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

[smac97]

 

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course.  

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

Okay.  I'll own that.

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SJR3t2 said:

He did rape. He admitted telling church leaders.

Have you read the transcript?  

CFR where he admits to rape and telling church leaders he raped someone.

add-on:  been retracted

If there is actual additional evidence he raped anyone, I want to see it.  I would not be the least surprised if he did.  So far we have only the accusation of rape from Denson I am aware of.  He specifically says he doesn't remember raping her in the transcript and iirc in the police report when asked about the claim says he doesn't remember it or Denson is exaggerating.  Iirc, it is in the transcript he says perhaps his mind has blocked him from remembering.  At times from his tone, he seems to believe he is capable of rape, at other times he is quite forceful in rejecting the idea he did anything nonconsenual.  Every specific example he gave ( the back rub, the revealing sunsuit) were initiated by the woman and even his inappropriate behaviour he doesn't specify is dumped on his dead wife for not loving him, for having a sexless marriage.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

There are four redacted copies in the public view - or at least two redacted version. He claims to have four and has done a comparison. Otherwise the "who" that is the cause of the differing redactions is his opinion.   

Just for information, BYU PD is currently under a lawsuit regarding GRAMA (Utah public records release law) wherein BYU PD claims it is exempt. A Judge has opined that BYU PD could be subject to GRAMA, and it appears a ruling will not be out until May 14

If not answered yet, what is the reasoning given for the exemption?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have you read the transcript?  

CFR where he admits to rape and telling church leaders he raped someone.

He has retracted his claims.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

What mind reading have I done?  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SJR3t2 said:

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.

You can withdraw your claims until you have the time and ability to substantiate them.  You will be likely banned if you refuse to admit you made a mistake and do what you can to remedy it and continue to make claims of fact without documentation.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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 

She may have documentation that has not been made public yet, but she cannot substantiate her claims based on the transcript or police records or anything else in the public domain unless I have missed something big.

[stemelbow]

I may be confused, when Calm and Bluebell tell other posters that they will be banned for not substantiating claims, how do they know? 

Bluebell:

Quote

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.

Now Calm:

Quote

You will be banned if you refuse to admit you made a mistake and do what you can to remedy it.

Are they deciding for the mods?  are these to be read as threats?   I thought it was on the discretion of the mods on how to handle these things.  Or are Calm and Bluebell mods?   

So what do mods do when CFRs go ignored?  Do they seriously ban posters?  How do we know that?  I'm  not sure I've seen that, after having seen many posters ignore CFRs.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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.

So you think telling victims who choose not to press charges, etc if there are future victims they are in part responsible for those rapes/abuses is a healthy thing that will encourage victims to share?

Has it occurred to you there is no easy route for a sexual assault survivor?  To even imply there is one is so dismissive of their experience it is close to disgusting for me.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

She may have documentation that has not been made public yet, but she cannot substantiate her claims based on the transcript or police records or anything else in the public domain unless I have missed something big.

Sure.  But that has nothing to do with the CFR I issued.  I'm asking bluebell to substantiate her bald assertions.  

[bluebell]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I may be confused, when Calm and Bluebell tell other posters that they will be banned for not substantiating claims, how do they know? 

Bluebell:

Now Calm:

Are they deciding for the mods?  are these to be read as threats?   I thought it was on the discretion of the mods on how to handle these things.  Or are Calm and Bluebell mods?   

So what do mods do when CFRs go ignored?  Do they seriously ban posters?  How do we know that?  I'm  not sure I've seen that, after having seen many posters ignore CFRs.

It says it in the 'guidelines' section at the top of the board-

BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to:
• Spamming or advertising products, publications, or websites
• Profanity and vulgarity including offensive avatars or signatures
• Insulting language, or statements meant to do nothing more than provoke others
• Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons)
• Mocking the beliefs of others
• Telling others how to behave or “net nannying” (Instead report objectionable content)
• Derailing threads with irrelevant or unwanted commentary
• Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole
• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements
• Spreading malicious gossip
• Engaging in board wars by bringing other boards content here or vice versa
• Badgering a participant for an answer that has already been given
• Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing
• Pretending to be someone you aren't, or faking membership in a religion to fool others
• Posting personal or identifying information about others
• Altering members quotes on the board
• Quoting members in your signature without obtaining their permission
• Posting copyrighted material or passing off other’s materials as your own
• Creating another user name (sock puppet) to get around suspension or banning
• Contacting anyone who doesn't want to be contacted

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What mind reading have I done?  

