Another Open Letter

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Jeanne,

I really dislike this kind of letter. First, this individual does not know jack from shine-ola about what has happened. She has set herself up as judge and jury and knowing nothing of the facts.  She read the newspaper and now has a knee-jerk response and has created an echo chamber for her own anger.  

My advice to thinking humans - how about you sit back and wait for the legal system to function. I know that many think that they are overly enlightened and want to make a rush to judgment, but just wait. 

Oh, and the moment you mention "Patriarchy" as if it is a slur, my eyes roll back, my head goes to one side, and I realize there is not going to be a lot of rational thought to follow....and there wasn't.  

She now has a five seconds of fame, please let's move on and let those in the judicial system say what did and did not happen after they have been given the opportunity to review facts rather than hearsay. 

Why are you slamming me...at least it feels that way.  I have a right to feel the way I do and I certainly don't intend to change anyone's mind.  I thought she was spot on.

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

The highest leaders give up their retirement years and work until they die or are too sick to work.

Not my idea of being served by others.

I need to work on my deliverance in posting...I know they're hardworking and have given up a certain way of life, but they should be looking out for all members in the church. For years they ignored the woman and protected the leader in a high position. That's what I meant to say. 

[cinepro]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

The problem with all this is that it really is mostly just a few bad apples and these specific incidents are blowing it all out proportion as if it is an out of control problem in the church.
Such things don't happen for 99.99% of the total church population. Of course corrections should be made if needed but things like these "open letters" written by a few unfortunate victims
being posted on the internet presents a bad impression to the rest of the world.

 

https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/mormonad-great-except-for-1118337?lang=eng

[Jeanne]

How hard is it to do the right the first time..like the way church outlines how you deal with issues like this in first place..they spend so much time hiding..then back tracking..which is more important..the people or the church as it is today?  It is not a few bad apples...and the very fear of it keeps people from a reality that it is everywhere.  Those bad apples happen to spoil onto others..from one generation to the next.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Jeanne

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm guessing our Commentary author has given him a listen.  I've gotten through about 3/4ths of this second part.  He certainly has knocked a few out of the park.  It is amazing to me how far the church will go to protect itself.  Absolutely appalling.  

I think the fact that it is a church that is taking the gloves off is the hard part to stomach.  Of course the church should be able to defend itself but its lawyer gathers a lot of irrelevant information like Denson having a child at 17 and giving it up for adoption.  The church is the source of this information.  Does that incident make Denson less credible?  Or is it used to embarrass someone into silence?  Obviously it's the latter.

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think this incident would have gone completely different if the church leaders had vowed to dig for answers to the allegations and if true, Bishop will be dealt with in the  harshes possible way. The church should have reinforced its no tolerance policy and the victim be compensated for her suffering. Instead the church went defensive and went the route of digging up dirt on the Victim.  What if a church apostle had met with Bishop and sat down with him to get to the bottom of what really happened. If Bishop was willing to admit abuse to a stranger, I think he would have been very straight with an apostle. Does any of this sound better than hiding behind lawyers?  

While the church says it deals harshly with these matters, the appearance says something else  nothing the church has done has given any impression of how seriously the church takes these allegations  THAT is what is causing such heartache

‘It is how the problem is addressed that makes all the difference

I don't know if you have listened to Consiglieri's podcast on this.  If not, here is a link to the first podcast and the 2nd is right below:  https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/03/radio-free-mormon-28-church-sex-scandal-cover/

[Exiled]

21 hours ago, JAHS said:

The problem with all this is that it really is mostly just a few bad apples and these specific incidents are blowing it all out proportion as if it is an out of control problem in the church.
Such things don't happen for 99.99% of the total church population. Of course corrections should be made if needed but things like these "open letters" written by a few unfortunate victims
being posted on the internet presents a bad impression to the rest of the world.

I agree that it is probably a small percentage that do these horrible things.  I think most believe that too.  However, I think the church's attempts at covering up the Bishop affair is what led to this letter of which you object.  The church's actions in providing church discipline information and her child out of wedlock that she put up for adoption information to the lawyer they hired shows that victims will be attacked and not ministered to if the accused is someone high up.  Hence, the letter.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

For years they ignored the woman and protected the leader in a high position. That's what I meant to say. 

The only one we know for sure who ignored her was Leavitt and that was back in 87, 30+ years ago when they didn't have the current safeguards in place.

