Did Mckenna Denson Meet With Thomas S. Monson After MTC?

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I read every letter that was sent and studied the handbook.  I never had an issue of abuse arise in my time as a counselor or I would have gone back to the handbook as I frequently did with other questions. 

Somehow we got off on this tangent of a hotline.  My point all along has been that, as a church, we still have areas where we need to improve in this area.  Do you disagree?

rockpond, I'm a counselor in the Bishopric and I have never called the hotline or needed to know the number.  I served in another Bishopric where the same happened.  

There was one time where I made sure the Bishop immediately talked to a sister in our ward and I know that he did call the hotline.

So they are making a big deal out of nothing, IMO.  

(And no...I'm not saying that sexual abuse is "nothing"....just that sometimes counselors aren't in a position where they actually use the hotline number, although I'm sure there are some who might.)

Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

rockpond, I'm a counselor in the Bishopric and I have never called the hotline or needed to know the number.  I served in another Bishopric where the same happened.  

There was one time where I made sure the Bishop immediately talked to a sister in our ward and I know that he did call the hotline.

So they are making a big deal out of nothing, IMO.  

(And no...I'm not saying that sexual abuse is "nothing"....just that sometimes counselors aren't in a position where they actually use the hotline number, although I'm sure there are some who might.)

You guys have totally confused me.  It seemed like not knowing about the hotline as a counselor was bothering rockpond, it seemed important to him that the Church provide him with that knowledge.  My apologies if I misinterpreted.

I was responding to these comments by rockpond:

Quote

I served as a counselor in a bishopric for almost 5 years and was never instructed on this or informed of a hotline.

Quote

And if the allegation of abuse had been against the bishop?  It seems I would need to know about the hotline.  I performed countless interviews and, as you know, at times had to act as Bishop when he was not there.

I meant to demonstrate the Church had provided an easy way for him to know about the hotline...the Handbook.

It just seems weird to me to be overly critical to complain that the Church didn't inform him about the hotline when they did.  Complaining the Church didn't make that same info easily accessible to the rest of the ward (say by putting it into Handbook 2 online or a Gospel Topic essay and encouraging everyone to study it) would be a not overly  critical complaint in my view.  I think there are a lot of valid complaints out there.  I just don't see the Church not telling counselors about the hotline is one of them because I think they do through the Handbook (and I don't have any problem with someone not reading the parts of the .Handbook they don't need...I agree that would be low priority...no one but decorating committees need to know straw is banned from chapels for example (I had a lot of free time as a ward librarian as we had it opened on activity nights, I read the handbooks to pass time).

 If rockpond was not pushing for the Church to tell counselors about the hotline but saying something else, then I feel better that there is less frustration towards the Church on his part than I got the impression there was.  I see unnecessary frustration as ...unnecessary.

I am very, very happy to hear neither of you needed to actually know about the hotline in your service and am really hoping that was not because victims were silent or tons just went straight to the bishop...though I suspect most do.

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

You guys have totally confused me.  It seemed like not knowing about the hotline as a counselor was bothering rockpond, it seemed important to him that the Church provide him with that knowledge.  My apologies if I misinterpreted.

I was responding to these comments by rockpond:

I meant to demonstrate the Church had provided an easy way for him to know about the hotline...the Handbook.

It just seems weird to me to be overly critical to complain that the Church didn't inform him about the hotline when they did.  Complaining the Church didn't make that same info easily accessible to the rest of the ward (say by putting it into Handbook 2 online or a Gospel Topic essay and encouraging everyone to study it) would be a not overly  critical complaint in my view.  I think there are a lot of valid complaints out there.  I just don't see the Church not telling counselors about the hotline is one of them.

 If rockpond was not pushing for the Church to tell counselors about the hotline but saying something else, then I feel better that there is less frustration towards the Church on his part than I got the impression there was.  I see unnecessary frustration as ...unnecessary.

I am very, very happy to hear neither of you needed to actually know about the hotline in your service and am really hoping that was not because victims were silent or tons just went straight to the bishop...though I suspect most do.

 

Thanks, Calm. 

I don’t think I ever claimed that a hotline didn’t exist.  Just that I didn’t see it as being well publicized. 

I never intended for my comments to get pigeon-holed into that one singular issue when I suggested that we have room to improve within the Church. 