I see you've already seen the comments I've made as you've repped people who have responded to the CFR I felt compelled to issue you.  But you haven't responded to the CFR.  If you did, then it seems I might get the support for your, up to this point, bald assertions.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  But that has nothing to do with the CFR I issued.  I'm asking bluebell to substantiate her bald assertions.  

Sorry Stem, I have you on ignore (we seldom understand each other and it seemed smart to limit our interaction) so I didn't see that CFR.  Sometimes the board tells me when you've responded to one of my posts and sometimes it doesn't.  I'm not sure why it doesn't always.  Can you repeat the the CFR?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

There are four redacted copies in the public view - or at least two redacted version. He claims to have four and has done a comparison. Otherwise the "who" that is the cause of the differing redactions is his opinion.   

Just for information, BYU PD is currently under a lawsuit regarding GRAMA (Utah public records release law) wherein BYU PD claims it is exempt. A Judge has opined that BYU PD could be subject to GRAMA, and it appears a ruling will not be out until May 14

Hmm.  Here's an interesting footnote from BYU's Motion for Summary Judgment:

Quote

This case is not about public access to law enforcement records maintained by University Police, as those records were all provided to Petitioners promptly following Petitioners’ multiple requests, pursuant to University Police’s own policy to release those records in parallel with GRAMA. Rather, Petitioners seek internal email communications between University Police and BYU personnel, or the private operations of a private university.

I haven't had a chance to read the full motion, or the Trib's opposition to it, or BYU's reply. 

It looks like there are two MSJs pending before the Court.  Are both going to be heard during the May 14 hearing?

Thanks,

-Smac

BYU Case - BYU MSJ - No Exhibits.pdf

[Exiled]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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.

She's the survivor of sexual assault.

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

Again, the mind reels.

-Smac

It's horrible what this person went through as per your story and it's understandable she wouldn't want to stand up against the perpetrator. This behavior happens all the time as you are fond of saying. However, her decision isn't exempt from criticism like anyone isn't exempt, regardless of their victimhood. Surely, you would agree with this as you and others here have criticized Ms. Denson and her choices. How and when criticism is levied is important but victimhood doesn't give someone carte blanche to whatever they want.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I may be confused, when Calm and Bluebell tell other posters that they will be banned for not substantiating claims, how do they know? 

Bluebell:

Now Calm:

Are they deciding for the mods?  are these to be read as threats?   I thought it was on the discretion of the mods on how to handle these things.  Or are Calm and Bluebell mods?   

So what do mods do when CFRs go ignored?  Do they seriously ban posters?  How do we know that?  I'm  not sure I've seen that, after having seen many posters ignore CFRs.

The guidelines and seeing posters warned by mods, seeing a few banned when they refused to retract and continued to post the claims (the vast majority from what I have seen answer cfrs, alter it to expressing an opinion, or go silent which probably eventually takes them off mods' radar).

I don't assume mods have seen cfrs unless I see red warnings or have reported lack of response myself, given how many posters have told me they never report people when I've asked.

I also don't assume posters have seen cfrs unless they quote them because I know how easy it is to miss a post or skip part of a post (which is why I always repeat one and wait a bit  before reporting for my own), including due to the ignore option.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It's horrible what this person went through as per your story and it's understandable she wouldn't want to stand up against the perpetrator. This behavior happens all the time as you are fond of saying. However, her decision isn't exempt from criticism like anyone isn't exempt, regardless of their victimhood. Surely, you would agree with this as you and others here have criticized Ms. Denson and her choices. How and when criticism is levied is important but victimhood doesn't give someone carte blanche to whatever they want.

Do you criticize victims for choosing to go to parties where drinking occurs or other behavior that correlates to increase risk of assault?  

Edited April 27, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It's horrible what this person went through as per your story and it's understandable she wouldn't want to stand up against the perpetrator.

Indeed.  Horrible and understandable enough that yahoos who know virtually nothing about her or her circumstances would be better off keeping their yaps shut rather than publicly criticizing her for not following a specific course of action.

You should be ashamed.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

This behavior happens all the time as you are fond of saying. However, her decision isn't exempt from criticism like anyone isn't exempt, regardless of their victimhood.

