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

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I thought she said previously she wasn't the one who leaked it to the media, aka Mormon Leaks and that she was fine with it so I don't know why now she is saying now that she leaked it

Technically, it was the lawyer who answered the question. What he said is that the legal team didn't give it to MormonLeaks, but that she had talked about it with lots of people and given copies to the media and that he didn't know who, precisely, gave a copy to MormonLeaks. But yes, they say they are glad it came out. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

The questions and answers were CLEAR, OPEN, OBVIOUS, DELIBERATE, SPECIFIC attacks on the Church and the Leadership of the Church and attacks on the integrity of LDS people....but like I said "silly me" for realizing those attacks are bashing. You can deny all you want, that is your right.

You're being ridiculous here.  Mckenna Denson and her attorneys could not have control over how the questions asked of them were worded.  You're really having to stretch here to even find anything that was in the questions that qualify for "bashing" the church (I agree with juliann and wonder if you even know what that word means???).

It's very unfair of you to accuse Denson and her attorneys of holding a press conference as part of an effort to engage in "church bashing" (if that's what you believe).

Mckenna Denson did not do any "church bashing" during the press conference.  If you still want to make that claim, please provide a direct quote by her.

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you had to pull in the audience to get to some criticism, eh? I repeat, she did not bash the church. That does not mean it was all praise. Do you not know what bash means?  

Thank you for continuing to show me why I have blocked your comments.

Did you even read my post? My post which was in transcript form from the person who asked the question. The responses of which are the responses of the victims attorneys AND the attorney used the term "WE" without clarification. So yes, continue in willful disregard for the truth and continue to misrepresent what I have posted.  The Attorney spoke on behalf of and for the client, and at the same time bashed the Church.  The victim verbally attached the Church concerning interview policies. The attorney using the phrase "we" attacked the integrity of the Church, the 1st Presidency, and the Quorum of the 12. 

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You're being ridiculous here.  Mckenna Denson and her attorneys could not have control over how the questions asked of them were worded.  You're really having to stretch here to even find anything that was in the questions that qualify for "bashing" the church (I agree with juliann and wonder if you even know what that word means???).

It's very unfair of you to accuse Denson and her attorneys of holding a press conference as part of an effort to engage in "church bashing" (if that's what you believe).

Mckenna Denson did not do any "church bashing" during the press conference.  If you still want to make that claim, please provide a direct quote by her.

I put the attorneys response is 48 font on purpose. I made the attorney's response in RED on purpose.  It is absurd of you to claim there was no bashing because the attorney or victim can not control what was asked.

 

1. On the issue of transparency and trust, how can we trust the Q15 to change their ways when they have been the ones to contribute to the problem and keep their finances secret?

2. Response: We [attorneys and the victim] wonder [how we can trust the Q15]

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

I put the attorneys response is 48 font on purpose. I made the attorney's response in RED on purpose.  It is absurd of you to claim there was no bashing because the attorney or victim can not control what was asked.

 

1. On the issue of transparency and trust, how can we trust the Q15 to change their ways when they have been the ones to contribute to the problem and keep their finances secret?

2. Response: We [attorneys and the victim] wonder [how we can trust the Q15]

That's not what I asked for though, is it?

But, I'm wondering what the complete sentence is for what you are quoting above?  Can you post that please and state who is speaking....and the actual quote leaving out the added words in the brackets?

Edited April 7, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Here are the actual quotes and answers (all by the attorney, not from Denson) from the examples that you are calling "church bashing", Provoman:

- "It's in Federal Court and so may not have an LDS judge but all judges who sense a conflict of interest can recuse themselves."  (No church bashing there.)

- "Well, I appreciate your opinion but that is how federal judges operate."  (No church bashing there.)

- "We wonder the same thing."  (No church bashing there.)

- "No." (No church bashing there.)

The attorney was simply answering the questions he was being asked.  So if those are the best attempts you can make, you've completely failed to show where either Denson or her attorneys engaged in bashing the church.

