Jump to content
JulieM

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

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

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

Sometimes they are inspired to make a proper discernment sometimes they are not. There are other factors involved like perhaps it is God's will that people experience certain things so He does not intervene in what happens to them.
There is also the fact that God is not going to interfere with agency. If an evil person commits an evil act against someone, it is his choice to do that. God does not intervene so that the actions of that man will stand as evidence against him in the final judgment.  Sometimes it is God's will to intervene and so He inspires his prophets with the proper discernment. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Wait.  He released the name of the victim?

No, but he's publicly bragging that he has it, and that he obtained it from a "mole" in the BYU Police Department.

What if that victim has no interest in having her identity publicized, but now reads that Consig is bragging about having it?  She now knows that her identity is out there, held by someone who publicize it whenever he wants, and who may be sharing it with others, and who got it from a "mole" who may have also shared it with others.  Do you think Consig's behavior has made her feel better or worse?

Or consider the position of a survivor of sexual abuse at BYU who has been considering disclosing her abuse to BYU Police, but who then reads Consig's bragging about having a "mole."  Would that make you more likely to go to BYU Police and entrust them with your sensitive information, or less?

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

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?

Re-read Calm's posts.  She does a pretty good job of describing the concern.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Also, them revealing the name of her adopted daughter.  That was a huge abuse of power and complete privacy invasion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, but he's publicly bragging that he has it, and that he obtained it from a "mole" in the BYU Police Department.

What if that victim has no interest in having her identity publicized....

How about the church giving out the name of her adopted daughter?  What if her daughter had no interest in having her identity publicized?

They actually did release the name publicly.  Consig has not.

You seem to have a double standard here when judging him and reading his mind vs. what the other side has actually done. 

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

And how would you feel if a Church compiled dossier

The Church's attorney compiled information in relation to threatened litigation.

Surely you see the difference.

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

including private membership records were to be passed to the son of her abuser (her MTC President) who then made it public?

I'm not sure what happened there.  Denson's attorneys included Greg Bishop in an exchange of emails that also involved the Church's attorneys, which I think may have been construed as a waiver.  Or it could have been an error on the part of the Church's attorneys.

Either way, the stuff about "dossiers" doesn't really fly.

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Would you feel more or less upset than how you’d feel about Consig?

Apples.  Oranges.

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Also, them revealing the name of her adopted daughter.  That was a huge abuse of power and complete privacy invasion.

I know, and that they included information from confidential discussions with Bishops in a file of some kind.  This whole thing reminds me of all the crazy stuff the church of Scientology does to try and slander those who they consider a threat.  Very very disturbing.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JulieM said:

How about the church giving out the name of her adopted daughter?  

You mean in a document prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation, which the Church did not release?

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

What if her daughter had no interest in having her identity publicized?

There may well have been a breach of privacy.  I'm not sure how the attorney work product was leaked.  But I don't think it was the Church, or the attorney. 

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

They actually did release the name publicly.

Really?  Where?  (I'm genuinely curious.)

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, but he's publicly bragging that he has it, and that he obtained it from a "mole" in the BYU Police Department.

IIRC, Consig did not claim to have learned the identity of the other individual from a mole in the BYU PD. He merely mentioned that he knew it.

Later, in the same post, he implied that he had received the draft of Denson's written statement from such a mole. He never mentioned whether that written statement identified the other individual.

Two separate things that are not necessarily related.

Also, to describe him has having publicly bragged about knowing the identity is your interpretation of what he did. It's not a conclusion dictated by the evidence.

Edited by toon

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You mean in a document prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation, which the Church did not release?

There may well have been a breach of privacy.  I'm not sure how the attorney work product was leaked.  But I don't think it was the Church, or the attorney. 

Really?  Where?  (I'm genuinely curious.)

Thanks,

-Smac

The adoptive name of her daughter.  You didn’t know her name was released?  How did they get that without using their power to go into the confidential records of LDS family services?

The birth mother doesn’t even have access to the names of the parents who adopted their child (without permission of the parents).

That’s a huge breach.  What if those parents didn’t want their names known to Mckenna Denson?

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

That spirit sure is a fickle being.

"Fickle?"  No.

