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

[Physics Guy]

Suppose I was at a burning car accident scene. I could have pulled someone from the car before it exploded, but I thought of my own family and didn't take the chance. If I had, I could have saved someone's life.

In this (thankfully hypothetical) scenario I'm partially responsible for another person's death, because I could have saved them and I didn't. Do you blame me for it, though? No. If I had saved them, I'd have been honored as a hero—precisely because it would have been an act of heroism beyond the normal limits of a bystander's responsibility. I wasn't a hero but I wasn't a villain, either. A person can be responsible for something bad happening without being blamed for it, if preventing that bad thing would have taken more from that person than we have a right to expect.

Suing someone who has assaulted you when the state fails to charge them criminally, or otherwise publicizing their crime—that may not be risking your life in a burning car but it's a major ordeal. You can't say that being assaulted places a person under the obligation to do all that. That's letting their assaulter do them even more harm than the assault itself.

Without blaming anyone in particular for not being a hero, though, we can wish for more heros. We shouldn't need them, but it seems that sometimes we do. We can't blame victims for not being heros, but we should honor the ones who do go beyond what we have a right to expect, and thereby protect others.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://medium.com/@davidscoville/timeline-of-the-joseph-bishop-sexual-abuse-scandal-77f39be1ef3a

Someone put out this timeline of the events of the story, gives some insight also.

I believe it misses a lot of details by assuming other details are givens when they are not because they were not actually substantiated in the transcript.

For example the first claim:

 

Quote

 

Joseph Bishop, while in an LDS bishopric, is involved with sexually abusive activity of which he admitted in the Dec. 2, 2017 recording:

Survivor: How many other women are there?

Joseph Bishop: It’s not that there’s so many other women, it’s just the two that were there [at the MTC], I remember one when I was in the Bishopric.

- Dec 2017 recording of interview between Survivor and Bishop

 

 

He actually didn't admit that all three events were sexually abusive nor do the descriptions provided meet that requirement.  There also may have been at least one time more which he states he confessed about (Florida).  And the event that occurred when he was in a Bishopric was not actually sexually abusive if it was either of the two possible times described.

 

There is the alleged (I say alleged because Bishop seems confused and inaccurate at this point in the transcript and he may be confusing Utah with Florida since he states there is only one other woman besides the MTC sisters) one when he was in Wyoming (Denson)/Utah(Bishop) which is simply described by Denson as a woman exposing herself to multiple men in a hot tub.  Denson says in the letter he shared this information with her when she was at the MTC, but Bishop does not confirm this in the transcript.   In the interview she makes it pretty plain it is not the same kind of thing that happened with herself and the second victim in that there were others there and as far as we can tell given the information, the hot tub woman did it on her own.  However, Bishop doesn't remember it the same way, he says it was in Utah and he doesn't provide any details besides it was not in a hot tub.

 

Quote

 

Okay. There was woman in the hot tub, or at the springs or whatever with you and these other people who took her bikini top off. You don't remember that?

I had an experience similar to that, but it wasn't in a hot tub.

What was it in? What was it?
She, well it was in Utah, it wasn't in Wyoming.

 

 

He does provide in the transcript another potential third/fourth woman in Florida which wore a revealing sun suit, again nothing sexually abusive in the incident.

Quote

Who talked to you about other women?

A bishop in Florida.
And who was the woman?

She was a friend of ours, who ... she made a swimsuit that she wanted to show us, me and another guy. I don't remember. I'm trying to be very honest about this....

There was nothing .. when I was in Florida, there was this lady I just told you about.

In Florida, how old was she?

[inaudible 01:15:43]
Terrible. Before Argentina? Before the mission residency of Argentina, or after? Or do you remember?

That would be before.
Okay. What did you do with her?
She.. showed me her sun suit, which was revealing.

Revealing her breasts, revealing ... everything?
No, no, a skimpy swimsuit.

 

 This is Denson's Dec 6 letter info, it does not mention anything about Florida:

Quote

On a separate occasion President Bishop said that he and a few other leaders liked to go the hot springs or hot tub in Wyoming. He told of an incident where a young woman was there with them and she took off her bikini top and exposed her bare breasts. 