I think there are cultural issues that need to be addressed.  Leavitt claims he didn’t want to sully the reputation of a church leader.  Do we have evidence that such a response would no longer happen within the church?

Is anyone tracking data on abuse cases reported to priesthood leaders?

Do we need to examine policies regarding solo interviews and what questions are asked?

If a RS President is told, confidentially, about inappropriate actions by a bishop but her concern is not properly addressed by the SP, does she have easy access to reach out to someone in authority?

Would we benefit from hearing out Prophet speak to the issues surrounding this case and what the Brethren have done to help prevent similar incidents?

[Calm]

RP, I find all your questions in this post to be reasonable ones.  Don't have info on any of them (which could be seen as another issue), but do have an observation on one of them.

Quote

Leavitt claims he didn’t want to sully the reputation of a church leader.  Do we have evidence that such a response would no longer happen within the church?

I hope that such a response is less frequent as time goes on.  I have no clue how widespread that type of attitude was or is, but I think it is likely less common these days because of both church instruction and the general society's attitude towards sexual abuse and any abuse at all as well as a less common attitude in general of high loyalty to organizations (people change jobs more frequently, I believe I have seen data that shows higher rates of changes between attending churches as well).  Political loyalty....that seems to have gone up, but perhaps that is only the Internet making me more aware of the debates.

However, I also believe that there will always be people who are so invested in/identifying with the Church, that they will always place it above an individual's need and likely be comfortable justifying such treatment by thinking of all the good the Church does for others...an unhealthy use of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" standard.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

RP, I find all your questions in this post to be reasonable ones.  Don't have info on any of them (which could be seen as another issue), but do have an observation on one of them.

I hope that such a response is less frequent as time goes on.  I have no clue how widespread that type of attitude was or is, but I think it is likely less common these days because of both church instruction and the general society's attitude towards sexual abuse and any abuse at all as well as a less common attitude in general of high loyalty to organizations (people change jobs more frequently, I believe I have seen data that shows higher rates of changes between attending churches as well).  Political loyalty....that seems to have gone up, but perhaps that is only the Internet making me more aware of the debates.

However, I also believe that there will always be people who are so invested in/identifying with the Church, that they will always place it above an individual's need and likely be comfortable justifying such treatment by thinking of all the good the Church does for others...an unhealthy use of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" standard.

Thanks.  And they were meant to be rhetorical. 

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

The tape was given to them in early or mid January.  Mormonleaks released the tape mid March...just so no one assumes when you said "months" you meant anything over 'two months '.

I looked at Mormonleaks to confirm the time of the publication of the leak and came across an interesting fact I had missed before.

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:2017-11-28-Brigham_Young_University_Police-Incident_Report_REDACTED-Pre_Audio_Leak.pdf

This means Mormonleaks was aware of the tape by January 11 or before.  Whether or not they were given the tape by Denson or someone Denson gave the tape to, the Church also received the transcript in January ( trying to track down the actual date, if anyone knows it, please post).  It seems unlikely in that short time that someone passed it onto Mormonleaks, at least on their own without instruction from Denson.

It comes across to me like it was Denson's intention all along to make the tape public.  Why else was it released by her almost as soon if not at the same time as it was given to the Church?  Would they have even met to discuss settlements at that time?

Denson had to have started giving out the tape likely no more than a week (ten days at most assuming Mormonleaks asked for the report on the same day they received the transcript and obtained the first redacted report the same day they asked for it) and possibly less.

I think you are probably right.  And, while I am just guessing, I wouldn't be surprised if the motivation for making this tape was to get this issue out in the public.  After all, trying to handle it through traditional church chain of command didn't work.  Trying to handle it through police reporting didn't work.  What other option did she have  She was determined to have this issue dealt with.  Think about how this event affected her life.  At some point she probably quit caring about whether it embarrassed the church.  According to her, they dffinitely had their chance to do the right thing.  They failed her in every way.  After 30 years, I think she felt it needed to be dealt with one way or another.  

[california boy]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

If anything, the only evidence in view is that she did not meed with Elder Asay.  She claims that she disclosed to her YSA bishop, Ron Leavitt, and that Ron Leavitt arranged for her meeting with Elder Asay.  

And yet Leavitt denies that Denson "did not use the words rape or attempted rape, instead describing other misconduct."

Leavitt also denies that he reported Denson's claims to the Church (which undermines her claim that he arranged for her to meet with Elder Asay).

