Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pogi

Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

Recommended Posts

This whole mess is so unfortunate.  And could have easily been avoided if local and general Church leaders had held this wretched man accountable. 

I hope at least two things come out of this.

1. The Church will immediately and publicly discipline any mission president, or general authority of the Church for sexual sin

2. Those who agitate against the Church in such a nasty and dishonest way will learn that their imagined moral authority is betrayed by their behavior

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:
Quote

Yes, but this is a very prominent disciplinary matter.  And Joseph Bishop is 85 years old.  Not much need for a paper trail for this one.

Frankly, I am not sure there is sufficient evidence for an excommunication.  All we have is Ms. Denson's say-so, and her say-so is poor.  Plus I doubt she would participate in a disciplinary council, and even if she was willing, I don't think the local leaders would be so foolhardy as to trust her to behave. 

She's not the only one though plus there's his testimony to the police.  

Will either Denson or the other victim provide statements to the Bishop's stake president for use in a dicipinary council?  We don't know.

Does Joseph Bishop have sufficient mental clarity and recollection to participate in a disciplinary council?  We don't know.

In his statement to the BYU police he admitted that he went with the woman to a small "preparation room" in the cafeteria area of the MTC "and while talking with her, asked her to show him her breasts, which she did."  But Bishop's son has thrown some shade on his father's memory.  And the man is 85 years old.  And we don't really know his mental state.  So I'm not sure his confession is per se reliable.

As I see it, the second victim is the clincher that some sort of serious misconduct took place.  Nevertheless, I'm generally not comfortable with speculating about excommunication.  I did so above and I regret it.  It is not within my stewardship.

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the brethren could find out more rather easily. And making a public display would go a long way to showing this sort of thing isn't tolerated. His age really doesn't matter. 

Perhaps you have a point.  The Church usually, though not always, keeps disciplinary matters confidential.  The Church made a notable exception earlier this year as regarding the excommunication of Philander Knox, which the Church announced in a public statement.  However, the quantum of evidence in that case was very clear and new as compared to the messiness of Bishop's situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps you have a point.  The Church usually, though not always, keeps disciplinary matters confidential.  The Church made a notable exception earlier this year as regarding the excommunication of Philander Knox, which the Church announced in a public statement.  However, the quantum of evidence in that case was very clear and new as compared to the messiness of Bishop's situation.

They don't have to announce it. They just have to do it. Although I'd note that this is a different case in that it's a rather high ranking leader accused of a pretty serious egregious act. It's more akin to when Hamula was excommunicated a few years ago. (Which the Church announced in the Church News)

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

In our ward, as in most ward's that i have attended, there are several people who attend who are excommunicated members.  You certainly wouldn't know they were excommunicated unless you were in a leadership position in the ward. You wouldn't know by taking a video of sacrament meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This whole mess is so unfortunate.  And could have easily been avoided if local and general Church leaders had held this wretched man accountable. 

I hope at least two things come out of this.

1. The Church will immediately and publicly discipline any mission president, or general authority of the Church for sexual sin

2. Those who agitate against the Church in such a nasty and dishonest way will learn that their imagined moral authority is betrayed by their behavior

Church discipline is not a matter for public display.  One of the main purposes of church discipline is to "save the souls of the transgressors."  This matter is best handled in a manner that is private and that is pleasing to the Lord, and not as a knee jerk reaction to agitations in the press or social media.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Church discipline is not a matter for public display.  One of the main purposes of church discipline is to "save the souls of the transgressors."  This matter is best handled in a manner that is private and that is pleasing to the Lord, and not as a knee jerk reaction to agitations in the press or social media.

 

True, but IIRC the handbook allows for sharing information about discipline if it is important for the congregation (or church) to know. So it's really not out of the realm of possibilities that information about a high profile individual like Bishop's excommunication, to be made known. It would be proper and IMO beneficial for the ward, the victim, and the church to know.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

True, but IIRC the handbook allows for sharing information about discipline if it is important for the congregation (or church) to know. So it's really not out of the realm of possibilities that information about a high profile individual like Bishop's excommunication, to be made known. It would be proper and IMO beneficial for the ward, the victim, and the church to know.

