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

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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.

It is okay if it doesn't work out.  It is just hard to be impressed by bombshells when I don't see any in written documentation provided.  

If the only info out there is podcast and I refuse to listen, I don't consider myself informed...but that isn't motivation enough to listen.  

The Press conference was excruciating to me, finally listened to the rest playing Sudoko (nothing new so I didn't summarize).

Edited April 30, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.)

As far as I know...

She talked to no one about it after the rape.

The first time she talked to leadership in regards to anything related likely (I am going to assume it happened in future counting) would have been when the mission president decided to send her to Provo after she told her companions there had been an attempted rape due to an anxiety attack (she went outside due to an anxiety attack alone).  She may not have spoken directly with him, however.  This would have been sometime after she left the MTC, but not too long as she was in Washington waiting for a visa.  If she spoke to him, no details were shared beyond him sending her to Provo.

The second  time she talked to someone would have been the mental health specialist.  Iirc, in the press conference it was said she spoke to him multiple times but I may be confusing it with something I read.  In the transcript and 12/6 letter, it can be interpreted as only speaking once.  She states he pushed her to tell "her secret" but she didn't because tell him anything because she didn't like him (talked mostly about himself, was really arrogant).

The third time reported would have been the interview with Thomas Monson during that same time period a few months at most after the rape. No details provided.  She was then sent back out, but to Wisconsin.  

The fourth time reported was after returning from her mission, she spoke to Ron Leavitt, her YSA bishop.  He confirms she spoke to him, his details were she and another victim were shown porn in the basement.  I can't remember if she said she shared anything else.  

Assuming both she and he are telling the truth...it is likely Leavitt spoke unofficially to the stake president who then officially spoke to SL without Leavitt being aware he was doing it.  Denson did not speak to the SP herself.

The fifth time she herself reported anything happening was the alleged meeting with Elder Asay.  I say alleged because Leavitt says he didn't tell Church leadership about it, so if there was nothing said, how would SL know to hook her up with an interview with .Asay.  There is also no apparent record of a meeting in Asay's public records (26 boxes gone in a library collection through by a reporter iirc) and the Church says it has no record of a meeting.  Denson states she did not report the rape.  The wording is ambiguous as to whether she didn't say anything about the attack, but likely just repeated the story about the porn and shared info about private counseling sessions with Bishop or whether she described the attack but just didn't call it rape.  I lean towards the former because she was definite in her wording...the additional sentence makes it a bit iffy (she didn't say more because she didn't realize it was rape paraphrasing).

The next time (sixth) that has been reported I am aware of is the 2010 when she contacted SL to see if anything had been done,  when told she could not be informed due to privacy issues, she threatened to shoot Bishop.  Ten minutes later cops from Pleasant Grove showed up,  she informed them about the assault then.  They iirc from previous reports told her the statue of limitations was past.  When she showed didn't have a gun, no further action was taken.  SL (whoever that might have been) did not apparently follow up with the police, but the police did not contact them either.

This is the first time she reports she said anything about an assault.

The seventh reported time was in 2016 to the Colorado stake president.  She reports he said he would investigate, but she heard nothing.

The eighth time was to the BYU Police.  She reported, they contacted her for more details, told her they would come out to Colorado to interview her.  She then went and flew out to Arizona to interview Bishop after calling the MTC to get Bishop's address and local missionaries to get his phone number (don't know if she also googled him, no report of it that .I have seen). After that interview, went home and she was interviewed by police.

She then retained a lawyer, the tape was given to the Church sometime in January.  She shared the tape with multiple acquaintances and media people (according to her lawyer in the press conference).  The tape then became public (it appears without her official permission...but her personally giving the tape to multiple media outlets constitutes default permission imo).

Dont know who she has been interviewed by, if anyone besides her lawyer, since until the exposure of her name and the press conference and any prior media contacts.

If anyone knows of additional contacts she had with church leaders or police about the assault or other claims against Bishop, please add them.

