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

[provoman]

27 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.  

 

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Do either of you apply an equal amount of criticism to those who sign non-disclosure agreements, which means, by their signature they AGREE to that whatever the incident is it will not be made public?

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

Or it is because if he shares any more info, he risks sharing identifying information.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Do either of you apply an equal amount of criticism to those who sign non-disclosure agreements, which means, by their signature they AGREE to that whatever the incident is it will not be made public?

I have a concern about organizations using NDAs to silence victims and cover up scandals.  Its a complex issue and I think we need to be concerned about this from an ethical perspective.  Sometimes there is a public interest in knowing the truth that overrides the private interests of the individuals signing the NDA on both sides of those agreements.  But how we determine the greater public good and who's interests are most important seems to be a very difficult thing.  I think much more debate and discussion needs to happen on this topic.  

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or it is because if he shares any more info, he risks sharing identifying information.

The questions asked regarding notifying church authorities are pretty generic.

But, I'm moving on here and will not comment further about the story.

Edited April 30, 2018 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Had McKenna never exposed her recording of the interview with Bishop, we may not have ever known this all took place. BTW, does anyone know how the case with the mission president, Philander Knox Smartt III  in Puerto Rico, come forward? Did someone leak it to the media?

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

What about the absence of any of that by Denson?  She obviously intentionally didn't share the information about Monson in the tape and there was no mention of her meeting with Monson in any of the public interviews.  Did she not participate in the coverup as much as the police?

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

What about the absence of any of that by Denson?  She obviously intentionally didn't share the information about Monson in the tape and there was no mention of her meeting with Monson in any of the public interviews.  Did she not participate in the coverup as much as the police?

Didn't she disclose that to the BYU Police?  Or am I remembering wrong?  But, do we have any evidence that Denson discussed the sexual abuse with Monson?  I'm not sure how relevant that interview with Monson was to the case.

Either way, the problem I have with the cover up is that it hinders us, as a church, from fully addressing the issue.  Denson has no responsibility to or stewardship of the church.

[provoman]

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by provoman

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Do either of you apply an equal amount of criticism to those who sign non-disclosure agreements, which means, by their signature they AGREE to that whatever the incident is it will not be made public?

Individuals can make decisions based on what is best for them.

Our church leaders ought to be making decisions based on what is best for the church, not for the protection of leaders' reputations.

[provoman]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by provoman

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

Have you given any thought that perhaps consig might be a sensationalist on par with Alex Jones? 

Come on, provoman.  You need to stop the personal attacks on consiglieri.   That's really not fair and it's also really making you look pretty foolish here.  How about you just allow each person to listen to the podcast (something you admit you haven't even done yet in it's entirety) and then let's discuss what's in it without going to such extremes as you are to slander this guy.

He has every right to do what he's doing and let people know about the information he's found.  I agree that we shouldn't just take all of his conclusions as facts.   But that's why you should actually listen, take notes and then discuss it in a rational manner if you disagree.

Edited April 30, 2018 by ALarson

[ttribe]

I just want to weigh in with my opinion on this controversy surrounding smac.  I think his use of his anecdote was a bad idea.  I think he needs to, generally, do a better job of acknowledging that some of his anecdotes are the exception, rather than the rule.  I think it's horrendous that an alleged predator may still be on the loose in a congregation that he is aware of.  I think his meddling in many of the behind the scenes elements of this story (e.g. sending emails to Jana Reis, Bishop's attorney, BYU PD, etc.) is quite weird.  All that being said, one thing I've never thought of relative to Spencer MacDonald is that he is dishonest.  Loyal to the Church to a fault? Yes.  Willing to defend ANYTHING? Yes.  Outright lie or make something up for rhetorical purposes?  I just don't see him crossing that line.

[provoman]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Come on, provoman.  You need to stop the personal attacks on consiglieri.   That's really not fair and it's also really making you look pretty foolish here.  How about you just allow each person to listen to the podcast (something you admit you haven't even done yet in it's entirety) and then let's discuss what's in it ....

Sure lets discuss that on a message board is posted:

"The new Radio Free Mormon podcast covers some of the things the LDS Church doesn't want you to know are in the BYU Police reports."

And compare, the above statement to what is said in the podcast:

"Once again I cannot say whether the Apostles are involved in directing what is and what is not disclosed to the public in these reports."  time stamp 20:25

 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

Sure lets discuss that on a message board is posted:

"The new Radio Free Mormon podcast covers some of the things the LDS Church doesn't want you to know are in the BYU Police reports."

And compare, the above statement to what is said in the podcast:

"Once again I cannot say whether the Apostles are involved in directing what is and what is not disclosed to the public in these reports."  time stamp 20:25

 

Ok.  I haven't listened to the podcast yet but I will try to today.  You do the same.  We should take notes (as others should who want to come here and post about what he's actually stated).  I admit I'm not in a place where I can discuss this intelligently either since I've not listened yet.  But we can't just jump around and take things that may be out of context as the only thing stated regarding certain aspects of this case (ie. the one time stamp statement above).  If you'd listened to all of the podcast, you may have more info, for example.

If we both listen to all of the podcast and don't jump around and just listen to parts (or just "the end), then there may be a chance of having a fair and open discussion.  

But until you do that, you come across as just being petty and engaging in personal smears.   You also lack any amount of credibility when you do that and resort to name calling instead of actually discussing content while also admitting you haven't actually listened to the entire podcast.

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Had McKenna never exposed her recording of the interview with Bishop, we may not have ever known this all took place. 

Which doesn't seem like that big of a deal.  I definitely want justice to be served, but I don't have to know about the case for that to happen.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

  I think his meddling in many of the behind the scenes elements of this story (e.g. sending emails to Jana Reis, Bishop's attorney, BYU PD, etc.) is quite weird. 