Leavitt's anticipated testimony would, I think, be competent, probative and admissible.  It may also tend to undermine some pretty fundamental portions of Denson's narrative.

But Leavitt's testimony may not matter anyway, since this case may never get to trial.  Statute of limitations, laches, priest/penitent privilege, etc. are significant hurdles to overcome.  I suspect Denson's attorneys recognize this.  I also suspect that the Church may not want to resolve this matter on legal technicalities, and may want to provide some compensation to Denson.  While there are some very real weaknesses in her legal case, I think it's more likely than not that something bad (even if not rape or attempted rape) happened to her while she was in the MTC.  So the Church may be motivated to work something out (to avoid a trial, and to compensate Denson for her injury), and Denson's attorneys may also be motivated to work something out (since there are substantial flaws in their case).  If so, then this case may end up getting settled after all.

The wild card here is . . . Denson herself.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe the flaw in your thinking is that Leavitt SHOULD have arranged an interview with a general authority if there was sexual misconduct by the President of the MTC.  So either he did arrange a meeting with Elder Asay like she claims.  Or he was negligent to not arrange a meeting with Elder Asay for claims of sexual misconduct.  

The wild card is not Denson.  It is the way the church dealt with the claim of sexual abuse.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

She blew up the settlement negotiations her own attorneys requested with the Church.

I personally don't think it was ever about the money.  

[california boy]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

Let’s consider for a moment that Denson’s accusations are true.  That she was molested, possibly raped.  That this caused her severe anxiety attacks.  That her pleas for justice were disregarded by men she believed were God’s ordained servants.  That she went on to marry in the temple only to have her husband cheat on her.  Assuming all of this is true, it’s reasonable to expect that the trauma would have been emotional and psychologically scarring and could have changed the trajectory of her life. 

Perhaps we should keep all that in mind.

Exactly This!

Does that explain why she traveled all the way to Arizona to get Bishop actually on tape so that people couldn't just pass her off as some crazy woman.  Does that explain why she threatened to shot Bishop? Does that explain why she leaked the tape?  Does that explain why by leaking the tape she lost any chance of a cover up quiet big check negotiated settlement?  

For me, the question is, Why wouldn't she make this all public and get the church to finally do something.  She does this knowing full well that she will be demonized, her family will be dragged into this possibly, (which ended up happening) all the dirt on her will be dug up and paraded before the public. (which also happened). I think finally getting justice is a big deal for her because of al the emotional and psychologically scarring  that this has caused in her life.  If someone were to ask her, Was it all worth it even if she doesn't receive a single dime?  What do you think she would say?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe the flaw in your thinking is that Leavitt SHOULD have arranged an interview with a general authority if there was sexual misconduct by the President of the MTC.  

Yes, I think Leavitt should have done that.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So either he did arrange a meeting with Elder Asay like she claims.  Or he was negligent to not arrange a meeting with Elder Asay for claims of sexual misconduct.  

Yep.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The wild card is not Denson.  

Well, reasonable minds can disagree about that.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It is the way the church dealt with the claim of sexual abuse.

"The way the church dealt with the claim" is water under the bridge.  What happened or did not happen 30 years ago cannot change, so that's not a "wildcard" in my estimation.

Yes, Leavitt should have reported Denson's disclosure.  What's interesting, though, is that what he would have reported then differs quite a bit from what Denson is asserting now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Honorentheos]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet he denies the claim of rape or attempted rape.

In the victim's interview with Bishop, he doesn't so much deny it as say he can't remember it. But he is clearly not shocked by the accusation or of a mind that demonstrates it would have been outside the realm of what he understood he was capable of doing.

But step back for a moment. This gets to one of the major problems I have with the way LDS are taught to think about moral issues. This idea that penetrative sex is a bright line that, so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable is repugnant. Bishop clearly was grooming abused young women to use for his own gratification. He clearly understood he had a serious problem that he struggled with, but other than acknowledging he caused others pain fails to demonstrate he actually knows how to get past his own narcissistic perspective and see them as human beings like himself. His so-called sins were a struggle for him to try to over come, his victims weren't people whose well-being he ignored and dramatically affect but instead seem in the calculus of his thinking to be the unfortunate collateral that got damaged when he failed to keep his inner demons on their leashes.