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

For those interested, here is a link to the PDF of the Complaint filed in federal court.

The case number in the header, "2:18-cv-00284-BCW," tells us who the assigned judge is.  "BCW" is Brooke C. Wells, a magistrate judge.  I litigated a complex case before her and was impressed with her adjudication of it.  She was thorough, dispassionate, and well-versed in the law and the facts.

Depending on how this case turns out, Judge Wells may not end up adjudicating it.  See here:

Quote

In civil proceedings, magistrate judges typically manage discovery and other pretrial matters. They are authorized to issue orders in pretrial matters as long as the order is not dispositive of the case as a whole (such as an order granting summary judgment). They may also be assigned to write reports and recommendations to the district judge as to dispositive matters. With the consent of the parties, they may adjudicate civil cases in the same manner as a district judge, including presiding over jury or non-jury trials.

Normally, a newly filed federal action is assigned by the clerk of the district court to a district judge and a magistrate judge (whose initials are then appended to the case number in most districts). In some districts, magistrates judges are assigned to work with certain district judges, although they may not do so on all categories of cases. In other districts, magistrate judges are randomly assigned to cases. The clerk runs a random selection procedure (in some courts, spinning a wheel) based on a list of all available district judges and then runs the same procedure based on a list of all available magistrate judges.

In the case I had before Judge Wells, I submitted a motion for summary judgment.  Judge Wells issued a long (27-page, IIRC) "Report and Recommendation," which the assigned District Court judge accepted 100%.  So if the Church files a Motion to Dismiss or a Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Wells may be assigned to write a "Report and Recommendation," which the assigned judge can then accept or reject, in whole or in part.  Or the assigned judge may prefer to handle any dispositive motions fully on his/her own, with no involvement by Judge Wells.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by smac97

[provoman]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here are the actual quotes and answers (all by the attorney, not from Denson) from the examples that you are calling "church bashing", Provoman:

- "It's in Federal Court and so may not have an LDS judge but all judges who sense a conflict of interest can recuse themselves."  (No church bashing there.)

- "Well, I appreciate your opinion but that is how federal judges operate."  (No church bashing there.)

- "We wonder the same thing."  (No church bashing there.)

- "No." (No church bashing there.)

The attorney was simply answering the questions he was being asked.  So if those are the best attempts you can make, you've completely failed to show where either Denson or her attorneys engaged in bashing the church.

 

 

 

Good grief, what an attempt to deny and a complete distegard for the truth.

We wonder the same thing id in DIRECT response to a question asked that was an attack on the Church. The answer, we wonder the same thing, is by virtue of the answer a complete acceptance of the bashing question as a truth.

Just please stop. Ample proof, verbatim proof, has been offered that the presse conference WAS NOT 100% DEVOID of Church bashing - which is Julianns postion and adopted by you. So I am done with playing this game with you.

 

You have the proof, the context, and the exact words...You are entitled to deny what is plainly before you.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

• Quote

  I just want to point out ... we did not have any part of leaking this to MormonLeaks ... McKenna, she leaked it to, she told a lot of people about that.  She said that to a lot of media.  We don't know which media did that {passed the recording on to MormonLeaks}.  And at first that was a shock to us.  We didn't know it was going to come out.  But, in retrospect, I appreciate MormonLeaks because MormonLeaks is doing what they are supposed to be doing.  That was a document that needed to have been leaked so that this story could be told.  They forced our hand.  The settlement negotiations shut down, and that's fine...

• There's a strong whiff of let's-make-the-best-of-a-bad-situation coming off of the above statement.  Mr. Vernon tacitly and in a roundabout way admits that his client has been lying about the "leak."  He is shocked - shocked!- to find that after his client had "leaked" (his word) the recording to "a lot of people" and "a lot of media," the recording . . . became public knowledge.  "We didn't know it was going to come out."  Yeah, sorry.  Not really buying that.  Not totally.  He may well not have known it was going to come out, but that is probably because he didn't know that his own client had leaked his key - and perhaps only - bargaining chip to "a lot of people" and "a lot of media."  That while he was in the middle of confidential settlement negotiations with the LDS Church's attorneys, his loose cannon of a client "forced {their} hand" and killed the negotiations.