That would be up to Bishop's local leaders to determine.

As Smac has pointed out, we don't even know if Bishop is capable/competent at this point in his life to take part in a disciplinary council. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That would be up to Bishop's local leaders to determine.

As Smac has pointed out, we don't even know if Bishop is capable/competent at this point in his life to take part in a disciplinary council

I'm not sure that it's necessary for an individual to take part in their DC so that doesn't seem like a good reason not to hold one for Bishop.

If Sam Young wasn't able to attend his DC would they cancel it? When they scheduled Kate Kelly's DC after she had moved out of state, and she was unable to attend, did they cancel her DC?

It is not unusual for a DC to be held in absentia.  I don't see why it would be different for Bishop. They could hold it without him, or his participation.

Share this post


Link to post

We don't do baptisms, etc. when people are not mentally accountable.  Seems like that could be seen to be applicable to DCs as well.

Even if others refuse to attend or can't physically attend, they could if desired provide relevant information in writing as well as appeal.  Someone mentally incompetent can't.  This would allow for some scamming perhaps, but in most cases erring on the side of compassion for the elderly is probably wise.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

We don't do baptisms, etc. when people are not mentally accountable.  Seems like that could be seen to be applicable to DCs as well.

Even if others refuse to attend or can't physically attend, they could if desired provide relevant information in writing as well as appeal.  Someone mentally incompetent can't.  This would allow for some scamming perhaps, but in most cases erring on the side of compassion for the elderly is probably wise.

Maybe, but I think it's different to make a covenant when you don't have the capacity to do it, than it is to be held accountable for things you did while you had the capacity to understand, even though you no longer have that capacity.

DC's are held for multiple reasons, including to protect the good name and reputation of the church. It's a way to maintain boundaries and not only about helping the person repent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

They don't have to announce it. They just have to do it.

An announcement would be conducive to making the point you rasied ("And making a public display would go a long way to showing this sort of thing isn't tolerated.").

I think that's why the announced the excommunication of Philander Knox.

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Although I'd note that this is a different case in that it's a rather high ranking leader accused of a pretty serious egregious act. It's more akin to when Hamula was excommunicated a few years ago. (Which the Church announced in the Church News)

Perhaps.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe, but I think it's different to make a covenant when you don't have the capacity to do it, than it is to be held accountable for things you did while you had the capacity to understand, even though you no longer have that capacity.

DC's are held for multiple reasons, including to protect the good name and reputation of the church. It's a way to maintain boundaries and not only about helping the person repent.

I think it would really depend on what kind of info is available from the second victim or the third (named but no details).

Assuming Bishop was actually experiencing significant dementia at the time of the recording and police interview (which I think is unlikely, but definitely possible...I am currently ticked off at myself for how much I missed with my mother because I didn't push harder to get info from everyone she was interacting with to see how accurate her memory was or to test her for reading comprehension, etc.), the only solid thing the Church likely has from him is his denials from 2010.

I think .Denson damaged her credibility substantially with the gun threat.  She demonstrated she was willing to lie (assuming the leaders assumed it was a 'joke' when they didn't hear back from police) in an extreme fashion to get attention.  If Bishop was intelligent in his denial (this is a troubled woman, etc. etc, look at all I have done etc. etc.), his denial would easily defeat her accusation if it stood alone, imo.  

So for me, it hinges on what that accusation was from the second victim.  If she was the sister who was suicidal that he took into his home, again he can point at her history as troubled.  And if details weren't shared at the time that would trigger red flags (if both reports being taken to a basement room, that would be a red flag imo; but it is possible the second victim was abused in his home and not in the basement) then he can turn the two reports into well known figures attracting these kinds of claims, two sisters he had to help before because they were troubled demonstrating they are still troubled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

WOW, JUST WOW, Kutv just released a audio from mckennas antics on sunday.