Our ability to discern and act in accordance with the Spirit, however...

31 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

He’s seemingly as consistent and reliable as random chance, or a magic 8 ball. 

Not in my experience.  I have had many circumstances where I have acted in accordance with what I understood to be "the Spirit."  The results have not been random.

31 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

He might warn you he might not.

Yes.  Or you might be listening, or you might not.

31 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

He might give you discernment, he might not.

Or you might be worthy and fully in tune with the Spirit, or you might not.

31 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

He might keep you out of harms way or he might just let you walk into trouble.

Yes.  I don't think the function of the Spirit is to insulate us from all harm and difficulties.

31 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

He might manifest in a way you recognise, he might not.

Just so!  But for your unfortunate cynicism, we might just be having a useful discussion about the Spirit.  As it is...

31 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

He might be a burning in the bosom, a calm feeling, or even some other sensation.

Yes.  Per D&C 46:

Quote

8 Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;
9 For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a sign that they may consume it upon their lusts.
10 And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.
11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.
12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.
13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.
15 And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men.
16 And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal.
17 And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom.
18 To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.
19 And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed;
20 And to others it is given to have faith to heal.
21 And again, to some is given the working of miracles;
22 And to others it is given to prophesy;
23 And to others the discerning of spirits.
24 And again, it is given to some to speak with tongues;
25 And to another is given the interpretation of tongues.
26 And all these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the children of God.

You seem to view a diversity of gifts of the Spirit as a bug, but I think it's a feature.

31 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

As a guide, the spirit is unreliable and untrustworthy.

With respect, I disagree.  The best decisions I have made in my life have been guided by the Spirit.  I find the Spirit to be profoundly reliable and trustworthy.

That said, I have some real reservations about me and my ability to discern and follow the guidance of the Spirit.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  I don't think the function of the Spirit is to insulate us from all harm and difficulties.

Do you believe the leaders of the church (at least some of them) prayed about calling Joseph Bishop to be the president of the MTC? 

(Honest question and one that should be honestly considered here regarding this discussion, I think).

If you believe they prayed about it (as they should have done with such an important decision) and the spirit confirmed that he was a good and righteous man who was right for that position, what went wrong?  Did they misunderstand what the spirit was telling them or did the spirit guide them wrong?

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes 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?

If the son was not also the man's lawyer, I would be calling for someone to be fired.

As it is, I have seen several law experts cited who said it was standard operating procedure and ethical, though one said they were surprised it happened as soon as it did as he sees it happening more often with churches later in negotiations.

I believe the name of the adopted child should have been redacted if this was legal and if so, the person who included it should be penalized and policies changed to prevent it happening again.

OTOH, I can see as part of the negotiations the Church being requested to hand over all records they had andit may have been included for that reason.

I think Greg Bishop was a creep for releasing the dossier publicly and sharing her name privately.  If there are actions that can be taken against him as a lawyer, I hope they are.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the son was not also the man's lawyer, I would be calling for someone to be fired.

As it is, I have seen several law experts cited who said it was standard operating procedure and ethical, though one said they were surprised it happened as soon as it did as he sees it happening more often with churches later in negotiations.

I think Greg Bishop was a creep for releasing it.

I agree.

But how did they get the name of Mckenna's adopted daughter?  That should have been in a confidential file held by the church's family services.  It was wrong for it to be searched out and wrong to give it to the attorney.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The adoptive name of her daughter.  You didn’t know her name was released?  

Yes, I knew that.  But who released it?

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How did they get that without using their power to go into the confidential records of LDS family services?

I understood that the adoption was through LDS Family Services.  The Church's attorney would have access to such information.  Should have included it in a memo?  Probably not (I can't think of a reason, anyway).  

But who leaked the memo?  Per KUTV, it was "leaked."  

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That’s a huge breach.  

Yes, that's the problem with leaks.  They tend to be a breach of trust and confidence, and also involve sensitive information.

But again, AFAIK, neither the Church nor its attorney released the memo.

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What if those parents didn’t want their names known to Mckenna Denson?

Yes, that's bad.

The Church's memo identifying an adopted girl was "leaked."  That's bad.  But the Church didn't leak it, and isn't publicly bragging about the leak.

