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

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

 What doesn't make sense is why Bishop called those 5 sisters into his office like he did. 

This assumes she is telling the truth, does it not?  That they were there on Bishop's initiative.  There was just her word about being called out with no prior personal contact.  The same about bearing her testimony and being called on to say the prayer.  These details are highly unlikely to be recalled one way or the other by anyone at the MTC at the time unless perhaps they were the ones who did it.  Denson could claim she was confused over timing, it seemed such a big deal to her she remembered it as first if the unlikely happens and someone shows up with a journal entry proving they were first.

Assuming her version is true, still doesn't require the sisters to have been called in for repentance.  He could have been using the cover of ensuring they were over their trauma as a reason to ask them sexually explicit questions through a group counseling session.  Remember the transcript has him playing the role of counselor because the leadership refused to pay for a counselor.  While that could be a lie and an excuse to cover his looking for prey, it was very detailed and his emotion hit the right notes...if a lie, it was one he had been practicing a long, long time.  His usual mode to respond to an accusation in the transcript was much more vagueness and emotional whinniness, though he still did his usual "it was someone else's fault" (usually his wife, often leaders, also God) routine.

Bishop's story of women coming to him for counseling of trauma survivors gives a reason for him to be holding a group session.  Not being a professional and totally out of his depth, he goes about it wrong and that would be his excuse for asking sexual questions if he got called on it.  That version of him counseling seems highly probable.  I think he is also good at lying (I believe Tyler said something to that back in the 80s), so who knows.  It could be a very well thought out story with enough true details that could be verified (when a counselor started to work at the MTC)  he came up with after he got accused in 2010 involving people who were now dead, so no way to check.  It is possible he got a counselor as soon as he asked for one, but he didn't asked (so he could keep having excuses to ask sexually explicit questions) until the suicide attempt put him in a dangerous position.

If we could find out if such details would be shared in a missionary's records, it would be very helpful.  Past abuse might be in an application under potential issues, I assume there is something like that for physical and mental challenges...maybe something like "have you ever seen a therapist?"  My son filled out his own, I have no clue.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

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

 

That's odd, because you are now responding to something that you claim you didn't see.   Do you not know what blocked means either? 

[Calm]

I can't wait until I finish watching it...was there any info on what was accurate and false for the criminal charges?  I am very, very, very curious about the claim of identity theft in New Mexico iirc back in February.  If that charge is true, her demeanor in this interview is less likely a result of a current good character, having learned from her past mistakes and matured as it was presented in the beginning of the press conference and more likely, imo, the skills of a good con woman.

Knowing manipulative people unfortunately doesn't let me trust either of them (Bishop and Denson) too much.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I don't know if any other sister missionaries who were there at that time have come forward.  

(It would also be important to know if they were endowed prior to entering the MTC as well.)

I think this is assuming something not necessary.  The transcript gives a reason for them to be there, counseling for trauma.

[Jeanne]

54 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.

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.

Having a child out of wedlock and not being able to go on a mission...would this be so for anyone who had gone through a repentance process also?  I am surprised..I did not know this.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

It is very fair and accurate for me to make the accusation. Would you like me to copy and paste the post HeberSeeGull made on reddit about the Church bashing question  asked?

The railings against interviews by McKenna were Church bashing.

It’s unfair of you to suggest that I am not being truthful about something, there was definately bashing. 

I agree there was Church bashing, but I think "railings" is too far.

I think framing the lawsuit as not about her or even Bishop, but about General Authorities promoting and protecting sexual predators qualifies as Church bashing.  This was done several times during the promotion of the Sam Young movement as well as applauding the courage of Crystal Legionaires ( a couple of times iirc).  Also about there needing to be a safer Church where victims were not subject to shaming through collecting dossiers, etc. 

Any bashing was focused on General Authorities and counterbalanced with an appreciation of the general membership, so it was a light touch, imo, but still bashing as it pretty much addressed upper leadership as one and did not single out individuals.  What happened was not the exception of rogue leadership, but of a culture...for example, it needed to be yelled out in conference that the Church promotes sexual predators and she would not have been raped in the MTC except for having a sexually explicit interview at 15 (ignoring her sexual history as a contributor is a red flag to me, but I am trying to not inflate it as it makes sense in framing the lawsuit whether it is a con, valid on every point, or somewhere in the middle...the last is my current belief given how Denson is currently sharing information, presenting herself as owning her mistakes, but not actually being willing to deal with it...if she does later on, I might change my mind).