Going from memory, correct if wrong.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

The police recorded their conversation with Bishop....

 

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

I am pretty sure that was in the second redacted police report.  If not, why would anyone think it was not recorded?  I suppose maybe because it was not in a police station?  Police record interviews.  Is anyone surprised by that?

I assume the GA was the same Monson reference in the Denson 12/6 letter, so not a new bombshell, but the same one.

Was the David Jordan letter posted online somewhere or just discussed?  

The two letters consig wrote to BYU Police had no info in them besides discussion about redaction rules.

In the Denson letter, the redacted parts that were exposed shared one other' personal information and some new names I am of the opinion should not have been made public.  I think the police were right to redact those parts.  

Edited April 30, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

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.

Was that her letter of the 12/6 that Tacenda provided the link to?

[Calm]

I am willing to listen to Denson, Bishop, and any lawyers directly involved.

Conclusions by others...give it to me in writing.  I do too much eyeballing and comparison to previous reports and quoting to try and pick it up from chatty podcasts.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am willing to listen to Denson, Bishop, and any lawyers directly involved.

Conclusions by others...give it to me in writing.  I do too much eyeballing and comparison to previous reports and quoting to try and pick it up from chatty podcasts.

Ditto.  I'm not very interested in podcasts.  I much prefer analysis reduced to text.  Audio recordings are too linear, and often too meandering ("chatty").

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

Just now, Calm said:

I am willing to listen to Denson, Bishop, and any lawyers directly involved.

Conclusions by others...give it to me in writing.

I think maybe the reason it felt like bombshells, was because I haven't read each of the posts about this case on the board and may have missed something, or can't remember. So some things in the podcast were new to me. Such as why was she interviewed by Elder Monson (Pres.) before going out a second time on her mission. And I was unaware of the second missionary sister having been massaged like that, where before it was only her back. There are other things that do appear to be somewhat bombshells, but it's hard for me to explain it properly, the only way is if you listen. I feel like I'm pleading like I did before with the podcast of McKenna interviewing Bishop, you really just need to listen to it in it's entirety to understand. I'm surprised at how some of you don't want to listen. To me it's nice and relaxing hearing people talk I guess. Less eye strain too. I just lay in bed at night and listen, but usually have to listen again because I've fallen asleep. But I listened to the podcast this morning, so I was wide awake. But I can listen again tonight and report tomorrow. 

Also, I wonder why McKenna hasn't spoken in public about the interview with Pres. Monson. It makes me wonder if there is more to it, and she is holding out until there is a settlement or something. Maybe if she spoke out, she wouldn't get a better settlement.

One thing that really, really bothers me is in the first statement from the church, they made it sound like McKenna came back early from her mission. But in reality she fulfilled it eventually. 

There is one part where McKenna said that Bishop told her about GA's going to a hot spring or something together and there was a topless woman there. Maybe Consig thinks that is alarming, I'm just now remembering that one.

[Calm]

"There is one part where McKenna said that Bishop told her about GA's going to a hot spring or something together and there was a topless woman there. Maybe Consig thinks that is alarming, I'm just now remembering that one."

This is in the transcript.

----

If she fulfilled the full mission, it bugs me the Church used "brief".  It can be justified by saying nonmembers probably think missions are much longer, maybe lifelong, so it was necessary to point out differences between that perception and LDS missions, but if so they should have taken into account that more members would likely read it and their impression would be she came home early, implying unresolved issues from the POV of the Church or unworthiness to complete her mission.  If there was actual worry about nonmembers understanding (and it was an official statement through mormonnewsroom which is meant to be used by all media and those who help prepare statements are probably used to writing with a view to the nonmember audience, so I see that as a valid concern), they should have been specific in time as in "she served an 18 month mission" 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Was that her letter of the 12/6 that Tacenda provided the link to?

I think Tacenda linked to yes. It is described as a "rough draft" and that the prosecutor closed the case before she could send in a final completed statement. 