When the victim is interviewing him, it's clear that this event that occurred at the MTC is one of the most significant and traumatic in her life, right up there with her stepfather sexually abusing her, and probably just ahead of having an unfaithful spouse. These events dramatically shaped her life. She describes having serious trust issues throughout her life, and when one considers that two of the most significant adult male authority figures in her life up to her twenties both chose to reduce her to a sexual means of gratification it's abundantly clear why this would be the case. So when he responds with, "I don't remember." when she is seeking closure, it has to be one of the most shocking experiences to realize that what has been traumatic and impactful to her was forgettable by the perpetrator of one of these acts. She keeps coming back to the explanation that for him to not remember must mean there were multiple others since raping one person really ought to stand out in a person's history. I think we see in Bishop's side of the story that the other young woman who threatened suicide, had her mission changed to remain at the MTC and subsequently lived with the Bishops stands out to him in his memory which is also understandable given the events were more prolonged and intimately part of his life from that time period. But that doesn't diminish the fact that for the victim of his assault to have such a traumatic event minimized by the perpetrator of it would be devastating. I think this explains so much of why we've seen the pursuit of public justice since then.

I have no patience for people who would fail to be sympathetic to the victim here. It's just another instance in a long string of incidents of people minimizing or disbelieving her.

Frankly, it's disgusting.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Honorentheos

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Exactly This!

Does that explain why she traveled all the way to Arizona to get Bishop actually on tape so that people couldn't just pass her off as some crazy woman.  

She is a troubled soul, to be sure.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Does that explain why she threatened to shot Bishop?

There could be a lot of explanations for this.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Does that explain why she leaked the tape?  

A lot of explanations for this, too. 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Does that explain why by leaking the tape she lost any chance of a cover up quiet big check negotiated settlement?  

Multiple explanations available.

There are also potential explanations for kabuki-theater antics when she publicly faked surprise and consternation over the audio recording being "leaked," only to turn out to have been the source of the leak.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

For me, the question is, Why wouldn't she make this all public and get the church to finally do something.  

Dunno.  We end up with guesswork.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

She does this knowing full well that she will be demonized, her family will be dragged into this possibly, (which ended up happening) all the dirt on her will be dug up and paraded before the public. (which also happened).

Perhaps not.  She doesn't strike me as a person that functions "knowing full well" what the consequences of her actions will be.

To wit:

She fabricated a rape claim to cope with an anxiety attack.

She made "unfounded" claims in 1999 ( according to investigating d etectives) of having been "pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked," except that police "learned she had been fired shortly befor e  the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability."

According to a police report, she used an ex-boyfriend's name and Social Security number to obtain utility services and to lease an apartment.  Detectives obtained a phone recording wherein the woman posed as the ex-boyfriend, using his name, according to the police report.  She was subsequently arrested for identity theft.

She has threatened to murder Joseph Bishop.  Twice.

She does not strike me as someone who is a calculated planner, who acts "knowing full well" what comes next.  She rather seems like a "Shoot, Ready, Aim" kind of person.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think finally getting justice is a big deal for her because of al the emotional and psychologically scarring that this has caused in her life.  

She has apparently had a very traumatic life.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If someone were to ask her, Was it all worth it even if she doesn't receive a single dime?  What do you think she would say?

I don't know.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Honorentheos]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She has apparently had a very traumatic life.

That included sexual abuse by her stepfather and sexual assault by the President of the MTC. If you read my post above I think it's amply clear why she is pursuing this as she as and when she is.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

In the victim's interview with Bishop, he doesn't so much deny it as say he can't remember it.

Which rather speaks to his mental state in that moment.  This is one of the reasons why the recording is not worth much as evidence.

Elsewhere, however, he has repeatedly and consistently denied the accusations of rape or attempted rape.

Quote

But he is clearly not shocked by the accusation or of a mind that demonstrates it would have been outside the realm of what he understood he was capable of doing.

Meh.  We weren't there.  And his mental state during the "interview" is very much in question.  So I don't think we can say he was "clearly not shocked."

Quote

But step back for a moment. This gets to one of the major problems I have with the way LDS are taught to think about moral issues.

Oh, boy.

Quote

This idea that penetrative sex is a bright line that, so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable is repugnant.

Malarky.  The Church doesn't teach this.  Some members will use such silliness to rationalize inappropriate conduct, but that's on them.

