KUTV report reveals how the LDS Church responded to MTC sex scandal

[ALarson]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.

And yet you continue to post that you need more information?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

And yet you continue to post that you need more information?

Well, yes.  There has been a lot of information coming out about this story.  I haven't had time to review it all.

Could you just tell us what information came out of the press conference that is relevant to this discussion?  No need to be coy.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes.  There has been a lot of information coming out about this story.  I haven't had time to review it all.

Could you just tell us what information came out of the press conference that is relevant to this discussion?  No need to be coy.  

Coy?  Hmmmmm.....never been called that before 

It's just odd that you spend a lot of time here posting about this case (and repeatedly saying you need more information) and yet, won't take the time to watch a press conference where you can actually observe and hear the alleged victim tell her own story (and where her attorneys give even more information).

I posted earlier about where Calm is watching the video and posting her opinions and thoughts (if that will help you).

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Coy?  Hmmmmm.....never been called that before 

"Coy" seemed nicer than "No need to prevaricate" or "No need to be evasive."

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

It's just odd that you spend a lot of time here posting about this case (and repeatedly saying you need more information) and yet, won't take the time to watch a press conference where you can actually observe and hear the alleged victim tell her own story (and where her attorneys give even more information).

It's even more odd that you continue to make vague references to possibly relevant information, and yet you will not actually say what it is.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I posted earlier about where Calm is watching the video and posting her opinions and thoughts (if that will help you).

Where?  Which post?  Is there a link to it you can provide?  What part of the press conference has information relevant to the confidentiality issue being discussed? 

No need to prevaricate.  If you want us to consider "information," then present it or explain it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Coy?  Hmmmmm.....never been called that before 

It's just odd that you spend a lot of time here posting about this case (and repeatedly saying you need more information) and yet, won't take the time to watch a press conference where you can actually observe and hear the alleged victim tell her own story (and where her attorneys give even more information).

I posted earlier about where Calm is watching the video and posting her opinions and thoughts (if that will help you).

 

The press conference was for  publicity.

 

Edit to add: Her attorney said she took a polygraph and passed - which really isn't a good standard to begin with. AND her attorney said you could email him for a copy of the results....thanks JulieM for reminding me of that part.

Edited April 7, 2018 by provoman

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

The press conference was for  publicity - I did not hear anything new from it.

IMO..this is the kind of attitude that will keep your church from growing and becoming a good change for everyone.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Coy" seemed nicer than "No need to prevaricate" or "No need to be evasive."

It's even more odd that you continue to make vague references to possibly relevant information, and yet you will not actually say what it is.

Where?  Which post?  Is there a link to it you can provide?  What part of the press conference has information relevant to the confidentiality issue being discussed? 

No need to prevaricate.  If you want us to consider "information," then present it or explain it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Good grief.  It was over an hour long, I'm not going to spoon feed you what was in it (plus you learn from just observing and watching the parties involved).

Don't watch it.  It just seems odd that you keep posting about this case (with what appears to be great interest) then won't take the time to watch a video of those involved.  

Have a nice evening....I'm off for a date with my wife 

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

The press conference was for  publicity - I did not hear anything new from it.

Then you weren’t really watching and listening (or you didn’t know what information was out there previously).  There were several new things that came out from the news conference.  It was very professional and well done too, imo. And one comes away feeling they know more about the sister who was sexually assaulted (allegedly).

Edited April 6, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Good grief.  It was over an hour long,

Good reason for you to explain what portion of it  you are referencing, then.

And yet, you continue to refuse to do so.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not going to spoon feed you what was in it (plus you learn from just observing and watching the parties involved).

I'm not looking to be spoon-fed.  I was speaking of "confidentiality" issues in this matter (the propriety of disclosing the plaintiff's birth daughter), and about the complexities of law associated with disclosing (or not disclosing) confidential information.  You then asked, twice, if I had watched the the press conference.  I said no.  You seem to be taking exception to that, saying that her attorneys gave "information" at the press conference.  And yet despite repeated requests that you explain what "information" you have in mind, you refuse to do so.

So . . . yeah.  You seem to be playing games rather than trying to advance the discussion.  Or else just wasting our time.

Quote

Have a nice evening....I'm off for a date with my wife 

Have a good time.

