to do this in order to set forth your argument/rebuttal/criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

We will know more about all these questions soon.  I am sure that Consig has been in touch with the victim.

First, how do you know that Consig "has been in touch with the victim?"

Second, it would seem to be more than a little creepy for a self-appointed yahoo to use a "mole" in a police department to get the identity of a survivor of sexual assault, and then take it upon himself to contact that survivor.

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

We will know more about all these questions soon.  I am sure that Consig has been in touch with the victim.

Great.  She has not shared her information because she doesn't want to be part of the public spectacle, but it is okay in your view if Consig intrudes uninvited into the life of a sexual assault victim.

I think you need to think this through a bit more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why, knowing he was a sexual predator and that other vulnerable female missionaries were at risk, wouldn't the spirit prompt Pres. Monson to ask Denson about Bishops behaviour?

 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you asking why God doesn’t always intervene and stop evil people from hurting others?

No. I’m asking...

Why, knowing he was a sexual predator and that other vulnerable female missionaries were at risk, wouldn't the spirit prompt Pres. Monson to ask Denson about Bishops behaviour?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you tell me where this new information by Consig is being discussed?  I listen to the RFM podcast, and I didn't see any new episodes, is there a blog or somewhere that he disclosed that he got an unredacted copy of the police report?  Everyone on this thread seems to know where this was disclosed originally, but I don't know what article is the source of this news.  Thanks

 

Tried to PM you...will try again.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

No. I’m asking...

Why, knowing he was a sexual predator and that other vulnerable female missionaries were at risk, wouldn't the spirit prompt Pres. Monson to ask Denson about Bishops behaviour?

Yes, which is essential what said, right?  You want to know why God didn’t intervene to stop an evil person from harming others. 

You’re asking about the Problem of Evil. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I think we know that McKenna Denson did not discuss any allegations of sexual abuse by Joseph Bishop.  We have a source that states that she did not disclose the purported abuse until years later.

That source is . . . McKenna Denson.  Part of her narrative is that she first disclosed the purported abuse to her YSA ward bishop after she returned from her mission.

Moreover, if she had disclosed to Elder Monson that she had been sexually traumatized while at the MTC, it would be quite strange to have her returned to the rigors of missionary work, and stranger still that Ms. Denson has not said anything about this.  Why would she and her attorneys leave such a salacious detail out of her trial-by-media-circus efforts, particularly since it ostensibly feeds perfectly into the the-LDS-Church-protects-predators-and-ignores-victims narrative they are trying to create?

A "definite" conclusion?  Okay.  But a preliminary conclusion is, I think, fine.

Nobody here can even conceptualize a way this information might be relevant.

Mainly because most won't jump to such conclusive assumptions as you have.  Also, it's interesting how now you completely believe Denson as a source where in the past you have doubted her honesty regarding some information in this case.

We really do not know what was discussed between Denson and Elder Monson.  She may have told him about the abuse and not named names or she may have alleged that Bishop should not be in the position he's in or any number of other things without specifically stating that Bishop raped her.

Bottom line is we will all just have to wait until (and if) more info comes out regarding her meeting with Elder Monson.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

If you google "redacted police report McKenna Denson" and limit your search to the past 24 hrs, one option should appear...at least until it gets spread around.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You presume that this meeting did, in fact, take place.

You presume to know what Elder Monson did and did not ask.

You presume that the allegations against Joseph Bishop are correct.

You presume that the Spirit did not prompt or influence Elder Monson during the interview.

You presume that Sis. Denson would have necessarily disclosed allegations of abuse to Elder Monson.

And on and on.  Lots of presuming going on.

None of us can speak intelligently as to why the Spirit does or does not do something in a particular circumstance.  So your question is essentially an imponderable.  We can likewise things like "Why did Jesus select Judas as an apostle?", or "Why did the Spirit not tell Joseph Smith to stay in Iowa rather than return to Nauvoo, where he was to be arrested?", or "Why did God allow Mountain Meadows to happen?"

Thanks,

-Smac

That spirit sure is a fickle being. He’s seemingly as consistent and reliable as random chance, or a magic 8 ball. He might warn you he might not. He might give you discernment, he might not. He might keep you out of harms way or he might just let you walk into trouble. He might manifest in a way you recognise, he might not. He might be a burning in the bosom, a calm feeling, or even some other sensation.

As a guide, the spirit is unreliable and untrustworthy.

Edited by Marginal Gains

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ttribe said:
Quote

Yes, well.  Consig weighed the victim's privacy concerns against his hatred of the LDS Church and his desire to tear it down, and apparently found that the latter outweighed the former.

Mind reading again?  I don't see why you need to do this in order to set forth your argument/rebuttal/criticism.

Yes, it's an extrapolation on my part.  I'll own that.

FWIW, I found out McKenna Denson's identity before it became public (on March 22, to be precise).  Jana Reiss published an unredacted email from Greg Bishop that included her last name.  Now, I could have come to this board and splashed her name all over the place.  But I didn't.  Instead, I immediately contacted Jana Reiss, repeatedly, and notified her that she had "outed" the identity of a survivor of sexual abuse.  Jana did not respond right away, so I called Greg Bishop and informed him that Jana had published his unredacted email.  Greg had Jana's contact information, so he said he would contact her immediately and get Denson's name removed from the article.  Minutes later, it was gone.  