[provoman]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

----

If she fulfilled the full mission, it bugs me the Church used "brief".  It can be justified by saying nonmembers probably think missions are much longer, maybe lifelong, so it was necessary to point out differences between that perception and LDS missions, but if so they should have taken into account that more members would likely read it and their impression would be she came home early, implying unresolved issues from the POV of the Church or unworthiness to complete her mission.  If there was actual worry about nonmembers understanding (and it was an official statement through mormonnewsroom which is meant to be used by all media and those who help prepare statements are probably used to writing with a view to the nonmember audience, so I see that as a valid concern), they should have been specific in time as in "she served an 18 month mission" 

Do you recall that question being asked at the news conference; about how the "briefly" statement was being interpreted? I do not remember what her respinse was though.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Do you recall that question being asked at the news conference; about how the "briefly" statement was being interpreted? I do not remember what her respinse was though.

I just remember her saying it was part of a smear campaign, but I may have mixed that up...so don't quote me.

[Physics Guy]

7 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

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.

The thread seemed to have a number of posts going back and forth about whether Smac97's acquaintance was potentially responsible for further assaults committed by her unpunished assaulter, or whether suggesting that was a disgraceful blaming of the victim. I was trying to point out that a victim can be both responsible and blameless. We blame people for crimes, we praise people for heroism, but there's a zone in between where people were neither heroic nor vicious. An assault victim who decides to put the experience behind her may be in that middle zone.

It's not a pedantic point. Women are speaking up now about things that their mothers and grandmothers and their own younger selves just let lie. That can derail into a conflict between women now and women then: "Why didn't you speak up, back then? If you had, we wouldn't have had to deal with this now," versus "Why are you calling us cowards? You don't know what it was like for us." Defending the quieter women of yesterday against unfair blame slides too easily into attacking the louder women of today. Supporting today's angry women slides too easily into blaming past victims for silence. But we don't have to do either.

If one man does something brave, we don't make the story be about all the other men who weren't so brave. No-one needs to defend them, because no-one condemns them. Instead the brave man gets a medal and the others are proud to buy him drinks. That should go for women, too, without all this derailing about blaming or not blaming people who didn't make heroic efforts. Not everyone can be Wonder Woman.

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The thread seemed to have a number of posts going back and forth about whether Smac97's acquaintance was potentially responsible for further assaults committed by her unpunished assaulter, or whether suggesting that was a disgraceful blaming of the victim. I was trying to point out that a victim can be both responsible and blameless. We blame people for crimes, we praise people for heroism, but there's a zone in between where people were neither heroic nor vicious. An assault victim who decides to put the experience behind her may be in that middle zone.

It's not a pedantic point. Women are speaking up now about things that their mothers and grandmothers and their own younger selves just let lie. That can derail into a conflict between women now and women then: "Why didn't you speak up, back then? If you had, we wouldn't have had to deal with this now," versus "Why are you calling us cowards? You don't know what it was like for us." Defending the quieter women of yesterday against unfair blame slides too easily into attacking the louder women of today. Supporting today's angry women slides too easily into blaming past victims for silence. But we don't have to do either.

If one man does something brave, we don't make the story be about all the other men who weren't so brave. No-one needs to defend them, because no-one condemns them. Instead the brave man gets a medal and the others are proud to buy him drinks. That should go for women, too, without all this derailing about blaming or not blaming people who didn't make heroic efforts. Not everyone can be Wonder Woman.

I've seen no debate regarding what I put in bold above.  Everyone agreed that any future abuse was solely on the shoulders of the abuser who makes the choice to abuse again. There's also been absolutely no blaming of the victim in smac's story (that I've seen, but I have not read every single post the past few pages) .  It has been pointed out that each assault victim plays a role in whether or not criminal punishment is pursued, but it is only a partial role because others are involved too.  It's been emphasized over and over again that there is no set correct manner for a victim to deal with this, as they need to take the path that is right for them and their healing.  There should be no criticism of them for the choice they make, however it doesn't change the fact that this choice does affect whether or not punishment (criminal or civil) takes place.  It's been emphasized many times here  that any future abuse the perpetrator inflicts on others is absolutely, one hundred percent on the abuser.  So, no "blaming of the victim" here.