So CFR, please, that "the way LDS are taught to think about moral issues" includes "the idea that penetrative sex is a bright line that, so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable."  Chapter and verse, please, as to where this has been "taught."

I will hold you to this.  If you do not respond to my CFR, I will report you to the moderators.

Quote

Bishop clearly was grooming abused young women to use for his own gratification.

I don't think anyone is defending Bishop. I think he has done something wrong, and should be held accountable.  Whether it amounts to rape or attempted rape, however, is in dispute.

Quote

He clearly understood he had a serious problem that he struggled with, but other than acknowledging he caused others pain fails to demonstrate he actually knows how to get past his own narcissistic perspective and see them as human beings like himself.

Okay.

Quote

His so-called sins

"So-called?"

Quote

were a struggle for him to try to over come, his victims weren't people whose well-being he ignored and dramatically affect but instead seem in the calculus of his thinking to be the unfortunate collateral that got damaged when he failed to keep his inner demons on their leashes.

Okay.

Quote

When the victim is interviewing him, it's clear that this event that occurred at the MTC is one of the most significant and traumatic in her life, right up there with her stepfather sexually abusing her, and probably just ahead of having an unfaithful spouse.

Yes, she appears to have had a traumatic life.

Quote

These events dramatically shaped her life. She describes having serious trust issues throughout her life, and when one considers that two of the most significant adult male authority figures in her life up to her twenties both chose to reduce her to a sexual means of gratification it's abundantly clear why this would be the case. So when he responds with, "I don't remember." when she is seeking closure, it has to be one of the most shocking experiences to realize that what has been traumatic and impactful to her was forgettable by the perpetrator of one of these acts.

This presumes that her allegations against Bishop are true.  Those allegations are presently in question.

Moreover, she conducted this "interview" under false pretenses.  An "interview" that apparently included her extracting a false confession from him.  An "interview" during which Bishop's mental state appears confused and not fully lucid (he had undergone surgery two days prior).

The interview was not as cathartic as she apparently wanted.  I get that.  But then, I suspect that her two threats to murder him were likewise not helpful.

Quote

She keeps coming back to the explanation that for him to not remember must mean there were multiple others since raping one person really ought to stand out in a person's history.

"Must mean" being the operative phrase.  

It's one explanation among several possible and plausible ones.

Quote

I think we see in Bishop's side of the story that the other young woman who threatened suicide, had her mission changed to remain at the MTC and subsequently lived with the Bishops stands out to him in his memory which is also understandable given the events were more prolonged and intimately part of his life from that time period.

I don't think we have much in the way of Bishop's "side of the story."  He did not recognize her in the interview.  He confused her with another sister missionary, in fact.

Quote

But that doesn't diminish the fact that for the victim of his assault

This presumes "his assault."

We don't know this yet.

Quote

to have such a traumatic event minimized by the perpetrator of it would be devastating.

Perhaps.

Quote

I think this explains so much of why we've seen the pursuit of public justice since then.

Perhaps.  There are other plausible explanations as well.

Quote

I have no patience for people who would fail to be sympathetic to the victim here.

"Fail to be sympathetic" meaning . . . accepting her story 100%?

Quote

It's just another instance in a long string of incidents of people minimizing or disbelieving her.

Frankly, it's disgusting.

Is it possible, in your view, to be sympathetic while also choosing to dispassionately evaluate her claims and postpone definitive conclusions about what actually happened?

Thanks,

-Smac

Honorentheos has until tomorrow to respond to the CFR.  We'll hold off on deciding the matter until then. ~Mods

[Honorentheos]

Smac,

Do you believe that Bishop is not a sexual predator?

[Honorentheos]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is it possible, in your view, to be sympathetic while also choosing to dispassionately evaluate her claims and postpone definitive conclusions about what actually happened?

Thanks,

-Smac

To add, and with full expectation that you answer the question asked int eh post above -

She was the victim of rape as a child. A child, Smac. And her experience with Bishop in the MTC was one where she was being taken advantage of by a man who made her feel special. Because as the victim of abuse she was vulnerable to that.

Serious. You're crossing a line into vile repugnance in this thread in pretending to be fair while looking to discredit her precisely because her life was damaged by these event. I don't know what else to say to you, man. You disgust me right now.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

That included sexual abuse by her stepfather

Allegedly.  

11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

and sexual assault by the President of the MTC.

Allegedly.

