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

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, SJR3t2 said:

I'll remember that for next time, I'm sorry that I did not have the all the rules memorized, and I'll make sure not to bring things up in the future unless I have a timestamp or text, thanks for letting me know and the mercy you extended unlike others on the forum.

No problem.  Since you're probably going to be reported for not being able to provide references, you'll want to retract your statements if you don't want to risk banning.  A simple "I misspoke and don't have evidence to support the statements I made, sorry" or something similar would work.

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Well, she's assuming that everything her mother told her is the truth, for example (just like Greg Bishop has done with everything his dad told him).  That's completely understandable and I think I would do the same in her situation.  It's just, from an outsider's view, accusations that are based only on someone's word or opinion and that aren't supported by evidence are weak.  

Some of the accusations she levels that have no evidence except her mother's say-so or her own personal feelings are:

• "she was raped by Joseph Bishop, the MTC President"
• "Joseph Bishop had had previously sexually assaulted women and the church knew this fact" 
• "The church heard the tape and as an attempt to keep my birth mother quiet they compiled a dossier filled with any dirt they could gather."

Cfr that she is assuming that everything her mother told her is the truth and that she has no evidence for her conclusions except her mother’s say So 

Edited April 27, 2018 by stemelbow

[SJR3t2]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because you're new I want to make sure you understand what will happen if you just leave the thread but don't answer the CFR.  You'll probably be banned from the entire board, which may not be what you want to have happen.  Why not just provide the statements you claim you have?

So I'll be banned for one mistake? I wow, in an atmosphere like that, don't know if I want to stay. I did read the rules, apparently I didn't remember them all. Right now I don't have the time to listen to the podcast to make the notes I apparently should have done before.

[SJR3t2]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No problem.  Since you're probably going to be reported for not being able to provide references, you'll want to retract your statements if you don't want to risk banning.  A simple "I misspoke and don't have evidence to support the statements I made, sorry" or something similar would work.

 

I'll retract the statements, I'm sorry for my mistake. I was going off bad memory, I'll be sure to have references or time to look things up in the future, please forgive me.

Edited April 27, 2018 by SJR3t2

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/03/radio-free-mormon-28-church-sex-scandal-cover/

Not sufficient.  Chapter and verse, please.  Or I'll report you to the mods.

Here are your assertions again:

1. "He did rape."
2. "He admitted telling church leaders."
3. "When looked at what the church has done it shows it."

CFR, chapter and verse, for each of these.

-Smac

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

It is for sure we have a different opinion, and I'll be leaving this thread now, I only joined because someone asked me to quote something here, I shouldn't have said anything else other than that.

You are free (and in fact welcome) to join the discussion.  However, you are neither free nor welcome to make baseless assertions of fact.

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

You are free (and in fact welcome) to join the discussion.  However, you are neither free nor welcome to make baseless assertions of fact.

-Smac

That's confusing the latter sentence above is precisely what many people do here and it is most welcome.  I guess you are forgetting the added, "well that actually depends on what side of the aisle the baseless assertions of fact are coming from".  😋

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because you're new I want to make sure you understand what will happen if you just leave the thread but don't answer the CFR.  You'll probably be banned from the entire board, which may not be what you want to have happen.  Why not just provide the statements you claim you have?

FWIW, I don't want SJR3t2 banned.  I want him to respond to my CFRs.  And to not post baseless assertions of fact unless he can back them up.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

So I'll be banned for one mistake?

No, you might be banned if you refuse to respond to a CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

I'll retract the statements, I'm sorry for my mistake. I was going off bad memory, I'll be sure to have references or time to look things up in the future, please forgive me.

Sounds good.

I consider this matter settled.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

That's confusing the latter sentence above is precisely what many people do here and it is most welcome. 

Let me clarify: "You are free (and in fact welcome) to join the discussion.  However, you are neither free nor welcome to make baseless assertions of fact and then refuse to substantiate your assertion of fact when requested to do so."

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I guess you are forgetting the added, "well that actually depends on what side of the aisle the baseless assertions of fact are coming from".  😋

Nope.

-Smac

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

FWIW, I don't want SJR3t2 banned.  I want him to respond to my CFRs.  And to not post baseless assertions of fact unless he can back them up.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know.  Your issuing of a CFR was fair.  I was just letting him know he couldn't ignore it because the mods are pretty strict about it.