In your story about the burning car, you don't even use the words "partially responsible" though, you state:

Quote

 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.

No one has stated that the assault victim in smac's story is "responsible for something bad happening".  There has been none of that from what I've seen.

Smac's story does not make sense regarding what took place in some areas of the story and questions have been asked of him.  He'd very likely do the same when someone posted any other story here, if he saw some holes in it.

He's mainly being asked if her Bishop knew of the assault and knew that the perpetrator was a member of the church and has also seen the solid forensic evidence, why on earth did this Bishop not report this to his church authorities and to the man's church leaders. That is negligence on his part if he did not do that in order to keep this man out of callings where he will be working with children and youth. 

Do you disagree with that? 

But smac has refused to address that question for whatever reasons he has.  His victim's story and Mckenna Denson's story are not similar (other than abuse took place), so it's just odd he'd drop it here in this thread and then refuse to answer so many questions that have been asked of him.

- It is nice though for you to call the person in your burning care analogy a hero who represents what Mckenna Denson has chosen to do.  Because she is a hero to many for doing and fighting for justice for many years and has not given up.  She's made the choice that is right for her and pursued it.  I'm glad to know you feel she's a hero.

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

17 hours 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.

He very definitely should have been reported to church authorities so at least it could be looked into and a decision made regarding a court being held.  If what smac stated in his story is true, I cannot even imagine a Bishop being so negligent as to not notifying church leaders and specifically notifying this abuser's ward and stake leaders.  If for no other reason than just to be aware that he is potentially dangerous and should never be in a calling with youth or never alone with a youth.

That's the part that absolutely makes no sense.  Smac admit's that the man is still "out there" too.

Edited April 30, 2018 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

"There is one part where McKenna said that Bishop told her about GA's going to a hot spring or something together and there was a topless woman there. Maybe Consig thinks that is alarming, I'm just now remembering that one."

This is in the transcript.

----

If she fulfilled the full mission, it bugs me the Church used "brief".  It can be justified by saying nonmembers probably think missions are much longer, maybe lifelong, so it was necessary to point out differences between that perception and LDS missions, but if so they should have taken into account that more members would likely read it and their impression would be she came home early, implying unresolved issues from the POV of the Church or unworthiness to complete her mission.  If there was actual worry about nonmembers understanding (and it was an official statement through mormonnewsroom which is meant to be used by all media and those who help prepare statements are probably used to writing with a view to the nonmember audience, so I see that as a valid concern), they should have been specific in time as in "she served an 18 month mission" 

Calm, I re-listened intermittingly last night. I'd fall asleep and wake up and replay. But it made me aware of why there are bombshells or really the bombshell is that Consig was able to get the police report unredacted in spots and it uncovered that there was a rough draft email from McKenna that was 6 pages long that we are now able to read through and it uncovered that she met with Pres. Monson/Elder Monson. 

There were a few things I got wrong when I posted of what things I remembered from the podcast. I got wrong that she met with a bishop who cleared her to get a temple recommend, but I hadn't remembered it was actually her single's ward bishop Ron Leavitt that signed off on her TR in order for to get married in the temple.

Why would Leavitt, who told the media he thought she was untrustworthy, had done what he did in the past then? And add to that he allowed his own daughter to stay/live with McKenna and her husband in Tawain in the beginning of that marriage, and strange that he thought her worthy for a TR if she was so untrustworthy.

Another thing I learned or heard the second time and forgot, is that the church had called Leavitt three times on the phone before he came out to the media this past March? Not saying the church told him to change his story, but it's weird how he changed his mind about her like that.