That was the impression I got as well. Her attorneys are definitely trying to spin it as being a positive (no NDAs and the chance for litigation), but they were probably in a much better position before the tape came out. 

 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

Good grief, what an attempt to deny and a complete distegard for the truth.

We wonder the same thing id in DIRECT response to a question asked that was an attack on the Church. The answer, we wonder the same thing, is by virtue of the answer a complete acceptance of the bashing question as a truth.

Just please stop. Ample proof, verbatim proof, has been offered that the presse conference WAS NOT 100% DEVOID of Church bashing - which is Julianns postion and adopted by you. So I am done with playing this game with you.

 

You have the proof, the context, and the exact words...You are entitled to deny what is plainly before you.

You had to materially alter the quotes in order to support your position. Not a good look.

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

You had to materially alter the quotes in order to support your position. Not a good look.

CFR. Please show that I materially altered the quotes.

I put brackets for context - the brackets was after the “We” which showd that the we was the attorneys and victim.

You all seem very desparate to deny what happened, you all are entitled to deny.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by provoman

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

Yes, those are a few more new things I learned from the press conferenice.  Thanks.

I was not aware that he started out with first calling a small group of sisters in who had also been sexually abused and asked them inappropriate questions (Mckenna being one of them).

It would be interesting to know if it’s standard procedure for that type of confidential information to be given to the MTC president about any missionary coming there.  These sisters were abused but that doesn’t mean it should have been considered a past sin commited by them.   I would not like that breach of confidence (IMO) if it were me or my daughter. 

Why would their being sexually abused be a cause to impose “restrictions to the temple”?

And wouldn’t Mckenna (or any of the other girls) have had to repent of any sin she had committed (possibly involved with the conceiving her daughter) prior to going to the MTC?  Why would she have any temple restrictions at that point (in the MTC)?

They (press conference) did say something about wondering why Bishop had that info about these girls (maybe in the Q & A part?).  That was new too.

It would be good to know if she’d gone to the temple prior to entering the MTC.  Do we know this?

I also didn’t know his behavior towards her after the rape and when she was still in the MTC and had to see him.  That was new and interesting to hear her describe too.

The restriction for her with the temple was for having a child out of wedlock.  She said in her baptismal interview even though she had been sexually assaulted by her stepfather, she hadn't had sex yet, so the child came after she was baptized.

It is possible the other women had similar indiscretions it was felt should not hold them back from a mission, but might limit their access to the temple for a time.  Perhaps they had confessed after applying for a mission and they were still in the process of resolution.  

It is also possible she is lying and not him on this point and they sought him out as he explained.  His explanation that he was overwhelmed by the problem of counseling them and wanted to have a professional counselor to help instead of him was one of the most articulate, detailed, and independent things he said (it wasn't a result of him agreeing with her and then adding detail).  The emotion in his voice was appropriate to the stress he was describing rather than his affect being too mellow for admitting molestation, hearing he raped someone etc.  That story was one of the few things that read to me likely fully 'truth'.

 Having him call in the women is a stronger scenario for the lawsuit than them willingly coming to him.  I would have less suspicion of her crafting the story to present herself as more positive and him more villain if in telling her story she had included the fact that after baptism and prior to the mission she had a child out of wedlock.  She had said she owned her mistakes, ignoring a major one doesn't seem like owning it, imo.  

It also occurs to me that everyone I have talked to about it thought having a child out of wedlock would bar her from a mission.  If she had lied back when she applied and then confessed to Bishop, that would have been a big hold over her.  Haven't finished watching the press conference yet.  This would depend on the child being adopted through a nonLDS agency, which seems possible given the parents were nonLDS.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

While the conference was certainly one-sided, I wouldn't characterize it as being a church bashing press conference. 