I have some reservations and some skepticism about Denson's claims.  And I don't at all care for her lies about the "leak" of her recording (which, it turns out, came from her), or her trial-by-media-circus litigation strategy.  However, I had no interest at all in publicizing her identity without her consent (or even with it), and in fact I went out of my way to clean up Jana's screw-up.

If Consig has the consent of the second victim to brag about the fact that he knows her identity, I will retract my extrapolation and apologize.

But I'm not going to hold my breath.

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, which is essential what said, right?  You want to know why God didn’t intervene to stop an evil person from harming others. 

You’re asking about the Problem of Evil. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

No, I’m asking about the spiritual discernment of Church leaders. Or rather, the demonstrable lack of it.

Edited by Marginal Gains

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you google "redacted police report McKenna Denson" and limit your search to the past 24 hrs, one option should appear.

Thanks Calm, appreciate it.  

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Consig just had a daughter come home from her mission...to think that he would not care is so wrong.  There are probably very good reasons why he cannot release names.

If my daughter had been the victim of sexual abuse, I would not want a "mole" in the police department to be divulging her identity to people who have no business knowing it.

If my daughter had been the victim of sexual abuse, I would be pretty upset at seeing someone like Consig publicly bragging that he knows her identity.  

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it's an extrapolation on my part.  I'll own that.

FWIW, I found out McKenna Denson's identity before it became public (on March 22, to be precise).  Jana Reiss published an unredacted email from Greg Bishop that included her last name.  Now, I could have come to this board and splashed her name all over the place.  But I didn't.  Instead, I immediately contacted Jana Reiss, repeatedly, and notified her that she had "outed" the identity of a survivor of sexual abuse.  Jana did not respond right away, so I called Greg Bishop and informed him that Jana had published his unredacted email.  Greg had Jana's contact information, so he said he would contact her immediately and get Denson's name removed from the article.  Minutes later, it was gone.  

I have some reservations and some skepticism about Denson's claims.  And I don't at all care for her lies about the "leak" of her recording (which, it turns out, came from her), or her trial-by-media-circus litigation strategy.  However, I had no interest at all in publicizing her identity without her consent (or even with it), and in fact I went out of my way to clean up Jana's screw-up.

If Consig has the consent of the second victim to brag about the fact that he knows her identity, I will retract my extrapolation and apologize.

But I'm not going to hold my breath.

-Smac

Smac also contacted me in case people at FM had more direct contact options, just to verify his story.

I was quite pleased/impressed/shocked that even though a large number of people appeared to have seen it (I saw the factit was out there mentioned here and there), no one shared it publicly.  I checked for several days.  I am glad those aware of it that I saw (both LDS and non) not only showed restraint, but only posted in concern that it was out there and how to get it removed instead of bragging they knew something few others did.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Mainly because most won't jump to such conclusive assumptions as you have. 

I'm not sure I am "jumping."  I'm reasoning from evidence.

Moreover, I have said that mine is a "preliminary," rather than "definite," conclusion.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Also, it's interesting how now you completely believe Denson as a source

Where she says something and has no reason to be deceitful about it?  Yes.  

Meanwhile, are you now suggesting that we discount Denson "as a source?"

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

where in the past you have doubted her honesty regarding some information in this case.

"Regarding some information," yes.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We really do not know what was discussed between Denson and Elder Monson. 

Well, I think we know that she did not disclose allegations that she was raped by the MTC president.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

She may have told him about the abuse and not named names or she may have alleged that Bishop should not be in the position he's in or any number of other things without specifically stating that Bishop raped her.

She has said she first disclosed the abuse to her YSA ward bishop a few years later.

Why do you not believe her on this point?

And if she did disclose to Elder Monson, why hasn't she said so?

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Bottom line is we will all just have to wait until (and if) more info comes out regarding her meeting with Elder Monson.

I'm not going to wait, because I don't think more information will be forthcoming, because I think this is something of a nothingburger.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, well.  Consig weighed the victim's privacy concerns against his hatred of the LDS Church and his desire to tear it down, and apparently found that the latter outweighed the former.

Wait.  He released the name of the victim?

If not, that’s not a fair accusation.  How would you know what was going on in his mind or what he’s planning on doing or if he’s even told anyone the victim’s name?

You make a lot of conclusive statements, smac, that are mostly just guesses on your part, IMO.  There’s mostly stuff here that we really do not know much about so far.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If my daughter had been the victim of sexual abuse, I would not want a "mole" in the police department to be divulging her identity to people who have no business knowing it.

If my daughter had been the victim of sexual abuse, I would be pretty upset at seeing someone like Consig publicly bragging that he knows her identity.  

-Smac

And how would you feel if a Church compiled dossier including private membership records were to be passed to the son of her abuser (her MTC President) who then made it public? Would you feel more or less upset than how you’d feel about Consig?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

Smac also contacted me in case people at FM had more direct contact options, just to verify his story.

Huh.  I forgot that part.  And FWIW, I did not disclose Denson's identity (or the URL to the Jana Reiss article that spilled it) to Calm.  Not because I don't trust her, but because the fewer people who have access to sensitive information, the better.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

And how would you feel if a Church compiled dossier including private membership records were to be passed to the son of her abuser (her MTC President) who then made it public? Would you feel more or less upset than how you’d feel about Consig?

That move was highly unethical and an abuse of trust and institutional power.  This is one many very disturbing elements in this scandal.  

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×