 

 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He very definitely should have been reported to church authorities so at least it could be looked into and a decision made regarding a court being held.  If what smac stated in his story is true, I cannot even imagine a Bishop being so negligent as to not notifying church leaders and specifically notifying this abuser's ward and stake leaders.  If for no other reason than just to be aware that he is potentially dangerous and should never be in a calling with youth or never alone with a youth.

That's the part that absolutely makes no sense.  Smac admit's that the man is still "out there" too.

Smac said that he would not be talking about that issue again because of the accusations that Exile made.  Given that, there's probably nothing else to say about it and it should probably be dropped as a topic.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Smac said that he would not be talking about that issue again because of the accusations that Exile made.  

How convenient.  His story has holes in it (just like he accuses Denson's of having) and yet he now refuses to address them.  One has to wonder why he even posted that story on this thread as much of it makes no sense and now he refuses to answer many questions that many have asked (not just Exile).  There is no way this story should be held up as a good example of what should take place within church leadership when known abuse has taken place and the perpetrator is "still out there".

His silence is an answer to these questions.

But let's move on.  He of course does not have to answer member's questions here.  What an odd thing for him to do though, IMO.

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

As far as I know...

She talked to no one about it after the rape.

The first time she talked to leadership in regards to anything related likely (I am going to assume it happened in future counting) would have been when the mission president decided to send her to Provo after she told her companions there had been an attempted rape due to an anxiety attack (she went outside due to an anxiety attack alone).  She may not have spoken directly with him, however.  This would have been sometime after she left the MTC, but not too long as she was in Washington waiting for a visa.  If she spoke to him, no details were shared beyond him sending her to Provo.

The second  time she talked to someone would have been the mental health specialist.  Iirc, in the press conference it was said she spoke to him multiple times but I may be confusing it with something I read.  In the transcript and 12/6 letter, it can be interpreted as only speaking once.  She states he pushed her to tell "her secret" but she didn't because tell him anything because she didn't like him (talked mostly about himself, was really arrogant).

The third time reported would have been the interview with Thomas Monson during that same time period a few months at most after the rape. No details provided.  She was then sent back out, but to Wisconsin.  

The fourth time reported was after returning from her mission, she spoke to Ron Leavitt, her YSA bishop.  He confirms she spoke to him, his details were she and another victim were shown porn in the basement.  I can't remember if she said she shared anything else.  

Assuming both she and he are telling the truth...it is likely Leavitt spoke unofficially to the stake president who then officially spoke to SL without Leavitt being aware he was doing it.  Denson did not speak to the SP herself.

The fifth time she herself reported anything happening was the alleged meeting with Elder Asay.  I say alleged because Leavitt says he didn't tell Church leadership about it, so if there was nothing said, how would SL know to hook her up with an interview with .Asay.  There is also no apparent record of a meeting in Asay's public records (26 boxes gone in a library collection through by a reporter iirc) and the Church says it has no record of a meeting.  Denson states she did not report the rape.  The wording is ambiguous as to whether she didn't say anything about the attack, but likely just repeated the story about the porn and shared info about private counseling sessions with Bishop or whether she described the attack but just didn't call it rape.  I lean towards the former because she was definite in her wording...the additional sentence makes it a bit iffy (she didn't say more because she didn't realize it was rape paraphrasing).

The next time (sixth) that has been reported I am aware of is the 2010 when she contacted SL to see if anything had been done,  when told she could not be informed due to privacy issues, she threatened to shoot Bishop.  Ten minutes later cops from Pleasant Grove showed up,  she informed them about the assault then.  They iirc from previous reports told her the statue of limitations was past.  When she showed didn't have a gun, no further action was taken.  SL (whoever that might have been) did not apparently follow up with the police, but the police did not contact them either.

This is the first time she reports she said anything about an assault.

The seventh reported time was in 2016 to the Colorado stake president.  She reports he said he would investigate, but she heard nothing.

The eighth time was to the BYU Police.  She reported, they contacted her for more details, told her they would come out to Colorado to interview her.  She then went and flew out to Arizona to interview Bishop after calling the MTC to get Bishop's address and local missionaries to get his phone number (don't know if she also googled him, no report of it that .I have seen). After that interview, went home and she was interviewed by police.