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[readstoomuch]

Man you said that well Calm!  You are so wonderful on this hard stuff.

[Calm]

Quote

Her attorney framed the cessation of settlement discussions with the Church as being caused by the "leak" ("'Since the leak, there have been no further settlement discussions' with the LDS Church, the woman’s attorney, Craig Vernon, confirmed to The Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday. 'My client deserves justice.'").  But now, it seems, we know that it was Denson who undermined and scuttled the settlement discussions.  She then lied and blamed MormonLeaks (and/or an unidentified friend of her) for the "leak."

There was an expert attorney (Skordas iirc) stating the dossier's depth significance was Jordan demonstrating there was to be no settlement...this might have just been positioning or the actual position of the Church's legal team.

It is possible this triggered the leak of the tape by Denson to the media and her friends.  Imo, she would have to be dense to think no one would leak it in this day and age, while this allowed her to not do the deed herself.  She may have believed it would create more pressure publicly than it would remaining private, but she may have been premature if the dossier was a move to better position the Church and not to shut down the negotiations.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Having a child out of wedlock and not being able to go on a mission...would this be so for anyone who had gone through a repentance process also?  I am surprised..I did not know this.

I don't know, it was just what was said.  They were surprised.  They may be wrong.  Or it might depend on if it happened as an adult or a minor.  None of them were Church leaders at the time, things may have changed by the time they were signing off on missionary applications or helping their kids fill them out.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

Man you said that well Calm!  You are so wonderful on this hard stuff.

Thank you, but I suspect it is simply my suspicious mind...I have too much experience with hearing two people tell the same story and it coming out completely different due to what points they give weight to.  It doesn't even have to be lying, can be completely sincere, but when someone says one thing in a general sense but another when the details come...I tend to pay attention.  For me the real story comes out in the details, I need to be careful not to allow general statements colour the details so much I ignore what is relevant.  

Generally speaking, I never believe either side to get it all right these days.

I don't know if I am successful in this case, just explaining why I am approaching it like I am.  Undoubtedly I am getting something wrong, that is a given in my view.  The question is whether it is big enough to dump my reasoning or not.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was an expert attorney (Skordas iirc) stating the dossier's depth significance was Jordan demonstrating there was to be no settlement...this might have just been positioning or the actual position of the Church's legal team.

Yes, having all the facts available is pretty standard for settlement negotiations.

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is possible this triggered the leak of the tape by Denson to the media and her friends.  Imo, she would have to be dense to think no one would leak it in this day and age, while this allowed her to not do the deed herself.  

I agree.  Which makes her attorney's "we were shocked when the recording leaked" schtick at the press conference comes across as a bit of Kabuki Theatre.  

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

She may have believed it would create more pressure publicly than it would remaining private, but she may have been premature if the dossier was a move to better position the Church and not to shut down the negotiations.

I suspect she leaked it without her attorney's involvement, who would have sought to maximize the leverage he had against the Church (a big part of which, from a legal perspective, was the "carrot" of a private negotiated settlement instead of the "stick" of the sensationalized scandal we have now).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

That's odd, because you are now responding to something that you claim you didn't see.   Do you not know what blocked means either? 

You can still see a blocked comment if someone else quotes it in a response post. And you can unblock an individual post for the purpose of responding to it. 

Just sayin’. 

[Jeanne]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't know, it was just what was said.  They were surprised.  They may be wrong.  Or it might depend on if it happened as an adult or a minor.  None of them were Church leaders at the time, things may have changed by the time they were signing off on missionary applications or helping their kids fill them out.

Thank you!!

[readstoomuch]

Too many people don’t think Calm.  I don’t think it matters who you are talking about.  Withhold judgement and weigh all the information falls to the wayside too often.

[readstoomuch]

Having explored Craig Vernon he does have an agenda.  His firm is built around abuse claims for large, mostly religious organizations.  The publicity helps get his name out there. Vernon still has active relatives in Hayden Lake Idaho area.  Sure wonder what they think.  Finally, i hear he is quite the negotiator and strategist.  

[Calm]

On 2018-04-07 at 11:55 AM, 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. 

 

I am not sure about that, so far the media is presenting it as definitely putting up Denson as victim and Bishop as bad guy, while Church leadership is in a more iffy position (media is more careful than most people to use "alleged" when it comes to leadership's actual involvement). 