Consig is bragging about having obtained the identity of a survivor of sexual abuse (not through his "mole," however, but from someone else).

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe the leaders of the church (at least some of them) prayed about calling Joseph Bishop to be the president of the MTC? 

I think that's a safe assumption, yes.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

(Honest question and one that should be honestly considered here regarding this discussion, I think).

I understand. 

What are your thoughts about Jesus calling Judas as an apostle?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church's attorney compiled information in relation to threatened litigation.

Surely you see the difference.

I doubt that the attorney compiled it without he Church's authorization and assistance.

As you well know, a client doesn't simply get to avoid responsibility or liability simply saying that its attorney did it. That said, I see no problem in compiling this information in the context of litigation nor with the Church sharing what otherwise would have been considered confidential information with its attorneys. But I do see a problem with transmitting that info to Greg Bishop.

Quote

I'm not sure what happened there.  Denson's attorneys included Greg Bishop in an exchange of emails that also involved the Church's attorneys, which I think may have been construed as a waiver.  Or it could have been an error on the part of the Church's attorneys.

I guess that's possible, but I'm highly skeptical. Just because someone was cc'd on an email doesn't mean I get to "reply all" with whatever info I want. Most likely, sending the report to Greg Bishop was an error in judgment (didn't see a problem with including Bishop on the response, perhaps even trusted that he wouldn't misuse it) or negligence (should not have replied to all).

 

(Even if there was a joint defense agreement between the Church and Bishop allowing for confidential and privileged information to be shared, joint defense agreements almost always imposed an obligation on the receiving party to not use or disclose that info without the consent of the other party.)

Edited by toon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The adoptive name of her daughter.  You didn’t know her name was released?  How did they get that without using their power to go into the confidential records of LDS family services?

The birth mother doesn’t even have access to the names of the parents who adopted their child (without permission of the parents).

That’s a huge breach.  What if those parents didn’t want their names known to Mckenna Denson?

The contact had already been made, btw, by the child.  Iirc, she said it was quite difficult to get the info.  Whether or not those releasing the info knew this is something else, though I assume it would be part of the file that the info was given to the child.

I find it problematic adoption files were shared unless Denson's attorneys demanded all records held by the Church or if claims were made relating to the adoption process itself (she made claims about her baptismal interview grooming her so I see that as a possibility).  The last would not be a reason to release the child's name though.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, toon said:
Quote

The Church's attorney compiled information in relation to threatened litigation.

Surely you see the difference.

I doubt that the attorney compiled it without he Church's authorization and assistance.

Certainly.  My point, however, is that all this talk about "dossiers" is silly.  The LDS Church is being sued.  The LDS Church hires an attorney, who researches the background of the prospective plaintiff and writes up a summary.  That's fairly benign stuff.  But the implication that the Church does this sort of thing regularly, as a matter of course, for sinister reasons, is absurd.

Just now, toon said:

As you well know, a client doesn't simply get to avoid responsibility or liability simply saying that my attorney did it.

The attorney wrote a brief intended for his client that included information the attorney obtained from his client.

That brief was subsequently "leaked."  That's bad, and the leaker will, I hope, be caught and punished.  But I don't htink the attorney "leaked" the memo, nor did the Church.

Just now, toon said:

That said, I see no problem in compiling this information in the context of litigation

We are in agreement on that point.

Just now, toon said:

nor with the Church sharing what otherwise would have been considered confidential information with its attorneys.

We are in agreement here, too.

Just now, toon said:

But I do see a problem with transmitting that info to Greg Bishop.

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.

Greg Skordas is an extraordinary attorney, and more versed in this sort of thing than I am.  So I pretty much defer to his assessment (in the last paragraph).

Just now, toon said:

I guess that's possible, but I'm highly skeptical. Just because someone was cc'd on an email doesn't mean I get to "reply all" with whatever info I want. Most likely, sending the report to Greg Bishop was an error in judgment (didn't see a problem with including Bishop on the response, perhaps even trusted that he wouldn't misuse it) or negligence (should not have replied to all).

Not according to Skordas.