According to Leavitt, she "did not use the words rape or attempted rape, instead describing other misconduct."

And she has, by her own admission, previously fabricated a rape claim.

At present I am inclined to conclude that Denson was molested or otherwise subjected to serious misconduct by Joseph Bishop, but not to the extent that it was rape or attempted rape.  If we go by what Leavitt states she disclosed, then that goes a long way for me in terms of reconciling Denson's claims with my reservations about those claims.  What Leavitt states she disclosed to him about Bishop was something profoundly sinful and wrong, but not rape or attempted rape.  The rape claim, then, became an embellishment on the (still very wrong) misconduct that did occur.  It grew over time.  However, this is not a definitive conclusion.  

11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

If you read my post above I think it's amply clear why she is pursuing this as she as and when she is.

I read your post.  

If she didn't have such a troubling background, I would be more inclined to agree that things are "amply clear."

If she hadn't previously fabricated a rape claim, I would be more inclined to agree.

If she hadn't been arrested in February for identity theft, I would be more inclined to agree.

If she hadn't made "unfounded" claims in 1999 (according to investigating detectives) of having been "pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked," except that police "learned she had been fired shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability," I would be more inclined to agree.

If she hadn't publicly faked surprise and consternation over the audio recording being "leaked," only to turn out to have been the source of the leak, I would be more inclined to agree.

Can you appreciate the possibility that a dispassionate review of Denson's claim and background might make Denson's story and motives something less than "amply clear" to others beside yourself?

In other words, are you open to allowing people to review this issue and come away with disparate opinions about it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Smac,

Do you believe that Bishop is not a sexual predator?

See my previous post.

[Honorentheos]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

See my previous post.

No, I expect you to put down a yes or no answer. You have made some form of judgment here. You may be hedging it one way or the other but you certainly believe he is or is not a sexual predator. I'd like you to make it clear where you stand on that.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

To add, and with full expectation that you answer the question asked int eh post above -

What question?

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

She was the victim of rape as a child.

Allegedly.

I'm inclined to believe her on this point.  But we've seen no evidence of it.  I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

A child, Smac.

Right.  I got it the first time.

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

And her experience with Bishop in the MTC was one where she was being taken advantage of by a man who made her feel special. Because as the victim of abuse she was vulnerable to that.

I get that.

What "her experience with Bishop in the MTC" was is presently very much in question.

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Serious. You're crossing a line into vile repugnance in this thread in pretending to be fair while looking to discredit her precisely because her life was damaged by these event.

Perhaps you could take a breather for a moment.  

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I don't know what else to say to you, man. You disgust me right now.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that.  Honest.

As I previously said: 

Quote

Can you appreciate the possibility that a dispassionate review of Denson's claim and background might make Denson's story and motives something less than "amply clear" to others beside yourself?

In other words, are you open to allowing people to review this issue and come away with disparate opinions about it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Honorentheos]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Allegedly.  

Allegedly.

According to Leavitt, she "did not use the words rape or attempted rape, instead describing other misconduct."

And she has, by her own admission, previously fabricated a rape claim.

At present I am inclined to conclude that Denson was molested or otherwise subjected to serious misconduct by Joseph Bishop, but not to the extent that it was rape or attempted rape.  If we go by what Leavitt states she disclosed, then that goes a long way for me in terms of reconciling Denson's claims with my reservations about those claims.  What Leavitt states she disclosed to him about Bishop was something profoundly sinful and wrong, but not rape or attempted rape.  The rape claim, then, became an embellishment on the (still very wrong) misconduct that did occur.  It grew over time.  However, this is not a definitive conclusion.  

I read your post.  

If she didn't have such a troubling background, I would be more inclined to agree that things are "amply clear."

If she hadn't previously fabricated a rape claim, I would be more inclined to agree.

If she hadn't been arrested in February for identity theft, I would be more inclined to agree.

If she hadn't made "unfounded" claims in 1999 (according to investigating detectives) of having been "pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked," except that police "learned she had been fired shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability," I would be more inclined to agree.

If she hadn't publicly faked surprise and consternation over the audio recording being "leaked," only to turn out to have been the source of the leak, I would be more inclined to agree.

Can you appreciate the possibility that a dispassionate review of Denson's claim and background might make Denson's story and motives something less than "amply clear" to others beside yourself?