If either the only other incident(s) were Florida and/or Wyoming/Utah, I can still understand why he saw it as necessary to confess because he would have had a reaction given how he described it.

-----

It is also noteworthy that the timeline leaves out the previous comments, here is more of it:

Quote

 

You were never disfellowshipped, had a counsel?

I felt I'd repented. I'd confessed.
Oh.
That time.

You confessed about me?
I don't know about I confessed all of my sins to Elder Wells when I was in the mission. But anyway, let me apologize. ...

So did you, when you talked to Brother Wells and you repented, did you talk about this?

Yes.
You talked about what you did with me and other women?

Yes.
How many other women are there?

It's not that there's so many other women, it's just the two that were there, I remember one when I was in the Bishopric. 

 

There is a big issue with how much this comment about how many women there were can be trusted as he is stating he confessed to transgressions that hadn't occurred yet, the "two that were there [at the MTC]".  The MTC came after his stint as MP in Argentina as noted by Denson later on:

Quote

 

They attacked me. So in this process trying to save my soul, I said, "Okay, well, I need to tell you everything." And I went back as far back as memory could ... I think I talked about you.

You couldn't have 'cause you were MTC president after Argentina. 

 

 

----

I hope this demonstrates the timeline should not be taken as accurate in all its claims.  It may preset people to look at the evidence in a certain way, so I am not sure how useful it is.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

You too, I appreciate you taking the time.  I tend to be obsessive at times in trying to understand how others are thinking.  Sorry if it got annoying.  It has gotten to be a huge importance in my life in many ways and the need to understand and be understood has probably bled into areas where it isn't as urgent just because it is now a habit.

No worries!  It’s good to be thorough 👍

[JulieM]

56 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

This is what gets to me.

I'd be curious what of the following I have wrong:

SMAC personally knows the victim who he describes as a friend, who claims to have been sexually assaulted.

SMAC believes this persons claims, and believes there is strong evidence to support it being the case.

SMAC knows this person's attorney who apparently was advising the victim of said assault when they reported the assault to police.

SMAC knows that the police pursued a criminal case against the accused perpetrator of the assault, but that the case fell through due to reasons other than not being able to actually build a compelling winnable case on the part of the prosecution.

The accused is a member of the LDS faith, and SMAC knows who this person is and believes them to be the perpetrator of sexual assault.

SMAC appears to believe that the accused has not been called to face disciplinary action on the part of the LDS church for their violation of eternal laws in committing a despicable act of violence and violation against a fellow human being whom SMAC knows personally and calls a friend.

Any person who has reasonable cause could inform appropriate ecclesiastical leadership of someone committing such a heinous act as sexual assault.

Church discipline does not require the victim to confront their assailant in Church court, and for all intents and purposes the otherwise strong forensic evidence and testimony of a Bishop in the Church should be compelling for Church leadership to make a judgment as to the fitness of the accused to full fellowship in the Church.

No one believes that the accuses has actually faced Church discipline.

I agree and I hope smac answers so many of the questions we have about this story.  

If true, there are things that don’t add up.  But maybe there are actually good reasons for these  and smac will explain.

Can you tell us more smac, and also tell us why you felt this story is relevant to what is happening with Mckenna Denson?  (This thread is about her case).

Edited April 29, 2018 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Suppose I was at a burning car accident scene. I could have pulled someone from the car before it exploded, but I thought of my own family and didn't take the chance. If I had, I could have saved someone's life.

In this (thankfully hypothetical) scenario I'm partially responsible for another person's death, because I could have saved them and I didn't. Do you blame me for it, though? No. If I had saved them, I'd have been honored as a hero—precisely because it would have been an act of heroism beyond the normal limits of a bystander's responsibility. I wasn't a hero but I wasn't a villain, either. A person can be responsible for something bad happening without being blamed for it, if preventing that bad thing would have taken more from that person than we have a right to expect.

Suing someone who has assaulted you when the state fails to charge them criminally, or otherwise publicizing their crime—that may not be risking your life in a burning car but it's a major ordeal. You can't say that being assaulted places a person under the obligation to do all that. That's letting their assaulter do them even more harm than the assault itself.