Just now, toon said:

(Even if there was a joint defense agreement between the Church and Bishop allowing for confidential and privileged information to be shared, joint defense agreements almost always imposed an obligation on the receiving party to not use or disclose that info without the consent of the other party.)

How do you account for the assessment from Greg Skordas ("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")?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

not through his "mole," however

Did the mole also share it or not?  If they didn't, my apologies for that accusation and my respect is restored a little, but I still think he should be fired for leaking confidential police reports, especially dealing with sexual assault.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

As it is, I have seen several law experts cited who said it was standard operating procedure and ethical, though one said they were surprised it happened as soon as it did as he sees it happening more often with churches later in negotiations.

Nothing improper or unethical with compiling the information. Most likely nothing improper or unethical with using it as leverage in settlement negotiations.

The only way it should have been shared with Greg Bishop is if he was acting as his dad's attorney and if there was a joint defense agreement between the Church and Bishop. As mentioned above, while a joint defense agreement allows for the sharing of information between co-defendants (or co-plaintiffs), they typically impose an obligation to not use or disclose that information without authorization. And I can't imagine the Church having authorized Bishop to do what he did.

My guess is that there was no such joint defense agreement. Most likely, Denson's attorney sent an email to the Church's lawyer, probably as follow up to an initial demand letter. Greg Bishop was also included as the attorney representing his Dad. The Church's attorney sent the report to Denson's attorney, and either erroneously did a "reply all" or didn't realize it was an issue. Nothing nefarious, just carelessness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that's a safe assumption, yes.

I understand. 

What are your thoughts about Jesus calling Judas as an apostle?

That's complicated and already been discussed at length on here before.  We have no idea why Christ believed he should call Judas as an apostle as he may have known the purpose Judas was needed.  There are even conflicting narratives about what role Judas did actually play.  Another topic for a different thread if you'd like to open another one.

But, we are discussing Joseph Bishop.  What went wrong regarding our church leaders praying about calling him to be MTC president?  Do you believe they misunderstood the promptings of the spirit or do you believe the spirit made a mistake in confirming Bishop to be a good and righteous man who was deserving of the trust of all those who he would have stewardship over?

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Yep....

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, toon said:

IIRC, Consig did not claim to have learned the identity of the other individual from a mole in the BYU PD. He merely mentioned that he knew it.

I reviewed his post.  You are correct.  He says he got the information from some other source.

Still creepy and wrong, though.

32 minutes ago, toon said:

Later, in the same post, he implied that he had received the draft of Denson's written statement from such a mole. He never mentioned whether that written statement identified the other individual.

Two separate things that are not necessarily related.

Also, to describe him has having publicly bragged about knowing the identity is your interpretation of what he did. It's not a conclusion dictated by the evidence.

Yes, "bragging" is my interpretation.  But it's also my "conclusion dictated {or at least suggested} by the evidence."

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did the mole also share it or not?  If they didn't, my apologies for that accusation and my respect is restored a little, but I still think he should be fired for leaking confidential police reports, especially dealing with sexual assault.

To be clear, it is my understanding that (generally speaking) a police report is public information and can be obtained via an appropriate request.  I think the question at hand is why the BYU Police Department is taking steps to redact some of the information that is being redacted.  The victim's name is certainly understandable; some of the other redactions are bit more of a mystery.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

That's complicated and already been discussed at length on here before. 

"That's complicated."

I agree.

Might the same also be said for Joseph Bishop having been called as the president of the MTC?

Just now, ALarson said:

We have no idea why Christ believed he should call Judas as an apostle as he may have known the purpose he was needed.

"We have no idea why."

I agree.

Might the same also be said for Joseph Bishop having been called as the president of the MTC?

Just now, ALarson said:

But, we are discussing Joseph Bishop. 

Yes.  

Just now, ALarson said:

What went wrong regarding our church leaders praying about calling him to be MTC president?

Do you likewise characterize Judas being called as an apostle as somethign that "went wrong?"

Apparently not.  

"That's complicated."

"We have no idea why."

So why can't we say the same about Joseph Bishop?

Just now, ALarson said:

Do you believe they misunderstood the promptings

I don't know.

Just now, ALarson said:

or do you believe the spirit made a mistake...

No, I don't believe that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...