Some of the questions were certainly out of left field, like the one about the strengthening the members committee, but I thought that was negated by the curious aside she had with her lawyer where she said they had been following her (to which her lawyer told her that they don't know that, before sitting turning back and saying that no, they had not been contacted by that committee). Weird.

 

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, provoman said:

Good grief, what an attempt to deny and a complete distegard for the truth.

We wonder the same thing id in DIRECT response to a question asked that was an attack on the Church. The answer, we wonder the same thing, is by virtue of the answer a complete acceptance of the bashing question as a truth.

Just please stop. Ample proof, verbatim proof, has been offered that the presse conference WAS NOT 100% DEVOID of Church bashing - which is Julianns postion and adopted by you. So I am done with playing this game with you.

 

You have the proof, the context, and the exact words...You are entitled to deny what is plainly before you.

Alarson posted the “exact words” which had no attacks or church bashing.  You only have words from those asking some questions and then you added their words (in bracket) to change the attorney’s words.  That’s not being honest here.

Edited April 7, 2018 by JulieM

[provoman]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Alarson posted the “exact words” which had no attacks or church bashing.  You only have words from those asking some questions and then you added their words (in bracket) to change the attorney’s words.  That’s not being honest here.

I did not change anyone words. Please stop, just please stop. Juliann has done a disservice to the discussikn by wrongly claiming there was no bashing. The bashing has been shown. Just please stop.

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

The restriction for her with the temple was for having a child out of wedlock.  She said in her baptismal interview even though she had been sexually assaulted by her stepfather, she hadn't had sex yet, so the child came after she was baptized.

Ok. Thanks, Calm.

What restrictions would there have been with the temple after she arrived to the MTC, do you know?   Wouldn’t those have had to be cleared before then?

Also, why would 5 girls all be called in to be questioned together who had previously been sexually abused?  (If you know or have thoughts on that.  I appreciate hearing your perspective.)

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

I did not change anyone words.

You used a quote where words had been added.

Read Alarson’s post to read what the attorney actually stated.

[provoman]

Just now, JulieM said:

You used a quote where words had been added.

Read Alarson’s post to read what the attorney actually stated.

words were adding to show who was speaking....that is a curteous thing to so that a reader can understand the context. Adding the brackets DID NOT alter the bashing.

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That was the impression I got as well. Her attorneys are definitely trying to spin it as being a positive (no NDAs and the chance for litigation), but they were probably in a much better position before the tape came out. 

That is my thought as well.  Frankly, I think the Church is in a position that is somewhat weak on facts (Joseph Bishop apparently did something very inappropriate while representing the Church, and other church actors - like the YSA bishop from the 80s, and possibly Elder Asay and/or Elder Wells - perpetuated the problem by not reporting it or disciplining Bishop), but actually pretty strong on the law (statute of limitations, virtually no evidence, substantial credibility issues for the plaintiff, priest/penitent privilege likely precludes a deposition of Wells).

Conversely, Denson's position is strong on "facts," or at least litigation posture (Joseph Bishop admitted to something on tape, we are in the #MeToo movement (and all its guilty-until-proven-innocent-and-maybe-even-after-that glory), this is a sensationalized scandal involving an organization with deep pockets, an aversion to litigation, a desire to protect its reputation, and sympathy for the survivor), but rather weak on the law (again, statute of limitations, virtually no evidence, substantial credibility issues, priest/penitent privilege likely precludes a deposition of Wells, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 7, 2018 by smac97

[readstoomuch]

I think that Ms. McKenna and the attorneys are trying to put the Church`s feet to the fire about this.  It is being tried before the public and through MormonLeaks.  All of that is distasteful and no one likes that.  McKenna and Craig Vernon (video on his practices website and press conference) have left the Church or at least they are no longer engaged.  They may be  doing the best they can to come across positive, but not let the Church off of the hook.  I think depending on how much is true, we as a people have a lot to think about.  The Book of Mormon talks about cunning words and lawyers.  We are part of a bigger society that has the same issues.  Sometimes we are offender for a word.