However, outside of one or two reports, there has been imo remarkably little said about Denson's criminal history, especially the most recent police report on victim identity theft.  If her criminal background becomes more of a talking point as well as the admission she was the one who sent the tape to media comparing it to her previous 'surprise' at it being released, the tide might shift against her and releasing the tape will ultimately result in less pressure on the Church, not the greater it currently appears to be.  It seems unlikely to me though.  If Denson lets her lawyer drive, he seems very competent in dealing with the press.  Having the daughter's letter read by the friend creates a good character picture, for example.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

Having explored Craig Vernon he does have an agenda.  His firm is built around abuse claims for large, mostly religious organizations.  The publicity helps get his name out there. Vernon still has active relatives in Hayden Lake Idaho area.  Sure wonder what they think.  Finally, i hear he is quite the negotiator and strategist.  

Of course he has an agenda.  Everyone does in a lawsuit.  The question is if deception is being used as part of that agenda or if he is just a great victim's advocate.

Think I am caught up, need to eat breakfast and do some work.  Not sure if I will get back to the press conference before bedtime (and pre sleep aid, skipped it last night because too toasted).

Jeanne, have you been able to listen to it yet?  That will influence how detailed I make my 'report' or if itvis even a report as opposed to just more questions and comments.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You can still see a blocked comment if someone else quotes it in a response post. And you can unblock an individual post for the purpose of responding to it. 

Just sayin’. 

But someone didn't quote it ;-) And what is the point of proclaiming that you are blocking someone if you unblock them to read the comments?  I understand blocking, I just don't understand proudly announcing it at the same time you are responding to what you claim you can't see. LOL

[readstoomuch]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Of course he has an agenda.  Everyone does in a lawsuit.  The question is if deception is being used as part of that agenda or if he is just a great victim's advocate.

That is the 64,000 dollar question.

[Calm]

One idea that popped up in my head about the polygraph (which as I mentioned before is a negative for me since I know they can easily be tricked and so are pretty much useless in a legal setting, while the idea of being able to objectively know truth from lies is so appealing  it is a big plus in public opinion it seems to me)...Vernon may be pushing it (he held it up at least twice in the news conference, stated she passed with flying colours, and offered to,send it to anyone) is to off set her criminal history of deception.  If he knows that is likely to become a mainstay of the conversation to come, creating a view of her being fully truthful in this case is essential.

[Jeanne]

Calm, if you can answer...what is your take right now on this case.  Is there a reason why you are skeptical (other than lawyers) of this woman's statements?  I know that we don't know everything...but right now..are you more inclined to believe her or disbelieve her?  BTW:  I ask this question to all mormon women on this board today..if you may answer..thank you.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Calm, if you can answer...what is your take right now on this case.  Is there a reason why you are skeptical (other than lawyers) of this woman's statements?  I know that we don't know everything...but right now..are you more inclined to believe her or disbelieve her?  BTW:  I ask this question to all mormon women on this board today..if you may answer..thank you.

I am skeptical because of what she and her lawyers are leaving out.  As far as I can tell everything claimed about Bishop where Denson is not present is currently belong presented as if there is outside info providing/confirming those details when it seems likely it was from the tape (except for the Tyler Title IX lawsuit and history...where Tyler made it clear, iirc, there was nothing sexual in his behaviour towards women).  I am skeptical because anything beyond a vague acknowledgement she has erred in the past and a strong "I own them", any details that might impact a perception of her as untrustworthy are being left out (no child out of wedlock, no threatening to kill Bishop in 2010 and iirc being told the statue of limitations was up by police, I remember a report that stated she had been told multiple times this and pointing out she therefore lied to Bishop about itvin the tape, which I have no problem with though the fact she lied to get the interview and then lied in it is one of the facts I have yet to see her address in the press conference).

I am also not comfortable with her 13 year old daughter's name and face being used as a character witness for her. I would not allow that to happen as a mother even if my daughter demanded it.

I am skeptical of Bishop because he also says in effect "I own my mistakes" while in reality he tells the story of them by putting the blame on everyone else, kids for bullying him because he was small; his wife for not loving him, for no sex in their marriage; church leaders by not giving him support when he asked for it; the Florida woman for attempting to seduce him, the suicidal sister missionary for nagging him into giving her a backrub; even God for confusing him by giving him all these great spiritual experiences while he was having difficulties.