Denson states "There wont be any recorded conversations"  all the while conversation is being recorded.

And whoever is with her is just embarassing. It is my impression that he acts as though Denson is entitled to abuse the purpose of the F&T meeting.

Edited by provoman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, provoman said:

WOW, JUST WOW, Kutv just released a audio from mckennas antics on sunday.

Denson states "There wont be any recorded conversations"  all the while conversation is being recorded.

As if her credibility hadn't already taken too many hits.

Share this post


Link to post

I just hope when this is all over we can finally replace the story of Thomas Marsh and the milk stippings with the story of the woman who left because she was sexually assaulted by the MTC president.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I just hope when this is all over we can finally replace the story of Thomas Marsh and the milk stippings with the story of the woman who left because she was sexually assaulted by the MTC president.

Well, if people haven't listened to this latest recording, they should.  I just finished listening and I felt it was respectful from both sides (Denson and the ward/stake leaders there).  I felt whoever was with Denson also expressed himself well (from what I could hear)....anyone know who that was?  But the leaders treated her very well, IMO and she treated them the same in return.  She was forceful with her statements but respected that they disagreed with her too.

Here's a few things that I found interesting:

- She stated there are 6 other witnesses "coming forward to testify in court".

- Denson stated there were more than her who were also raped in the room in the MTC basement, but they signed nondisclosure agreements and took settlements from the church.  She said they would be issuing subpoenas for them to testify.  I don't know the legalities involved there or if that will (or can) take place. (?)

- She mentioned there is an HBO Documentary coming out that she's on and also an HBO Vice program that she's also on regarding her case.

Anyway...overall, I think it was interesting to listen to the recording.

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the recording posted by KUTV:

A few notes:

  • Most of the recording is apparently in the bishop's office and is between her, a member of the stake presidency ("President Jones"), and some other person with a Kiwi or Australian accent ("Ethan Cruck" or some such).
  • She does represent that she is turning off her phone, but then leaves it on.
  • She accuses the leaders of the Church of running out the clock on the statute of limitations.  This is a bit odd.  She had every option to file a police report and did not.  
  • She complains that local leaders have been instructed to not talk with her.  This is a bit strange, since she knows there is ongoing litigation.  
  • She says that she has "six other witnesses" who will be coming forward to testify against him.  This is new.  I will be interested in seeing how this plays out, as there are no claims pending against Joseph Bishop.  There is a single claim against the Church for "fraudulent nondisclosure."  I'm not sure what these six witnesses could say that would be relevant to that.
  • She complains that Joseph Bishop might resign his membership and then get re-baptized later.  She is opposed to this, apparently.
  • She says that she has been "voiceless for over three decades."  She talks about having been "silenced for 35 years."  Again, a bit strange.  She could have spoken up at any time.
  • She indicates that a documentary about her experience is in the works.  And something about an HBO series, "Vice."
  • She seems really, really upset about the statute of limitations having barred her claims.  And that Joseph Bishop has not been excommunicated.
  • She expresses appreciation for the civility of the stake president.
  • She denies "leaking" her audio recording, saying that "somebody else did."  This is plainly incorrect, as her own attorney has admitted that she leaked the recording by sending it to a bunch of different people (presumably including MormonLeaks, which published it).
  • She says that the Church has had people (she doesn't say whom) sign NDAs about Joseph Bishop.
  • She says that Joseph Bishop assaulted or did something bad to sister missionaries in Argentina.  This is a new allegation.
  • She says that she is refusing to settle the lawsuit, and will go to trial.  "For the betterment of the Church."
  • The Kiwi guy states that Ms. Denson has repeatedly taken her claims to local leaders.
  • A lot of repetetive ranting.  The FP/Q12 protects sexual predators.  They ran out the statute of limitations.  People "need to know" and "be aware."  The Church let Joseph Bishop down.  
  • "President Jones" remains very calm and collected and civil throughout.  Good for him.
  • At the conclusion of the meeting she leaves the room/office and encounters a "Steven Bishop" (presumably Joseph Bishop's son), who tells her that her behavior was "uncalled for."  She disagrees.  I think "President Jones" intervenes and encourages them to not have confrontation in the hallway.  They resume the discussion outside the building briefly.