Without blaming anyone in particular for not being a hero, though, we can wish for more heros. We shouldn't need them, but it seems that sometimes we do. We can't blame victims for not being heros, but we should honor the ones who do go beyond what we have a right to expect, and thereby protect others.

Maybe McKenna is somewhat like myself. If she was an active believing member, did she want to protect the reputation of the leaders in any way? Or did she feel she was in anyway to be partially at fault. I'm such a weirdo, I would tend to think I'd done something wrong for it to have happened. I didn't even tell my parents when a German Shepherd bit my back when I ran in someone's back yard to cut corners when I was around 8 years or so old. 

I am like that, and wonder if McKenna was too. But it would have been nice had McKenna tried going to different avenues vs the church's police department to bring this to the forefront. It sure sounds like she loved the church and would want to protect it, for fear it was her fault. My goodness even Pres. Oaks said if a girl dressed immodest she was walking pornography. "Young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you." (Dallin H. Oaks, “Pornography,” Ensign,May 2005, p.87.)

I'll bet she felt shame after being sexually abused before. And the teenage pregnancy too. Here's an article of why victims don't come forward. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner

Edited April 29, 2018 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe McKenna is somewhat like myself. If she was an active believing member, did she want to protect the reputation of the leaders in any way? I'm such a weirdo, I would tend to think I'd done something wrong for it to have happened. I didn't even tell my parents when a German Shepherd bit my back when I ran in someone's back yard to cut corners when I was around 8 years or so old. 

I am like that, and wonder if McKenna was too. But it would have been nice had McKenna tried harder to bring this to the forefront. It sure sounds like she loved the church and would want to protect it, for fear it was her fault. My goodness even Pres. Oaks said if a girl dressed immodest she was walking pornography.

She was an active believing missionary and member when this happened.  We need to remember that.  

When did she actually go inactive do we know?  How many years did she try to get help as an active member?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Consig published the statement that was sent via email to the Provo police from McKenna.https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/McKenna-Denson-Rough-Draft-of-Statement-sent-to-BYU-Police-on-12-7-17-RedactedA.pdf I said the Provo PD went to Arizona in my post above, I got that wrong, they went to Colorado. It sure helps to actually read the statement vs. listening to it on the podcast.

ETA: Another link to the letters that Consig, wrote the Provo police. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/GRAMA-Appeal-4-18-18.output.pdf

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/04/GRAMA-Clarification-Letter-on-2nd-Request-041818.pdf

Having read all three documents, I see no new significant information provided beyond some names of church leaders.  There are a few unimportant details filling out the stories told in the transcript, and the fact she met with Elder Monson (there was a personal nonissue moment described by another sister in the MTC private sessions that probably shouldn't have been made public because it might identify the sister now to anyone she has told that no big deal imo story to...but it is a big deal that she would now be identified as one of the sisters singled out by Bishop for 'special attention').  The rest was available from the press conference, the police report online, or the transcript as far as I can recall.

Could you please point out the new "bombshells" I have missed.

One thing that was not a bombshell, but is in the Church's favor is this:

Quote

Elder Carlos Asay visited me in Provo or Orem and interviewed me. I reported everything except the rape. I didn’t think of it as rape as he didn’t have a full erection. 

If there was no report of the rape, then what exactly did she share?  The inappropriate sessions?  Described him taking her to what was known as a separate office of Bishop's for another private counseling sessions? 

If so and if Bishop denied he shared any personal information, that she made it up, then it amounts to the counseling sessions the Church leadership probably already knew about as Bishop talks about telling Elder Asay that he was counseling sisters who were coming to him with traumas and asked that a professional counselor be made available.  Elder Asay might have assumed if she skipped the rape event that she simply misunderstood what was going on or was dramatizing it and adding inflammatory comments about him also sharing personal information for another reason.  

Or Bishop could have just told Asay that he went too far in sharing his own personal details in trying to help the sisters feel comfortable if the interview with Asay actually and Bishop is lying about not talking to him about anything (assuming he is not narrowing it down to solely talking about rape, since apparently according to Denson that would not have been part of the conversation).

Or Denson could have meant she didn't label it as "rape".  That works with her next sentence, but seems a weird way of saying it...why not say 'I reported everything, but did not call it rape?' instead?

Edited April 29, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, JulieM said:

When did she actually go inactive do we know?  How many years did she try to get help as an active member?