In 2010 they did not ignore her or the other victim.  They chose to accept his denial, as far as we know the books were the only "high position" thing happening by then. Given his eagerness to share any special attention, it sounds like he was limited to lower positions like SS Counselor after the welfare calling or maybe after 2010.

I do think there likely should have been more action (the books should not have been published), but if it was a he said, she said situation at the time and he completely denied it, what would you have suggested be done as fair if it had been your husband in that situation?

From what Rongo described with the hotline procedure, there is a good chance his records were annotated in 2010 or at least some sort of record made of the two accusations.  Since we don't know how the second accusation was made, its content and if it was in connection with Denson's 2010 report, I don't believe "ignoring" is the right term.  They may or may not have given the accusations the level of attention they should have at the time given the info they were given.

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

The only one we know for sure who ignored her was Leavitt and that was back in 87, 30+ years ago when they didn't have the current safeguards in place.

In 2010 they did not ignore her or the other victim.  They chose to accept his denial, as far as we know the books were the only "high position" thing happening by then. Given his eagerness to share any special attention, it sounds like he was limited to lower positions like SS Counselor after the welfare calling or maybe after 2010.

I do think there likely should have been more action (the books should not have been published), but if it was a he said, she said situation at the time and he completely denied it, what would you have suggested be done as fair if it had been your husband in that situation?

From what Rongo described with the hotline procedure, there is a good chance his records were annotated in 2010 or at least some sort of record made of the two accusations.  Since we don't know how the second accusation was made, its content and if it was in connection with Denson's 2010 report, I don't believe "ignoring" is the right term.  They may or may not have given the accusations the level of attention they should have at the time given the info they were given.

What do you think of the church supplying the lawyer from Stoel Rives information on the adoption Denson had?  It looks like this was done to threaten Denson into silence.  Of course that is the wrong message that should be sent to victims, right?

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Why are you slamming me...at least it feels that way.  I have a right to feel the way I do and I certainly don't intend to change anyone's mind.  I thought she was spot on.

I did not intend to slam you.  I just disagree with your position.  How could she be spot on when she does not know the facts?  How could she possibly be able to make a judgment when she is ignorant of the facts?  

See, that is the problem with her entire post. First, she is angry.  Second, she is already predisposed to a position - nothing needed to happen and she was already angry at the "Patriarchy" of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I did not need to do anything to motivate her response. Bishop did not have to do anything. Not a single leader needed to do anything because she had already made her decision about how terrible the Mormon Patriarchy is.  

What is wrong with just sitting back and letting the judicial system work?  What if the victim is totally vindicated - Bishop is found guilty and the Mormon Church ends up paying this woman $28 Billion dollars?  Would it change the author of the letter?  Not one bit.  She would still be angry, still hate the Mormon Patriarchy and the world would go on.  

I personally have too much going on in my life to expend energy hating and being angry at people that I have no control over.  I will not be enrolled in her anger or her ignorance.  

[Calm]

On 2018-04-16 at 12:48 PM, Exiled said:

I think the fact that it is a church that is taking the gloves off is the hard part to stomach.  Of course the church should be able to defend itself but its lawyer gathers a lot of irrelevant information like Denson having a child at 17 and giving it up for adoption.  The church is the source of this information.  Does that incident make Denson less credible?  Or is it used to embarrass someone into silence?  Obviously it's the latter.

I agree the lawyer should have been instructed to only use relevant information.  Otoh, we cannot be completely sure the adoption itself was irrelevant completely as we don't know what was being claimed in the original settlement negotiations.  Denson included her baptismal interview in her press conference as part of the complaint, the treatment there setting her up to be raped...intent on demonstrating a pattern of behaviour by Church leadership.  Maybe the adoption process was also being used along those lines.  If so, the facts of the adoption being included would be appropriate just as the facts of the baptismal interview.

Denson was the one who mentioned the adoption first in the tape.  Checking to see if she was telling the truth of that and any other alleged facts in the interview would be standard imo to see if her story was consistent with the provable history or if it departed from it.  If there was no adoption or the adoption came after her mission, that would affect the credibility of her story.

However, it was completely wrong imo that the first daughter's name was attached to the file.  The only nonpressure tactic reason I can think of is she herself said she had limited contact with her mother and the legal team were considering if it was appropriate to call her to get her input about her mother's character.  The woman said she had tracked Denson down, that was likely through the FS records and the fact the information had been released to the child was probably on that record.  The name should not have been included in the file sharing imo (as long as it was legal not to share...it seems unlikely that if Vernon had demanded the lawyers turn over all records the Church had of Denson, which I certainly would have demanded if I were her lawyer, the Church lawyer wouldn't have released that infoin defense of his emailing the info out) as long as Vernon or Denson hadn't used it already.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

On 2018-04-16 at 1:12 PM, Exiled said:

What do you think of the church supplying the lawyer from Stoel Rives information on the adoption Denson had?  It looks like this was done to threaten Denson into silence.  Of course that is the wrong message that should be sent to victims, right?