In other words, are you open to allowing people to review this issue and come away with disparate opinions about it?

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, you're seeking to discredit her in order to dismiss what happened to her. Traumatic upbringings do damage to a persons life, and the events you describe about don't discredit her claims. The support the facts that her worldview was damaged by traumatic events.

OTOH, her interview with Bishop and the police interview support the fact he was a sexual predator.

Again, you're quite the human being and might want to ask yourself why you are responding this way. From the perspective of someone looking in, it's disgusting.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Quote

See my previous post.

No, I expect you to put down a yes or no answer.

I understand that you "expect" that.  But I don't work for you.  I don't report to you.  My responses here are voluntary.  You don't get to dictate what I can or cannot say.

4 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

You have made some form of judgment here.

A preliminary one, yes.

4 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

You may be hedging it one way or the other but you certainly believe he is or is not a sexual predator. I'd like you to make it clear where you stand on that.

I'm trying to remain somewhat dispassionate about this matter.  I certainly have my own thoughts and emotions, but how much of those I disclose here is entirely up to me, right?  And not for you to dictate, right?

I invite you to review my posts in the various threads about this matter.  There are a lot of them.  You'll end up with a pretty good understanding about where I "stand."  

Here's a hint as to what you'll find: I am not a fan of Joseph Bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Again, you're seeking to discredit her in order to dismiss what happened to her.

No, I am not.

I am trying to figure out, from a dispassionate evaluation of competent and probative evidence, "what happened to her."  Can you appreciate the difference?

11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Traumatic upbringings do damage to a persons life, and the events you describe about don't discredit her claims.

Leavitt's statements to the media appear to be relevant to the overall veracity of her claims.

11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

The support the facts that her worldview was damaged by traumatic events.

I am not really interested in examining something as vague as "her worldview was damaged by traumatic events."

She has made specific allegations of fact in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Utah.  I am interested in sorting out the merits of those allegations.  

11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

OTOH, her interview with Bishop and the police interview support the fact he was a sexual predator.

Her "interview" with Bishop has very little evidentiary value, IMO.

The police report does not corroborate her claim of rape or attempted rape.

Having taken into account the recording (despite its limited probative weight), and the police report, and Denson's prior history, and Leavitt's statement, and all the other evidence that I have come across, I have arrived at a preliminary conclusion about what happened.

11 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Again, you're quite the human being and might want to ask yourself why you are responding this way. From the perspective of someone looking in, it's disgusting.

I think you are very emotionally involved in and upset about this story, and are angry at and faulting me for not publicly joining you in expressing such sentiments.

Again: Is it possible, in your view, to be sympathetic to Denson while also choosing to dispassionately evaluate her claims and postpone definitive conclusions about what actually happened?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Honorentheos]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I invite you to review my posts in the various threads about this matter.  There are a lot of them.  You'll end up with a pretty good understanding about where I "stand."  

Here's a hint as to what you'll find: I am not a fan of Joseph Bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have been reviewing your posts, which is what makes your actual position on this of interest. This idea that a victim of a sexual predator must have lived an exemplary life to be taken seriously when they claim to have been victimized calls into question if you believe that Bishop is, in fact, a predator. Because being the victim of rape and sexual assault at any age but especially at a young age impacts a person's life, and it's rather shameful to imagine that they must be model citizens to be believable when the person accused seems rather clearly to believe it of themselves. Combined, it makes your behavior appear ignorant of how such trauma impact a person's life. The only real explanation that leaves is that you don't believe her claims, and that Bishop's own admissions in the sources available should be discounted. There is a death spiral of absurdism in this line of reasoning that you are exhibiting. So, let's break out of that cycle and establish a few simple positions for clarity.

Do you believe that Joseph Bishop was/is a sexual predator?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Leavitt's statements to the media appear to be relevant to the overall veracity of her claims.

Leavitt admits to having been approached by a young woman who made a claim he didn't feel was worthy of taking seriously according to his own present account.

Present evidence points to her claims being credible given the established fact there was another victim who reported her assault to the Church in 2010. Bishop is reported to have denied this other person's claims which led the local authorities over Bishop to not follow up. All of which demonstrates an institutional bias against female victims of Joseph Bishop.

THAT is what Leavitt's statements mean for this discussion. You should consider the fact you are another example in a long line of persons within this institution demonstrating this same behavior.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Honorentheos