She says her husband had been baptizing women while cheating on her in the transcript, so it was likely at least up to 1992/3 (if my calculations are correct) when she got a divorce from him, though she doesn't report trying to get help outside of talking to Bishop Leavitt and Elder Asay at that time.

Quote

I'm confused. But, you know what? My husband gave amazing Sunday school lessons. Amazing. People were cheerful. The spirit was really strong, and I didn't realize that the spirit could work through unworthy vessels until then. Now, Ilook back and Ithink, "Oh my gosh. He was awful. He had sex with women that he was baptizing." So, and yet his Sunday school lessons were amazing, and the spirit was strong. 

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

As to what Denson might have actually shared with Elder Asay, the information her YSA bishop, Ron Leavitt, gave might provide some insight:

http://kutv.com/news/local/woman-who-accused-mtc-president-of-sexual-assault-has-been-telling-her-story-for-3-decades

Quote

When you ask the former bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints, Ron Leavitt, about the recent allegations against former MTC mission president, he says he remembers them vividly. 

“Oh heavens yes,” Leavitt said as he recalls what he was told in 1984. 

Leavitt was a single ward president from 1979 to 1985 and said during his regular post-church meetings with parishioners, a woman told him that Joseph Bishop, a former president of the Missionary Training Center, had acted inappropriately with her. 

“According to her he took (her) and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography,” Leavitt explained. 

When asked if he reported the incident to the police or the leadership of the LDS Church Leavitt said he did not. “I didn't think it had much credence. I wasn't going to risk sullying the reputation of someone based on that kind of a report,” Leavitt said.

This seems confirmed now by what Denson has said in the Dec 6 letter***.  If he is lying about talking to the stake president leading to an interview with Elder Asay (and maybe he isn't lying, but he just shared the info with the stake president and it was the stake president who then connected her up with Elder Asay without telling Leavitt he had done so because Leavitt sounds like he was a jerk about it), it still makes sense that Denson represented the encounter as showing her porn and only that and not any info about the rape.

She did state in the press conference she had no personal information about what was actually in the videotapes, so it appears if both she and Leavitt are being accurate that Bishop did not actually show her porn, but he probably showed some to the other victim...unless the porn claim by Denson to Leavitt was completely false (possibly substituted because it seemed less offensive and she thought it would be more likely believed than the attack).

Leavitt's account also suggests that Denson talked to the other victim or how else could Denson have found out she was taken to the basement (though perhaps Bishop persuaded her to go by telling her he had taken the second victim them)?  Unless she just guessed there were other victims because there were other women at the private 'counseling' sessions and she figured he tried to do the same thing with at least one of them. 

***"Elder Carlos Asay visited me in Provo or Orem and interviewed me. I reported everything except the rape. I didn’t think of it as rape as he didn’t have a full erection." 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

“According to her he took (her) and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography,” Leavitt explained. 

When asked if he reported the incident to the police or the leadership of the LDS Church Leavitt said he did not. “I didn't think it had much credence. I wasn't going to risk sullying the reputation of someone based on that kind of a report,” Leavitt said.

How sad that he didn’t act on this.  It would have been best for all involved (including Bishop himself as it might have put him on a track for repentance back then).  And saved a lot of hurt and heartbreak over the next years.

No one should be criticizing Mckenna here when we read corroborating statements like this and realize how hard she was trying to get someone to listen to her.  (I’m not saying you’re doing this, criticizing.  Just a general observation.)  

Edited April 29, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

Quote

How sad that he didn’t act on this.

So you believe Denson is lying about meeting with Elder Asay?

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you believe Denson is lying about meeting with Elder Asay?

I think it corroborates that she’s telling the truth about meeting with her Bishop.  Does that mean she has to be lying about meeting with Elder Asay?  They can’t both be true?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Having read all three documents, I see no new significant information provided beyond some names of church leaders.  There are a few unimportant details filling out the stories told in the transcript, and the fact she met with Elder Monson (there was a personal nonissue moment described by another sister in the MTC private sessions that probably shouldn't have been made public because it might identify the sister now to anyone she has told that no big deal imo story to...but it is a big deal that she would now be identified as one of the sisters singled out by Bishop for 'special attention').  The rest was available from the press conference, the police report online, or the transcript as far as I can recall.