I have no clue if he raped her, I would not be surprised.  Him being inappropriately involved with women, including abuse because he took advantage of younger, vulnerable women under his authority even if consensual, I believe that.  He was too eager to blame others.  Whether he was reckless enough to actually assault a woman (no consent even coerced), I don't know.  He comes off a coward, but that could be age or just manipulation.  Her talking to Asay, I am highly skeptical of as the bishop comes across as really believing she was a basketcase and thus likely was completely dismissive of her and I doubt Bishop would forget Asay confronting him and I think he would use it to his advantage...though he was confronted by his local leaders likely twice (it might have been at the same time if the complaint from the two victims in 2010 was a joint complaint or happened about the same time) in 2010 and iirc said no oneleader had ever talked to him about the abuse accusations in the tape, so it is possible he is lying about Asay.  He was such a name dropper in the tape, it just seems unlikely.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am skeptical because of what she and her lawyers are leaving out.  As far as I can tell everything claimed about Bishop where Denson is not present is currently belong presented as if there is outside info providing/confirming those details when it seems likely it was from the tape (except for the Tyler Title IX lawsuit and history...where Tyler made it clear, iirc, there was nothing sexual in his behaviour towards women).  I am skeptical because anything beyond a vague acknowledgement she has erred in the past and a strong "I own them", any details that might impact a perception of her as untrustworthy are being left out (no child out of wedlock, no threatening to kill Bishop in 2010 and iirc being told the statue of limitations was up by police, I remember a report that stated she had been told multiple times this and pointing out she therefore lied to Bishop about itvin the tape, which I have no problem with though the fact she lied to get the interview and then lied in it is one of the facts I have yet to see her address in the press conference).

I am also not comfortable with her 13 year old daughter's name and face being used as a character witness for her. I would not allow that to happen as a mother even if my daughter demanded it.

I am skeptical of Bishop because he also says in effect "I own my mistakes" while in reality he tells the story of them by putting the blame on everyone else, kids for bullying him because he was small; his wife for not loving him, for no sex in their marriage; church leaders by not giving him support when he asked for it; the Florida woman for attempting to seduce him, the suicidal sister missionary for nagging him into giving her a backrub; even God for confusing him by giving him all these great spiritual experiences while he was having difficulties.

I have no clue if he raped her, I would not be surprised.  Him being inappropriately involved with women, including abuse because he took advantage of younger, vulnerable women under his authority even if consensual, I believe that.  He was too eager to blame others.  Whether he was reckless enough to actually assault a woman (no consent even coerced), I don't know.  He comes off a coward, but that could be age or just manipulation.  Her talking to Asay, I am highly skeptical of as the bishop comes across as really believing she was a basketcase and thus likely was completely dismissive of her and I doubt Bishop would forget Asay confronting him and I think he would use it to his advantage...though he was confronted by his local leaders likely twice (it might have been at the same time if the complaint from the two victims in 2010 was a joint complaint or happened about the same time) in 2010 and iirc said no oneleader had ever talked to him about the abuse accusations in the tape, so it is possible he is lying about Asay.  He was such a name dropper in the tape, it just seems unlikely.

Thank you so much...I appreciate you perspective and honesty.

[katherine the great]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Having a child out of wedlock and not being able to go on a mission...would this be so for anyone who had gone through a repentance process also?  I am surprised..I did not know this.

The rules may have changed a time or two. If memory serves, the was a time when one could have had a child out of wedlock, gone through the repentance process and could still serve if the child had been adopted (probably varied from case to case and special permission from GA required). No young man could serve if he had any legal/financial obligation for a child.

[juliann]

47 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Calm, if you can answer...what is your take right now on this case.  Is there a reason why you are skeptical (other than lawyers) of this woman's statements?  I know that we don't know everything...but right now..are you more inclined to believe her or disbelieve her?  BTW:  I ask this question to all mormon women on this board today..if you may answer..thank you.

I believe each side will manipulate and twist facts to their advantage. That is why no one trusts lawyers and courts anymore. That aside, for me it is more about what I believe about him. The stories that came out about Weber College sealed the deal for me after he admitted to egregious behavior in the tape. I have no reason, none, to disbelieve HIM.  There is no room for what he seems to think were little slips. He has to be held to a higher standard as a Mission Prez. The family has made no claim of "senility." He appears to be living on his own. I'm not buying the incompetency excuse. 

There is also a scandal developing at USU in the music department. This isn't directly to the church, but it shows that we are only beginning to scratch the service of how pervasive this is and how long it can go on without any intervention.