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then you weren’t really watching and listening (or you didn’t know what information was out there previously).  There were several new things that came out from the news conference.  

Such as?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Such as?

Thanks,

-Smac

Just watch it Smac.  You’re spending more time posting here and avoiding watching it than what it would have taken you to already watch it (several times probably ).  It’s good to watch just to hear Mckenna speak and meet her attorneys and so on.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Just watch it Smac.  

What is the problem here?  You are claiming that "several new things" came out of the press conference?  What are they?  I guess I'll go ahead and present this as a CFR.

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You’re spending more time posting here and avoiding watching it than what it would have taken you to already watch it (several times probably ).  

And you and ALarson are wasting everyone's time by making vague references to "new things," but refusing to actually say what those new things are.

Not the best way to advance a discussion.

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It’s good to watch just to hear Mckenna speak and meet her attorneys and so on.

I plan to.

Next time, please don't waste our time.  If you have information, don't prevaricate.  Just present it.

-Smac

[provoman]

25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then you weren’t really watching and listening (or you didn’t know what information was out there previously).  There were several new things that came out from the news conference.  It was very professional and well done too, imo. And one comes away feeling they know more about the sister who was sexually assaulted (allegedly).

I am willing to be corrected, what new information - relevant to case - was prsented at the press conference?

[provoman]

40 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

IMO..this is the kind of attitude that will keep your church from growing and becoming a good change for everyone.

It was for publicity, that why press conferences are held.

Just from memory two other groups were given mention -  SNAP and the stop interviews with minors by Prieshtood Leaders.

 I did not hear anything that I would say was new to me. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by provoman

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What is the problem here?  You are claiming that "several new things" came out of the press conference?  What are they?  I guess I'll go ahead and present this as a CFR.

I’m not sure why you’re so opposed to just watching it yourself?

But one thin new is that she has taken a polygraph.  I don’t think it’s admissible, but that was new information.

Here”s the link that Alarson posted just a page back with other info (and the actual video for you to watch):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70407-accuser-of-joseph-bishop-files-suit/?do=findComment&comment=1209808798

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’m not sure why you’re so opposed to just watching it yourself?

But one thing new is that she has taken a polygraph.  I don’t thing it’s admissible, but that was new information.

Here”s the link that Alarson posted just a page back with other info (and the actual video for you to watch):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70407-accuser-of-joseph-bishop-files-suit/?do=findComment&comment=1209808798

Spend an hour to find out . . . she took a polygraph?

I was planning to watch the press conference anyway, because I am interested in getting facts and information about this issue.  A polygraph is not particularly significant, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’m not sure why you’re so opposed to just watching it yourself?

But one thin new is that she has taken a polygraph.  I don’t think it’s admissible, but that was new information.

Here”s the link that Alarson posted just a page back with other info (and the actual video for you to watch):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70407-accuser-of-joseph-bishop-files-suit/?do=findComment&comment=1209808798

 

Well, yep you are correct on that one about the polygraph. So yes that was something new. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think the releasing of the name of her daughter (who she put up for adoption) is a breach, isn't it?  I've read they got her name from records in the LDS Family Services files.  That information should have remained private and confidential.

Vernon stated the Church and its lawyers had every right to collect and use the info in the negotiations.  He said he was not going to comment on how it was released to the media as he had no knowledge of that...he might have said something later in the Qand A I haven't got to yet.

My interpretation is the same as yours so the above surprised me.

[JulieM]

Smac, you could have watched the press conference by now many times over 

You might want to read over on the other thread (just posted the link).

Here are juliann’s thoughts and she just watched the end of it:

“I listened to some of the just ended press conference. The woman is very attractive, very well spoken. She presents extremely well. She is a PR dream. The church is not going to come out on top of this with two high profile men having had knowledge while Bishop continued to be advanced. They intend to depose Wells. 

Her attorney said the church had every right to compile what they did in preparing for a legal case. His question was, should they have. This was an extraordinarily skilled weave of a measured presentation of position and advocacy for protecting members.  There was no church bashing and repeated support of church members who were  people trying to do good.”

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70407-accuser-of-joseph-bishop-files-suit/?do=findComment&comment=1209808591

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

It was for publicity, that why press conferences are held.