She then retained a lawyer, the tape was given to the Church sometime in January.  She shared the tape with multiple acquaintances and media people (according to her lawyer in the press conference).  The tape then became public (it appears without her official permission...but her personally giving the tape to multiple media outlets constitutes default permission imo).

Dont know who she has been interviewed by, if anyone besides her lawyer, since until the exposure of her name and the press conference and any prior media contacts.

If anyone knows of additional contacts she had with church leaders or police about the assault or other claims against Bishop, please add them.

Going from memory, correct if wrong.

Good summary, Calm. 

I'm just now listening to Radio Free Mormon's latest update.  I hope church leaders will address both the cover up by the BYU Police.

And, to me, it still feels like our prophet needs to address this personally.

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

...

The fourth time reported was after returning from her mission, she spoke to Ron Leavitt, her YSA bishop.  He confirms she spoke to him, his details were she and another victim were shown porn in the basement.  I can't remember if she said she shared anything else.  

Assuming both she and he are telling the truth...it is likely Leavitt spoke unofficially to the stake president who then officially spoke to SL without Leavitt being aware he was doing it.  Denson did not speak to the SP herself.

I'd like to understand this point.  Per KUTV:

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.

So how are we arriving at "it is likely Leavitt spoke unofficially to the stake president who then officially spoke to SL without Leavitt being aware he was doing it?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good summary, Calm. 

I'm just now listening to Radio Free Mormon's latest update.  I hope church leaders will address both the cover up by the BYU Police.

And, to me, it still feels like our prophet needs to address this personally.

I would love to see the church show some maturity and accountability for this issue, but I've honestly never seen it in the past and I think it would be quite unprecedented.  The soft apology for the MMM comes the closest that I can think of, and that was after 150 years of obfuscation, dismissal and denial.  

I think the church hopes that the firestorm just goes away.  

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How convenient.  His story has holes in it (just like he accuses Denson's of having) and yet he now refuses to address them.  One has to wonder why he even posted that story on this thread as much of it makes no sense and now he refuses to answer many questions that many have asked (not just Exile).  There is no way this story should be held up as a good example of what should take place within church leadership when known abuse has taken place and the perpetrator is "still out there".

His silence is an answer to these questions.

But let's move on.  He of course does not have to answer member's questions here.  What an odd thing for him to do though, IMO.

I think this is an uncharitable interpretation of Smac's decision, but I recognize that it can be very annoying to have someone refuse to answer questions because it seems like he or she can't do so without hurting their previous arguments.  

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would love to see the church show some maturity and accountability for this issue, but I've honestly never seen it in the past and I think it would be quite unprecedented.  The soft apology for the MMM comes the closest that I can think of, and that was after 150 years of obfuscation, dismissal and denial.  

I think the church hopes that the firestorm just goes away.  

Agreed.  They've just tried to sweep this under the rug.  We'd never know if it weren't for MormonLeaks and the one letter they sent in response to all of these cover-up efforts won't correct the systemic and cultural issues that this incident has put on display.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

As far as I know...

She talked to no one about it after the rape.

The first time she talked to leadership in regards to anything related likely (I am going to assume it happened in future counting) would have been when the mission president decided to send her to Provo after she told her companions there had been an attempted rape due to an anxiety attack (she went outside due to an anxiety attack alone).  She may not have spoken directly with him, however.  This would have been sometime after she left the MTC, but not too long as she was in Washington waiting for a visa.  If she spoke to him, no details were shared beyond him sending her to Provo.

The second  time she talked to someone would have been the mental health specialist.  Iirc, in the press conference it was said she spoke to him multiple times but I may be confusing it with something I read.  In the transcript and 12/6 letter, it can be interpreted as only speaking once.  She states he pushed her to tell "her secret" but she didn't because tell him anything because she didn't like him (talked mostly about himself, was really arrogant).