The adoption may have been part of her story of mistreatment originally, just as her baptismal interview is now.  It would be an intelligent move on her part Imo.  Denson mentioned the adoption on the tape, so allowing the Church's lawyer access to that information to check her story makes sense to me...and that possibly might require sharing the info with others involved (a lawyer will have to speak up about that).

If it was not mentioned or used initially in a claim, then I do find the inclusion of an adoption of a child out of wedlock that was considered repented for at least originally or she would never have been allowed on a mission on volunteered records problematic.

But Denson did mention the adoption on the tape, so it seems basic to me it would be checked.

And, as I said above, it makes sense to me for a lawyer to demand all the records the Church has on their client if suing the Church for some sort of mistreatment.  The Church lawyer is keeping very tight lipped at this point, it is possible he is thinking more about keeping the settlement if there is one low as opposed to helping the Church's reputation at this point.  Or maybe it would be a breach of legal ethics to share that type of communications publicly?  Lawyers?

I need more info that is unlikely to be shared by Vernon or Jordan unless the case goes to trial to decide if it was victim shaming.  I accept there is a real possibility it was, but I think it is possible it wasn't given Denson was the first to bring up the adoption.

Does anyone know the timing that Greg Bishop got the records?  Before or after the release of the tape?  As far as I remember, it was after.  If after, then the fact of the adoption couldn't be used for victim shaming because Denson had already ensured it was a publc fact.  Only the name of the child could be used as a threat or pressure tactic.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Calm

[Jeanne]

29 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I did not intend to slam you.  I just disagree with your position.  How could she be spot on when she does not know the facts?  How could she possibly be able to make a judgment when she is ignorant of the facts?  

See, that is the problem with her entire post. First, she is angry.  Second, she is already predisposed to a position - nothing needed to happen and she was already angry at the "Patriarchy" of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I did not need to do anything to motivate her response. Bishop did not have to do anything. Not a single leader needed to do anything because she had already made her decision about how terrible the Mormon Patriarchy is.  

What is wrong with just sitting back and letting the judicial system work?  What if the victim is totally vindicated - Bishop is found guilty and the Mormon Church ends up paying this woman $28 Billion dollars?  Would it change the author of the letter?  Not one bit.  She would still be angry, still hate the Mormon Patriarchy and the world would go on.  

I personally have too much going on in my life to expend energy hating and being angry at people that I have no control over.  I will not be enrolled in her anger or her ignorance.  

SR...if the facts mattered...we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

SR...if the facts mattered...we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

LOL - it is good to have a sense of humor during these things that generate so much emotional response. At least I hope you have a good sense of humor.

I am not sure I understand what you mean. To me facts matter deeply. If someone has done something wrong they should be punished. However, if one is accused falsely should they still be punished?  Of course not.  

The fact that there is not a single person on this board; not a single person writing silly "open" letters to the LDS Church; not a single individual knows the full story except for the individuals directly involved.  Why do you think there is this need to rush to judgment?  Do you really think you know enough to condemn anyone in the matter?  If so, how do you know?  If not, and you are as ignorant as the rest of us, why do you find it so easy to condemn the LDS Church and its leaders?  

 

[BillyandJane]

On 4/15/2018 at 5:37 PM, Storm Rider said:

 

Oh, and the moment you mention "Patriarchy" as if it is a slur, my eyes roll back, my head goes to one side, and I realize there is not going to be a lot of rational thought to follow....and there wasn't.  

 

This is how I feel as of late when people tell me they 'know' the church is the one and only true church because of feelings.  You can't argue, meaning have a rational discussion, when people just default to warm feelings they experienced to dictate to them the absolute truths in the world, never mind a real fact you want to discuss.  

[Thinking]

On 4/15/2018 at 6:37 PM, Storm Rider said:

First, this individual does not know jack from shine-ola about what has happened.

How do you know what her level of knowledge is?

On 4/15/2018 at 6:37 PM, Storm Rider said:

My advice to thinking humans - how about you sit back and wait for the legal system to function.