It is weird to try and actively removed from public view a sexual assault victim's name from a news report where it accidentally got included?  Could you explain why that is weird in your view, because my impulse was the same as Smac's; I wanted that name off the page as soon as possible.  Everyone I saw who commented on it before its removal were saying the same thing..."how can we get it taken down now!?"

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Which doesn't seem like that big of a deal.  I definitely want justice to be served, but I don't have to know about the case for that to happen.

You don't want to know about abuses within the Church?  I sure do.  I have kids still attending.

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  I haven't listened to the podcast yet but I will try to today.  You do the same.  We should take notes (as others should who want to come here and post about what he's actually stated).  I admit I'm not in a place where I can discuss this intelligently either since I've not listened yet.

Then there may be a chance of having a fair and open discussion.  

But until you do that, you come across as just being petty and engaging in personal smears.   You also lack any amount of credibility when you do that and resort to name calling instead of actually discussing content while admitting you haven't actually listened to the entire podcast.

 

In my first response about the podcast I provided times stamps. In my most recent response, I have provided the quotes with time stamps.
 

Edited April 30, 2018 by provoman

[ttribe]

Just now, Calm said:

It is weird to try and actively removed from public view a sexual assault victim's name from a news report where it accidentally got included?  Could you explain why that is weird in your view, because my impulse was the same as Smac's; I wanted that name off the page as soon as possible.  Everyone I saw who commented on it before its removal were saying the same thing..."how can we get it taken down now!?"

I guess I get that.  I just don't think it needs to be announced here as being an act of his doing.  Maybe that's just me.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

In my first response about the podcast I provided times stamps. In my most recent response, I have provided the quotes with time stamps.
 

Have you listened to the entire podcast from start to finish without jumping around? 

Otherwise, it's hard to know context of just individual statements and you're not really being fair here to consiglieri, IMO.

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

You don't want to know about abuses within the Church?  I sure do.  I have kids still attending.

If the church is doing something to perpetuate abuse or encourage abuse, then yes, I want to know about that.  If there are evil men and women in the church who are committing evil and the church is handling it to the best of it's (imperfect) ability, then no, I don't need to know about each of those incidents as they occur.  

The church can change policy and procedure to help keep people safer from abuse without me needing to know the incidents that caused the changes.  I'm not saying that such things need to be confidential-i don't think it's wrong for them to be known, at least in abstract ways without details-but neither do i think that it's some kind of a tragedy if they aren't known.  

At lot of this stuff is interesting to know but I don't think it impacts most members of the church personally in any way.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, provoman said:

Sure lets discuss that on a message board is posted:

"The new Radio Free Mormon podcast covers some of the things the LDS Church doesn't want you to know are in the BYU Police reports."

And compare, the above statement to what is said in the podcast:

"Once again I cannot say whether the Apostles are involved in directing what is and what is not disclosed to the public in these reports."  time stamp 20:25

 

The "LDS Church" and "the Apostles" are not one and the same.  So, no, the headline and the statement at 20:25 in the podcast do not conflict.  Radio Free Mormon was clarifying that he doesn't know if the cover up by the church went all the way up to the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the church is doing something to perpetuate abuse or encourage abuse, then yes, I want to know about that.  If there are evil men and women in the church who are committing evil and the church is handling it to the best of it's (imperfect) ability, then no, I don't need to know about each of those incidents as they occur.  

The church can change policy and procedure to help keep people safer from abuse without me needing to know the incidents that caused the changes.  I'm not saying that such things need to be confidential-i don't think it's wrong for them to be known, at least in abstract ways without details-but neither do i think that it's some kind of a tragedy if they aren't known.  

At lot of this stuff is interesting to know but I don't think it impacts most members of the church personally in any way.

I agree with what you are saying here.  Enough needs to be known so that we, as a church, can make any changes that are needed to help prevent future incidents.  But I certainly wouldn't want or expect to know the level of details that have come forth with the Joseph Bishop case.

[ttribe]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the church is doing something to perpetuate abuse or encourage abuse, then yes, I want to know about that.  If there are evil men and women in the church who are committing evil and the church is handling it to the best of it's (imperfect) ability, then no, I don't need to know about each of those incidents as they occur.  

The church can change policy and procedure to help keep people safer from abuse without me needing to know the incidents that caused the changes.  I'm not saying that such things need to be confidential-i don't think it's wrong for them to be known, at least in abstract ways without details-but neither do i think that it's some kind of a tragedy if they aren't known.  

At lot of this stuff is interesting to know but I don't think it impacts most members of the church personally in any way.

Whether the Church is at fault, or not, I think there are cautionary tales to be gleaned from these situations.  I think too many members naively believe they will be protected from such evil men and women as long as they are doing the Lord's work.  This story breaks down some of that naivete', IMO.

[kllindley]

57 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Whether the Church is at fault, or not, I think there are cautionary tales to be gleaned from these situations.  I think too many members naively believe they will be protected from such evil men and women as long as they are doing the Lord's work.  This story breaks down some of that naivete', IMO.

There is some real truth to that. Though it's hard to believe I'm in agreement with you, 😉 I do agree that there is a benefit to making sure our youth understand that just because someone is a Bishop, Mission President, or any other position, there is still a possibility for misconduct. Youth should be, and in many cases already are, taught how to respond-including telling a parent or other trusted adult. And parents and other adults should be taught how to respond, including not discounting a report because "a church leader wouldn't do that."

I believe we can do this without compromisingy the potential for a trusting, appropriately vulnerable relationship with Ecclesiastical leaders. To accomplish this, we need to balance this approach by making sure  we don't create an atmopshere of distrust and suspicion about all leaders. We can acknowledge that the overwhelming majority are good men and women who are safe to talk to.