Ms. McKenna is like all of us, in that she is imperfect.  I would hope that we can all find the atonement to overcome our trials and sins.  I hope Mr Vernon and Ms. McKenna can.  

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

words were adding to show who was speaking....

No, the words that were added (in the brackets) WERE NOT the words of the person who was speaking, the attorney (but were the words of the person in the audience who asked the question).  

Just post the actual quote (minus the added words that the attorney did not speak), if you’re trying to be honest here.  I’m not sure why you don’t understand that?

Edited April 7, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

I thought she said previously she wasn't the one who leaked it to the media, aka Mormon Leaks and that she was fine with it so I don't know why now she is saying now that she leaked it

It seems slanted, iirc it was said she had given it to several friends, but had not given permission for it to be given to Mormonleaks or published.  Since she sent it to the media, that might be technically true, but is imo somewhat deceptive.  Her support of Mormonleaks postpublication comes across as much less magnanimous.

[ALarson]

47 minutes ago, provoman said:

You have the proof, the context, and the exact words...

Yes, I did post the exact words.....but you did not.  You added words that were not spoken by Denson's attorney.  

I imagine if someone was posting a quote from you, you would want your "exact words" to be used, not someone else's words added to your's and passed off as your words.  Just use what the attorney actually stated (which contain no church bashing....so I get that's why you're refusing to do that ).

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

I think that Ms. McKenna and the attorneys are trying to put the Church`s feet to the fire about this.  

I think Denson (McKenna is her first name) is a loose cannon.  They are presently "trying to put the Church's feet to the fire," but only after Denson killed ongoing settlement negotiations with the Church by "leaking" her own recording (likely without her attorney's knowledge or approval).

I think the original objective was to extract a big settlement from the Church based on the recording.  When Denson killed that, they went with a we're-on-a-crusade strategy.  

4 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

It is being tried before the public and through MormonLeaks.  All of that is distasteful and no one likes that.  

Yep.  I think Denson might come to regret going public.  She could have had a settlement and moved on with the rest of her life.  Instead, this story will follow her, and perhaps even define her, for the rest of her life.  The public airing of the terrible events in her life.  Her own misconduct.  All of it will be aired in the public sphere.

4 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

McKenna and Craig Vernon (video on his practices website and press conference) have left the Church or at least they are no longer engaged.  They may be  doing the best they can to come across positive, but not let the Church off of the hook.  I think depending on how much is true, we as a people have a lot to think about.  The Book of Mormon talks about cunning words and lawyers.  We are part of a bigger society that has the same issues.  Sometimes we are offender for a word.  Ms. McKenna is like all of us, in that she is imperfect.  I would hope that we can all find the atonement to overcome our trials and sins.  I hope Mr Vernon and Ms. McKenna can.  

I hope so, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

It seems slanted, iirc it was said she had given it to several friends, but had not given permission for it to be given to Mormonleaks or published.  Since she sent it to the media, that might be technically true, but is imo somewhat deceptive.  Her support of Mormonleaks postpublication comes across as much less magnanimous.

Her support of MormonLeaks also comes across as possibly collusive.  Like they both tried to pull one over on us.  Denson's deception was complaining about a "leak" that originated with her.  MormonLeaks was in damage control mode when a sexual assault survivor publicly complained about them publishing the recording without her consent (which could have alienated a lot of folks).  So did they get together in a you-scratch-my-back-and-we'll-scratch-hours type of arrangement to handle fallout from Denson's dishonesty and MormonLeaks' misstep?  And was the statement Denson posted on MormonLeaks the result of that collusion?  It sure comes across that way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 7, 2018 by smac97