The third time reported would have been the interview with Thomas Monson during that same time period a few months at most after the rape. No details provided.  She was then sent back out, but to Wisconsin.  

The fourth time reported was after returning from her mission, she spoke to Ron Leavitt, her YSA bishop.  He confirms she spoke to him, his details were she and another victim were shown porn in the basement.  I can't remember if she said she shared anything else.  

Assuming both she and he are telling the truth...it is likely Leavitt spoke unofficially to the stake president who then officially spoke to SL without Leavitt being aware he was doing it.  Denson did not speak to the SP herself.

The fifth time she herself reported anything happening was the alleged meeting with Elder Asay.  I say alleged because Leavitt says he didn't tell Church leadership about it, so if there was nothing said, how would SL know to hook her up with an interview with .Asay.  There is also no apparent record of a meeting in Asay's public records (26 boxes gone in a library collection through by a reporter iirc) and the Church says it has no record of a meeting.  Denson states she did not report the rape.  The wording is ambiguous as to whether she didn't say anything about the attack, but likely just repeated the story about the porn and shared info about private counseling sessions with Bishop or whether she described the attack but just didn't call it rape.  I lean towards the former because she was definite in her wording...the additional sentence makes it a bit iffy (she didn't say more because she didn't realize it was rape paraphrasing).

The next time (sixth) that has been reported I am aware of is the 2010 when she contacted SL to see if anything had been done,  when told she could not be informed due to privacy issues, she threatened to shoot Bishop.  Ten minutes later cops from Pleasant Grove showed up,  she informed them about the assault then.  They iirc from previous reports told her the statue of limitations was past.  When she showed didn't have a gun, no further action was taken.  SL (whoever that might have been) did not apparently follow up with the police, but the police did not contact them either.

This is the first time she reports she said anything about an assault.

The seventh reported time was in 2016 to the Colorado stake president.  She reports he said he would investigate, but she heard nothing.

The eighth time was to the BYU Police.  She reported, they contacted her for more details, told her they would come out to Colorado to interview her.  She then went and flew out to Arizona to interview Bishop after calling the MTC to get Bishop's address and local missionaries to get his phone number (don't know if she also googled him, no report of it that .I have seen). After that interview, went home and she was interviewed by police.

She then retained a lawyer, the tape was given to the Church sometime in January.  She shared the tape with multiple acquaintances and media people (according to her lawyer in the press conference).  The tape then became public (it appears without her official permission...but her personally giving the tape to multiple media outlets constitutes default permission imo).

Dont know who she has been interviewed by, if anyone besides her lawyer, since until the exposure of her name and the press conference and any prior media contacts.

If anyone knows of additional contacts she had with church leaders or police about the assault or other claims against Bishop, please add them.

Going from memory, correct if wrong.

Hey Cal, can you clarify what you mean in the post above by 'reported'?  Do you mean times she reported the assault or something else?  You have seven reports listed but some involve nothing being reported to anyone and others are about the assault being reported so i'm not sure i'm following what you mean by the number of reports.  Thanks!  And thanks for providing this timeline!

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed.  They've just tried to sweep this under the rug.  We'd never know if it weren't for MormonLeaks and the one letter they sent in response to all of these cover-up efforts won't correct the systemic and cultural issues that this incident has put on display.

Which also makes me wonder how many times the church has been successful in keeping these kinds of scandals from reaching the public through NDAs, or intimidation through dossiers, or any number of other mechanisms that we've seen with this situation.  The needs of a large institution take precedence, we should never forget that as individuals our needs are secondary.  

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Which also makes me wonder how many times the church has been successful in keeping these kinds of scandals from reaching the public through NDAs, or intimidation through dossiers, or any number of other mechanisms that we've seen with this situation.  The needs of a large institution take precedence, we should never forget that as individuals our needs are secondary.  

It seems doubtful that this is an isolated incident.  All that we've seen from the church and church-owned entities with respect to this incident shows a desire to keep it from the knowledge of members.