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let me clarify: "You are free (and in fact welcome) to join the discussion.  However, you are neither free nor welcome to make baseless assertions of fact and then refuse to substantiate your assertion of fact when requested to do so."

Nope.

-Smac

I suppose we shall see.  the bald assertions of fact that remain at issue:

"she's (McKenna's biological daughter) assuming that everything her mother told her is the truth"

and

"Some of the accusations she levels that have no evidence except her mother's say-so or her own personal feelings"

For all we know, it seems to me, her daughter has far more information in order to make her statements then any of us do.  

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I suppose we shall see.  the bald assertions of fact that remain at issue:

"she's (McKenna's biological daughter) assuming that everything her mother told her is the truth"

and

"Some of the accusations she levels that have no evidence except her mother's say-so or her own personal feelings"

For all we know, it seems to me, her daughter has far more information in order to make her statements then any of us do.  

Hmm.  You appear willing to accept the inculpatory say-so of the daughter of the accuser.  She was not there, so her say-so is based on her assessment of her mother.

Are you likewise willing to accept the exculpatory say-so of the son of the accused based on his assessment of his father?

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  You appear willing to accept the inculpatory say-so of the daughter of the accuser.  She was not there, so her say-so is based on her assessment of her mother.

Are you likewise willing to accept the exculpatory say-so of the son of the accused based on his assessment of his father?

Thanks,

-Smac

huh?  I didn't say anything about willing to accept anything.  I issued a CFR that will likely not be answered.  Again the statements made are:

"she's (McKenna's biological daughter) assuming that everything her mother told her is the truth"

and

"Some of the accusations she levels that have no evidence except her mother's say-so or her own personal feelings"

So far they are bald assertions of fact.  But, perhaps the poster who said them will support the statements.  We shall see.  

[smac97]

Just now, stemelbow said:

huh?  I didn't say anything about willing to accept anything. 

Ah.  I misunderstood.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-SMac

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's comments like this the inhibit victims of sexual assault from speaking out.

The ole 180° defense: accuse the accuser of what you yourself are doing. Your story is clearly designed to thwart courageous people from standing up and doing the right thing in the face of difficulty. The easy route is to do nothing and you want to make it out as somehow being courageous. Let us know when you leave your alternative reality.

[smac97]

Just now, Exiled said:

The ole 180° defense: accuse the accuser of what you yourself are doing.

I am not criticizing a sexual assault survivor.  That's what you are doing.

Just now, Exiled said:

Your story is clearly designed to thwart courageous people from standing up and doing the right thing in the face of difficulty.

Bull.  I have no interest in discouraging anyone from "standing up and doing the right thing."

I am objecting to your public criticism of a sexual assault survivor.

Just now, Exiled said:

The easy route is to do nothing and you want to make it out as somehow being courageous.

She's the survivor of sexual assault.

Perhaps you are not situated to competently tell her what "the easy route" is.

Just now, Exiled said:

Let us know when you leave your alternative reality.

Again, the mind reels.

-Smac

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Your story is clearly designed to thwart courageous people from standing up and doing the right thing in the face of difficulty. 

That's some pretty powerful mind-reading you're employing there.  

[Analytics]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  You appear willing to accept the inculpatory say-so of the daughter of the accuser.  She was not there, so her say-so is based on her assessment of her mother.

Are you likewise willing to accept the exculpatory say-so of the son of the accused based on his assessment of his father?

Thanks,

-Smac

Since we are juxtaposing these two individuals, I'll point out that it's ironic that the only reason why the victim's daughter is part of the conversation is because her identity was leaked to the press, most likely by the alleged perpetrator's son.

And since we've been talking about privacy and redacting names in court documents, I'll point out that it seems like a jaw-droopingly bad move on the part of the Church to give the sealed names to the attorneys who were writing the dossier, and an even worse move on their part to include it in the report. If there was some valid reason for her name to be in the report, why not redact it? I can't imagine any valid reason for these layers to be given and then to disseminate information so private that neither the daughter nor the mother were entitled to it.

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  I misunderstood.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-SMac

No problem.  Mistakes happen.  I figured we'd see Bluebell retract on the statements that remain under CFR.  I see she's responded and given you rep points for your misunderstanding.  So I dont' know if we just assume she's ignoring the CFR or not.  I don't know that it matters, really.  The rule of a CFR is silly when people make bald assertions all the time here.  Depending on who is issuing and who is making the bald assertions the mods will step in.  We all know how that plays out, though.  