Just from memory two other groups were given mention -  SNAP and the stop interviews with minors by Prieshtood Leaders.

 I did not hear anything that I would say was new to me. 

I am halfway through.  There has been nothing I heard that answered any questions yet.  And no new info about the case itself except a little background.  Denison as well left out a number of background details in her own description though added info about meeting with missionaries at age 15 and wanting to go on a mission as she was filled with a sense of divine purpose.  Also that she had a disturbing interview when she was to be baptized that had explicit questions and she believes that is why she thought it was appropriate to be alone in a room with Bishop.  There was nothing said about having a baby out of wedlock sometime before going on a mission.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

They intend to depose Wells. 

I think that will be unlikely.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[katherine the great]

This case is so disturbing on so many levels and just so incredibly sad. My original reaction was "No way!" but as I read the transcripts of her interview with him, I believed her. I thought it was sad that she had to resort to deception and part of me felt really sorry for him because he is elderly and in poor health. But if she did try to seek out help from the church and was constantly brushed off though, maybe her deception was necessary to bring his behavior to light.

The part that disturbs me the most is that it seems he purposely sought her out because he sensed her vulnerability from being victimized by her step father. That is classic predator behavior and sociopathic. What is not clear to me is how he knew that she had been a victim of childhood sexual abuse. I didn't watch the entire interview with her attorney, but the part of her story I heard did not account for how he gained access to that information. It sounded like he first asked her to bear her testimony, then to give a prayer and then called her into a group interview with other sisters who had been victims of abuse. Surely that information is not a part of a members records. Is there somewhere in a members' file that would record that information?

[Calm]

The first time she met him in the MTC was in his office with 4 other women, all apparently having been involved in sexual trauma.  There must have been annotations to their records or perhaps restrictions to the temple.  He was the one who granted her access to the temple even though she had a child out of wedlock.

He talks in the transcript about how often sisters exeriencing trauma in the past would start having triggers and would come to speak with him.

If she is honest, he may have sought them out rather than the reverse.  If he is telling the truth in that detail, he found out when they came to talk to him.  She might have come to talk to him about getting a recommend.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[katherine the great]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

The first time she met him in the MTC was in his office with 4 other women, all apparently having been involved in sexual trauma.  There must have been annotations to their records or perhaps restrictions to the temple.  He was the one who granted her access to the temple even though she had a child out of wedlock.

He talks in the transcript about how often sisters exeriencing trauma in the past would start having triggers and would come to speak with him.

If she is honest, he may have sought them out rather than the reverse.  If he is telling the truth in that detail, he found out when they came to talk to him.  She might have come to talk to him about getting a recommend.

Thanks for the reply Calm. This is interesting. I was in the MTC a couple of years before this event under a different MTC president. I received a temple recommend and my endowments before entering the MTC and wasn't aware that it was an option to even go to the MTC without those requirements being fulfilled. (I'm learning)  I do distinctly remember that the environment of the MTC made me start thinking about everything I had ever done that could possibly make me unworthy and meeting with my MTC Bishop about them. I could tell that he was a little bit amused that I would feel the need to confess such minor things, but for some reason I felt compelled to do so.

[Duncan]

25 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Thanks for the reply Calm. This is interesting. I was in the MTC a couple of years before this event under a different MTC president. I received a temple recommend and my endowments before entering the MTC and wasn't aware that it was an option to even go to the MTC without those requirements being fulfilled. (I'm learning)  I do distinctly remember that the environment of the MTC made me start thinking about everything I had ever done that could possibly make me unworthy and meeting with my MTC Bishop about them. I could tell that he was a little bit amused that I would feel the need to confess such minor things, but for some reason I felt compelled to do so.

I went to the MTC un endowed! this was in 1998. They had only two Temples in Canada at the time, one in Cardston (it was being cleaned or renovated or something) and the other was in Toronto but that was too far away. So, I went un endowed. I was endowed 10 days later, I think it took that long to get people's jaws off the ground that it was even possible to go un endowed I had a friend who joined the Church a year before he went on a mission and he also went un endowed to the Temple. One day they were going to the Temple and he said something like 'The Temple?  what the (slightly paraphrasing here) blankety blank is that?