I guess we'll have to disagree.  I think it is horrible for you to publicly - and ignorantly - fault the survivor of sexual assault because she hasn't done what you think she should do.

You don't know her.  You don't know her circumstances.  You have no way to speak intelligently on what she should or should not do.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Surely, you would agree with this as you and others here have criticized Ms. Denson and her choices.

No, I don't agree.  I have not faulted her for her delay in reporting the alleged abuse.  I have criticized her for lying about the "leak" of the recording, which is an issue quite independent of her alleged sexual assault from 30+ prior.  

Sexual abuse is a horrible thing.  There is no script.  No necessarily correct course or sequence or timing of events.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

How and when criticism is levied is important but victimhood doesn't give someone carte blanche to whatever they want.

So according to you, she doesn't have the right to not file a civil lawsuit.  She does not have the right to move forward in her life.

The mind reels.

-Smac

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you think telling victims who choose not to press charges, etc if there are future victims they are in part responsible for those rapes/abuses is a healthy thing that will encourage victims to share?

Has it occurred to you there is no easy route for a sexual assault survivor?  To even imply there is one is so dismissive of their experience it is close to disgusting for me.

No, lauding their choice to remain silent as being courageous somehow, in order to benefit an organization that doesn't like victims asserting rights, is where it is wrong. If a victim chooses to remain silent, that is understandable and it happens all the time. I am sure it must be difficult to come forward and victims who do are the real courageous ones. Coming forward must be what is encouraged, regardless of what a certain organization wants.

Blindly defending an organization by trotting out the noble victim who remained silent is what should be close to disgusting. Victims do have a rough road and they should be given every chance to tell their story without persons who put organizational defense over humanity to try and persuade them otherwise.

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you criticize victims for choosing to go to parties where drinking occurs or other behavior that correlates to increase risk of assault?  

Of course not. That is for BYU to do.

[SJR3t2]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

You can withdraw your claims until you have the time and ability to substantiate them.  You will be likely banned if you refuse to admit you made a mistake and do what you can to remedy it and continue to make claims of fact without documentation.

I already did withdraw my claims, but I'll do it again, I made mistake, and I'm sorry.

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Indeed.  Horrible and understandable enough that yahoos who know virtually nothing about her or her circumstances would be better off keeping their yaps shut rather than publicly criticizing her for not following a specific course of action.

You should be ashamed.

I guess we'll have to disagree.  I think it is horrible for you to publicly - and ignorantly - fault the survivor of sexual assault because she hasn't done what you think she should do.

You don't know her.  You don't know her circumstances.  You have no way to speak intelligently on what she should or should not do.

No, I don't agree.  I have not faulted her for her delay in reporting the alleged abuse.  I have criticized her for lying about the "leak" of the recording, which is an issue quite independent of her alleged sexual assault from 30+ prior.  

Sexual abuse is a horrible thing.  There is no script.  No necessarily correct course or sequence or timing of events.

So according to you, she doesn't have the right to not file a civil lawsuit.  She does not have the right to move forward in her life.

The mind reels.

-Smac

If you are so worried about her, then why tell the story? I think you did to support your thesis that victims who remain silent should be encouraged. 

[Calm]

Quote

Sexual abuse is a horrible thing.  There is no script.  No necessarily correct course or sequence or timing of events.

Very well stated (out of points).

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

No, lauding their choice to remain silent as being courageous somehow, in order to benefit an organization that doesn't like victims asserting rights, is where it is wrong.

And who is doing that?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

No, lauding their choice to remain silent as being courageous somehow, in order to benefit an organization that doesn't like victims asserting rights, is where it is wrong.

Again, you are speaking from ignorance.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

If a victim chooses to remain silent, that is understandable and it happens all the time.

Unless, of course, the victim is a Mormon, in which case her silence is tained and improper and subject to public criticism from you.

Nice.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I am sure it must be difficult to come forward and victims who do are the real courageous ones. Coming forward must be what is encouraged, regardless of what a certain organization wants.

You are speaking from ignorance.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Blindly defending an organization by trotting out the noble victim who remained silent is what should be close to disgusting.

Ignorantly and publicly criticizing a victim of sexual assualt is well past disgusting.

You should be ashamed.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Victims do have a rough road and they should be given every chance to tell their story without persons who put organizational defense over humanity to try and persuade them otherwise.

You are speaking from ignorance.

-Smac