It seems to me, in contrast to what you said, bald assertions while refusing to respond to a CFR are greatly welcome and seemingly encouraged here, if the bald assertions are coming from the right source or perspective, but if they are not, then the threats that many posters offer the bald asserter go into effect until the bad asserter relents.  It's been an interesting pattern to watch over the years.  I didn't really expect anything different here.  

[smac97]

Just now, stemelbow said:

It seems to me, in contrast to what you said, bald assertions while refusing to respond to a CFR are greatly welcome and seemingly encouraged here, if the bald assertions are coming from the right source or perspective,

Are these instances reported to the mods?

Just now, stemelbow said:

but if they are not, then the threats that many posters offer the bald asserter go into effect until the bad asserter relents.  It's been an interesting pattern to watch over the years.  I didn't really expect anything different here.  

I haven't noticed such disparate treatment.  I've seen the mods go after folks on both sides for failing to respond to a CFR.

The mods have to know about it, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's some pretty powerful mind-reading you're employing there.  

Well, likely less powerful than the mind-reading I see in your posts about McKenna's daughter.  

[stemelbow]

Just now, smac97 said:

Are these instances reported to the mods?

Of course.  

Just now, smac97 said:

I haven't noticed such disparate treatment.  I've seen the mods go after folks on both sides for failing to respond to a CFR.

The mods have to know about it, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's easier to notice this type of disparate treatment coming from my perspective.  If you had eyes to see...

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Since we are juxtaposing these two individuals, I'll point out that it's ironic that the only reason why the victim's daughter is part of the conversation is because her identity was leaked to the press, most likely by the alleged perpetrator's son.

What makes you say that?

Per the Trib:

Quote

Jordan shared his letter with Bishop’s son, Greg Bishop, who is acting as his father’s attorney, to use in any settlement efforts. Jordan did not share his letter with reporters, but Greg Bishop, who declined to comment for this story, copied some of the information about the victim — omitting mention of the adopted daughter’s name — and sent it to various news outlets as a way to defend his dad.

The full letter has since leaked out.

It sounds like Greg Bishop took affirmative steps to not disclose the identity of the daughter, but here you are suggesting that he did.

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And since we've been talking about privacy and redacting names in court documents,

Not court documents.  It's a letter written by the Church's attorney that was sent to Denson's attorneys and Greg Bishop, and which was eventually "leaked."

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'll point out that it seems like a jaw-droopingly bad move on the part of the Church to give the sealed names to the attorneys who were writing the dossier, and an even worse move on their part to include it in the report.

"Seems like" being the operative phrase (though I still love the Jason Bourne / James Bond / Tom Clancy-esque "dossier" reference).  From the Trib:

Quote

Jordan “did extraordinary research on this woman … to make it clear that the church was not going to settle,” said Salt Lake City attorney Greg Skordas. “I am sure he did not intend for Greg Bishop to share it [or part of it] with the media.”

But none of the parties did anything “unethical, illegal or improper,” Skordas said. It is reasonable for all three parties — the LDS Church, the accuser’s attorney and the alleged abuser’s lawyer — to share information about the case.

There are various ways of defending against these kinds of allegations, said University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell, a longtime advocate for victims’ rights and a former federal judge.

An attorney for an abuser might go on the offensive and attack the accuser, he said, but an organization, like a church, typically would start by expressing concern and compassion for the victim while it examined the allegations.

Cassell believes Greg Bishop’s response, especially his initial statement challenging the Colorado woman’s claims, was done in haste.

“I was surprised to see this maneuver executed so quickly,” he said. “‘Trash the victim’ is the last option an organization would typically employ. It may be the least successful tactic, used only after all other options have been exhausted.”

Once you go there, he said, “you can’t put the cat back into the bag.”

As for naming the adopted daughter in the investigative papers?

“There is no reason,” Cassell said, “to make unnecessary enemies through collateral damage.”

A case can be made for why the attorney should not have included the name of the adoptive daughter.  But the Church didn't leak the letter from its attorney.

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If there was some valid reason for her name to be in the report, why not redact it? 

A fair point.

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I can't imagine any valid reason for these lawyers to be given and then to disseminate information so private that neither the daughter nor the mother were entitled to it.

I'm not sure the attorney got the daughter's ID from the Church.  We don't know where he got it.  It could have come from family members.

Thanks,

-Smac