Could you please point out the new "bombshells" I have missed.

One thing that was not a bombshell, but is in the Church's favor is this:

If there was no report of the rape, then what exactly did she share?  The inappropriate sessions?  Described him taking her to what was known as a separate office of Bishop's for another private counseling sessions? 

If so and if Bishop denied he shared any personal information, that she made it up, then it amounts to the counseling sessions the Church leadership probably already knew about as Bishop talks about telling Elder Asay that he was counseling sisters who were coming to him with traumas and asked that a professional counselor be made available.  Elder Asay might have assumed if she skipped the rape event that she simply misunderstood what was going on or was dramatizing it and adding inflammatory comments about him also sharing personal information for another reason.  

Or Bishop could have just told Asay that he went too far in sharing his own personal details in trying to help the sisters feel comfortable if the interview with Asay actually and Bishop is lying about not talking to him about anything (assuming he is not narrowing it down to solely talking about rape, since apparently according to Denson that would not have been part of the conversation).

Or Denson could have meant she didn't label it as "rape".  That works with her next sentence, but seems a weird way of saying it...why not say 'I reported everything, but did not call it rape?' instead?

To your question... "Could you please point out the new "bombshells" I have missed." If you listen to the podcast, Consig points them out. 

[readstoomuch]

At least for me, it is irritating that many are ready to label the Church as plain wrong in this encounter.  Every inconsistency and hole that Calm found was what I found.  There is nothing great about any of this story.  Even if it was all made up, the person still is a child of God and has to be dealt with as compassionately as possible.  Like so many things now, there is no assumption of innocence or waiting for the facts.  I was willing to give that to Ms McKenna.  Then it goes to national media and the internet.  People talk about it and youth start asking about it.  What can you say?  I hope that sort of circumstance doesn't happen and if it does that it is not tolerated.  

I personally don't like it because I am already treated differently as a man in the Church.  I spent the first 45 years of my life teaching many classes and callings in scouting by myself.  Now it is two deep.  Not just primary, but now sunday school for the youth.  In a small or medium size ward do you have any idea how many people that takes up?  Two deep for men only basically says that I cannot be trusted.  I would go through a background check and training to be treated the same as women.  I would expect women to get the same vetting.  We all do that for the Scouting program and then again every year.   Even to be a merit badge counselor.   

There will always be people who slip through.  Then people that just plain lie.  I have dealt with those people.  They aren't easy.  Many years later I have had someone come to me and say that I was really right about a particular person.  At times the wrongful person starts spreading rumors and lies about someone calling them out or holding them responsible.  I wish we could spend the time talking about how to do this better or what this is all supposed to look like.

[readstoomuch]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

To your question... "Could you please point out the new "bombshells" I have missed." If you listen to the podcast, Consig points them out. 

IMO Consig and MormonDiscussionPodcast always point out the "bombshells."   I haven't found them interested in giving a balance story.  Just enough occasionally/partially positive about the Church so they can feign that they aren't anti-mormon.  

[Honorentheos]

2 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Suppose I was at a burning car accident scene. I could have pulled someone from the car before it exploded, but I thought of my own family and didn't take the chance. If I had, I could have saved someone's life.

In this (thankfully hypothetical) scenario I'm partially responsible for another person's death, because I could have saved them and I didn't. Do you blame me for it, though? No. If I had saved them, I'd have been honored as a hero—precisely because it would have been an act of heroism beyond the normal limits of a bystander's responsibility. I wasn't a hero but I wasn't a villain, either. A person can be responsible for something bad happening without being blamed for it, if preventing that bad thing would have taken more from that person than we have a right to expect.

Suing someone who has assaulted you when the state fails to charge them criminally, or otherwise publicizing their crime—that may not be risking your life in a burning car but it's a major ordeal. You can't say that being assaulted places a person under the obligation to do all that. That's letting their assaulter do them even more harm than the assault itself.

Without blaming anyone in particular for not being a hero, though, we can wish for more heros. We shouldn't need them, but it seems that sometimes we do. We can't blame victims for not being heros, but we should honor the ones who do go beyond what we have a right to expect, and thereby protect others.