Thanks,

-Smac

d

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, if people haven't listened to this latest recording, they should.  I just finished listening and I felt it was respectful from both sides (Denson and the ward/stake leaders there).  I felt whoever was with Denson also expressed himself well (from what I could hear)....anyone know who that was?  But the leaders treated her very well, IMO and she treated them the same in return.  She was forceful with her statements but respected that they disagreed with her too.

Here's a few things that I found interesting:

- She stated there are 6 other witnesses "coming forward to testify in court".

- Denson stated there were more than her who were also raped in the room in the MTC basement, but they signed nondisclosure agreements and took settlements from the church.  She said they would be issuing subpoenas for them to testify.  I don't know the legalities involved there or if that will (or can) take place. (?)

Are you sure that is what she said?  (I am not doubting, just asking for clarification.)

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

- She mentioned there is an HBO Documentary coming out that she's on and also an HBO Vice program that she's also on regarding her case.

Anyway...overall, I think it was interesting to listen to the recording.

Overall yes, quite interesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, provoman said:

WOW, JUST WOW, Kutv just released a audio from mckennas antics on sunday.

Denson states "There wont be any recorded conversations"  all the while conversation is being recorded.

All of the statements about recording were pretty confusing (I agree).  She also stated, "You know this is being recorded" at one point.  

I wonder if she actually did turn her phone or recording device off (she showed him as she did it, iirc), but that someone else was still recording.

I'd have to listen to it again, but I have to believe the men knew someone was still recording (or at least highly suspected it was).  I know I would have been aware and known it was very likely that someone was still recording.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure that is what she said?  (I am not doubting, just asking for clarification.)

Overall yes, quite interesting.

Thanks,

-Smac

I tried to write the quotes down (regarding the other witnesses).  I'm not sure if the "6 other witnesses" coming forward to testify in court, are different than the women who she claims took a settlement from the church and signed nondisclosure agreements (who she stated would be getting subpoenas to testify).  She said something about the agreements (nondisclosure?) being "null and void" at that point.  You can probably shed light on whether that's true or not.

If others listen and I heard wrong....please correct me!

Still, overall....I think it was a respectful conversation and both sides handled it well.

It did get testy between her and Bishop's son right there at the end....which is understandable.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

I listened with great interest.  Appreciate the commentary.  If there are 6 other victims. Wow. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I just hope when this is all over we can finally replace the story of Thomas Marsh and the milk stippings with the story of the woman who left because she was sexually assaulted by the MTC president.

a double whammy would occur if they printed "stippings" in replacing for the Symonds Ryder story😏

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I tried to write the quotes down (regarding the other witnesses).  I'm not sure if the "6 other witnesses" coming forward to testify in court, are different than the women who she claims took a settlement from the church and signed nondisclosure agreements (who she stated would be getting subpoenas to testify).  She said something about the agreements (nondisclosure?) being "null and void" at that point.  You can probably shed light on whether that's true or not.

Honestly, I'm not sure how NDAs work in a legal context.  I suspect that the Court's inherent power to adjudicate legal disputes could supersede a private agreement such as an NDA.  But this is not my bailiwick.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If others listen and I heard wrong....please correct me!

Still, overall....I think it was a respectful conversation and both sides handled it well.

It did get testy between her and Bishop's son right there at the end....which is understandable.

Yes.  Things started badly, but ended well.

I hope she feels satisfied.  If she starts doing this on an ongoing basis, that will not be good.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Why in the heck would Bishop Jr. confront her?? Is this the lawyer who couldn't keep his mouth shut originally?

  • Like 1

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.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...