This makes no sense, and it's not what the Church has done in the past. When the allegations against the Lone Peak seminary principal came out, the Church investigated and he was released long before the legal process played out.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Thinking said:

How do you know what her level of knowledge is?

This makes no sense, and it's not what the Church has done in the past. When the allegations against the Lone Peak seminary principal came out, the Church investigated and he was released long before the legal process played out.

And the legal system allows for settlements which generally tell us little about what really happened.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/15/2018 at 3:27 PM, Tacenda said:

I wish the church would behave like the Saviour would want.

A serious question....how would the Savior respond?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The fact that there is not a single person on this board; not a single person writing silly "open" letters to the LDS Church; not a single individual knows the full story except for the individuals directly involved.  Why do you think there is this need to rush to judgment?  Do you really think you know enough to condemn anyone in the matter?  If so, how do you know?  If not, and you are as ignorant as the rest of us, why do you find it so easy to condemn the LDS Church and its leaders?  

This is Gossip on display in all its glory.

Quote

Proverbs 26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.

 

[Marginal Gains]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I am not sure I understand what you mean. To me facts matter deeply. If someone has done something wrong they should be punished. However, if one is accused falsely should they still be punished?  Of course not. 

Do you think Greg Bishop did anything wrong in sending his Dads victims personal Church information to various media outlets? 

Do you think the Church leadership did anything wrong in giving David Jordan (Church lawyer) access to the victims Church disciplinary record and LDS adoption services records?

[why me]

17 hours ago, Jeanne said:

How hard is it to do the right the first time..like the way church outlines how you deal with issues like this in first place..they spend so much time hiding..then back tracking..which is more important..the people or the church as it is today?  It is not a few bad apples...and the very fear of it keeps people from a reality that it is everywhere.  Those bad apples happen to spoil onto others..from one generation to the next.

I know. It is difficult to find perfect people. I wish that I could find someone perfect or even a perfect organization where all act perfect in it. But I don't think that it is possible. Personally, we are all on this earth to learn from our mistakes and from our shortcomings. What is the church except a group of people who are far from perfect.However, at the end of the day, it has no reflection on the book of mormon and the truth claims of the lds church.

[why me]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Do you think Greg Bishop did anything wrong in sending his Dads victims personal Church information to various media outlets? 

Do you think the Church leadership did anything wrong in giving David Jordan (Church lawyer) access to the victims Church disciplinary record and LDS adoption services records?

Maybe. But what to do with imperfect people who may act in imperfect ways?

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A serious question....how would the Savior respond?

He wouldn't paint the victim as maybe being the wrong kind of girl, so to speak.

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Do you think Greg Bishop did anything wrong in sending his Dads victims personal Church information to various media outlets? 

Do you think the Church leadership did anything wrong in giving David Jordan (Church lawyer) access to the victims Church disciplinary record and LDS adoption services records?

Marginal Gains,

The actions of Greg Bishop and his efforts to protect his 85 year old father, imo, can be overlooked as protecting his father. What would you do if your father was 85 years old and a person lies about who she is, interviews your dad under false pretenses, threatens to kill him, and then alleges a horrible rape that your father did some 30 years prior? How would you respond?  Would you immediately go out and put up a stake to burn your father or do you think you might try and defend him?  

I don't know what was in these records. If there is anything that could be pertinent to the lawsuit against the Church then the release of the documents is appropriate.  If the details of these documents have no bearing the lawsuit then their release is inappropriate.

I get the impression that you have never been in a lawsuit of any kind, which is the norm for most Americans.  I have been involved in a few lawsuits while serving as an investment manager for institutional clients in order to protect their assets.  The moment that a lawsuit begins your attorney controls what is and what is not needed or required for them to do their job to the best of their ability.  If the attorney asks for information are you capable of knowing what is and what is not needed?  

What I believe is best is that those who committed wrong are punished. I don't care if they are a church, a leader in a church, or a member of any church.  I also think that if anyone that brings a lawsuit against another person or entity and is found to be lying in any degree they also should be punished in equal manner.  The objective of a legal system, imo, is to find and obtain justice - I don't think our system always does that, but it is the best we have at present.

[Storm Rider]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

How do you know what her level of knowledge is?

This makes no sense, and it's not what the Church has done in the past. When the allegations against the Lone Peak seminary principal came out, the Church investigated and he was released long before the legal process played out.

Thinking, was the letter writer the individual involved in the lawsuit?  If not, she does not know what happened.  If you are saying they do know, please tell me how they know all the facts?

What part of waiting for the judicial system to function makes no sense?