Hi Physics Guy,

I'm not sure to whom your post was addressed but given the narrative flow of the thread I'm placing it as a response to my post. So I'm responding accordingly. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in making that assumption.

Heroism, or acts of valor that put one at risk, is certainly one consideration. In the analogy proposed, we are focusing on the person who was victimized and asking if there is a right or wrong way to judge that person's decision-making given they have been traumatized already, and any further action on their part could risk more trauma. I don't think it's fair to judge that person's decisions in any other way than to agree with your point. It would be heroic on their part to do more but is isn't an obligation they have to put themselves in further harms way on the grounds they are obligated to society to prevent harm to others while being a victim themselves.

But I also think there are questions that apply to how a person behaves as a moral agent and the pressures involved that influence that decision making that apply to other parties involved in SMAC's personal anecdote. For others besides the victim, it becomes a question of moral decision making and what compels a person to sit back on the sidelines knowing someone has been harmed and someone else could be in the future. But even further, it seems that in SMAC's anecdote the person accused of the crime is subject to two sets of law. The laws of the United States and whatever other jurisdictions in which they and SMAC reside seem to be addressed as a case of justice failing the victim. And the other set of laws are those required for a person to be in full fellowship as a member of the LDS Church, laws or rules that would also have been violated if the accusations are valid and considered in place for many reasons including the intent of protecting others as well as helping a person move through the repentance process to be able to have the atonement applied to them.

SMAC's shared story of a personal acquaintance who he believes to have been sexually assaulted by another person he knows and he has knowledgeable of evidence that was described as forensic proof that supports this being a case of sexual assault is problematic on multiple levels. But I'm most curious how a person who claims to be a believing member of the LDS faith would be able to sit on the sidelines in this case and knowingly let a rapist go about undiscovered within the flock of the faithful if there is a means to bring some form of justice within the ecclesiastical order of the Church without exposing the victim to more trauma? If LDS believe that the accused's bishop or Stake President as the case may be is the person ordained to stand as their judge in Israel, is there an internal moral argument within Mormonism that SMAC and the attorney should feel compelled to see this brought to the attention of the appropriate parties in the Church in order to see judgment rendered? And that to fail to do so speaks to their moral character in ways that are not the same as failing to act bravely in the face of personal danger?

Edited April 30, 2018 by Honorentheos

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think it corroborates that she’s telling the truth about meeting with her Bishop.  Does that mean she has to be lying about meeting with Elder Asay?  They can’t both be true?

Well her bishop says he didn't get church leadership to meet with her, but I think it is possible that they can both be true if he happened to mention it to the stake president, who himself followed up on it even if the bishop didn't...and didn't mention it to Leavitt because he was a jerk about it.  Denson either assumes her bishop was concerned enough to pass it on just because she met with Elder Asay or was told the bishop told the stake Pres, who told SL, where someone hooked her up with Asay....but the SP left out the part where the bishop thought it was a load of bs.

 Also for them to both be true, she would not have given any details of an attack.  If she did not share that info with Elder Asay either, as it appears from her letter, the Church would have had no knowledge of a sexual assault by Bishop either from Bishop or Denson until 2010 apparently, at which time he was questioned about it by his leaders and he denied it.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

To your question... "Could you please point out the new "bombshells" I have missed." If you listen to the podcast, Consig points them out. 

I don't do podcasts and unless you identify the time stamps, I have no intention of doing so.

Will you at least provide the information if he has any new information sources outside the letter he posted?

[Jeanne]

Hey,,,why don't we all just beat Denson over the head with an ugly stick and be done. ...I can't believe you people!  Taaenda does not need to point out anything for those who do not want to listen..and as for JulieM...she cannot ask a question without numerous questions asked back..

Edited April 30, 2018 by Jeanne

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Hey,,,why don't we all just beat Denson over the head with an ugly stick and be done. ...I can't believe you people!  Taaenda does not need to point out anything for those who do not want to listen..and as for JulieM...she cannot ask a question without numerous questions asked back..

Who is beating Denson up out of curiosity?  If you see my posts as doing so, please reread them again as I am trying to identify what was and was not said by looking at what has been shared so far.  I have never said she should have shared more, in fact quite the opposite.  It is very understandable to me she didn't share with people she didn't feel safe with.****

Tacenda refers to bombshells, but does not provide information about them (the only new thing she details iirc is the "frisky" backrub included touching the buttocks, that was not what I considered bombshell material...figured the hands went much further than the back as soon as he used "frisky") in any form but a general link.  That is different than just saying 'here is a podcast discussing the Denson/Bishop scandal for those interested'.

That is contrary to CFR rules.  If it wasn't clear it was meant to be a CFR, my apologies, it was.

----

I post mostly on the board because I am interested to understand different people's thoughts that vary from my own and to do so, sometimes I ask clarifying questions about what they think.  I assume posters post because they want to share their ideas (but perhaps I am projecting, happy to learn if there are other reasons if you would like to share).  I don't intend to stop at this point unless mods tell me it is inappropriate, so please report me to moderators if you find my questions offensive.

----

****It does seem to imply the Church leadership was unaware of any sexual assault prior to 2010, but that is not Denson's or any other victim's fault or responsibility as far as I am concerned.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't do podcasts and unless you identify the time stamps, I have no intention of doing so.

Will you at least provide the information if he has any new information sources outside the letter he posted?

It's all very contextual. But I will listen again. I listen to podcasts to help me sleep at night, so no big deal. And my short term memory or in one ear and out the other, is a problem. Watching American Idol right now.

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who is beating Denson up out of curiosity?  If you see my posts as doing so, please reread them again as I am trying to identify what was and was not said by looking at what has been shared so far.  I have never said she should have shared more, in fact quite the opposite.  It is very understandable to me she didn't share with people she didn't feel safe with.****

Tacenda refers to bombshells, but does not provide information about them in any form but a general link.

That is contrary to CFR rules.  If it wasn't clear it was meant to be a CFR, my apologies, it was.

----

I post mostly on the board because I am interested to understand different people's thoughts that vary from my own and to do so, sometimes I ask clarifying questions about what they think.  I assume posters post because they want to share their ideas (but perhaps I am projecting, happy to learn if there are other reasons if you would like to share).  I don't intend to stop at this point unless mods tell me it is inappropriate, so please report me to moderators if you find my questions offensive.

----

****It does seem to imply the Church leadership was unaware of any sexual assault prior to 2010, but that is not Denson's or any other victim's fault or responsibility as far as I am concerned.

Didn’t she talk to her church leadership before then?  Or do you mean the leaders in Salt Lake?

When did she talk to Carlos Asay?  

(I should just listen to the podcast and will try to!  None of us can really comment on it without listening to it probably.)

Edited April 30, 2018 by JulieM

[provoman]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't do podcasts and unless you identify the time stamps, I have no intention of doing so.

Will you at least provide the information if he has any new information sources outside the letter he posted?

 

Bombshells.....not really. The frisky backrub involved grabbing her buttocks. The police recorded their conversation with Bishop. And there is other redacted information that probably is not information that mets redaction standards. Why are these bobmbshells for consig, because it feeds the conspiracy.

 

The David Jordan letter includes that Denson met with a GA to return to the mission field. What intetests me about this is that it provides insight into the Jordan letter. The mention of meeting a GA is i  regard to NOTICE - notice is a legal concept. That brief mention of notice suggests to me that letter was a professional legal document addressing the claims; but that does not make sensational press conferences

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Bombshells.....not really. The frisky backrub involved grabbing her buttocks. The police recorded their conversation with Bishop. And there is other redacted information that probably is not information that mets redaction standards. Why are these bobmbshells for consig, because it feeds the conspiracy.

 

The David Jordan letter includes that Denson met with a GA to return to the mission field. What intetests me about this is that it provides insight into the Jordan letter. The mention of meeting a GA is i  regard to NOTICE - notice is a legal concept. That brief mention of notice suggests to me that letter was a professional legal document addressing the claims; but that does not make sensational press conferences

Did you now listen to the entire thing?

How long is it? (I’m going to try to find enough time this week to listen.)

[provoman]

It is an hour. I did not listen to every minute. I listened for bit, then started skipping. It was annoying to he that he decided to read a 6 page single spaced letter.

Edited April 30, 2018 by provoman