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

[provoman]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

 

I tend to doubt that the rfm was making a distinction between "The Church"  and the Apostles. Given the context of the podcast and the repeated veiled accusation by way of BYU PD Chief answers to VP of Student life, who answers to BYU President, who answers to the Apostles; and rfm statements about a direct line of authority from the BYU PD Chief to the Apostles.

How about this, I will post the statements where rfm does not make a conclusive statement about who ordered the redactions and you can post the statements where RFM affirmatively states "The Church" is behind the redactions?

19:38  "I am unable to tell if you they [BYU PD] are consulting with other people higher up in order to make these decisions. Or whether they're [BYU PD] making these decisions on their own. ... I will also note for the record that the immediate supervisor" for the byu pd  chief of police is the VP of student affairs, who answers to the President of BYU, who answers to the Apostles.

47;50 inconclusive statement about who made the redaction decisions.

48:20 again with Chief of police to VP to President to Apostle "it looks suspicious" 

51:30 "that also make me think their strings are being pulled by people above them [the BYU PD]"

53:39 "The police department OR WHOEVER is pulling their strings"

 

Ok so that is my list. It is a list where RFM is inconclusive about the redactions. So are you willing to create a similar list where rfm clearly and definitively states that "The Church" is behind the redactions.  

Edited April 30, 2018 by provoman

[rockpond]

47 minutes ago, provoman said:

I tend to doubt that the rfm was making a distinction between "The Church"  and the Apostles. Given the context of the podcast and the repeated veiled accusation by way of BYU PD Chief answers to VP of Student life, who answers to BYU President, who answers to the Apostles; and rfm statements about a direct line of authority from the BYU PD Chief to the Apostles.

How about this, I will post the statements where rfm does not make a conclusive statement about who ordered the redactions and you can post the statements where RFM affirmatively states "The Church" is behind the redactions?

19:38  "I am unable to tell if you they [BYU PD] are consulting with other people higher up in order to make these decisions. Or whether they're [BYU PD] making these decisions on their own. ... I will also note for the record that the immediate supervisor" for the byu pd  chief of police is the VP of student affairs, who answers to the President of BYU, who answers to the Apostles.

47;50 inconclusive statement about who made the redaction decisions.

48:20 again with Chief of police to VP to President to Apostle "it looks suspicious" 

51:30 "that also make me think their strings are being pulled by people above them [the BYU PD]"

53:39 "The police department OR WHOEVER is pulling their strings"

 

Ok so that is my list. It is a list where RFM is inconclusive about the redactions. So are you willing to create a similar list where rfm clearly and definitively states that "The Church" is behind the redactions.  

Why would I need to make a list where RFM states that "the Church" is behind the redactions?

It's clear to anyone listening to the podcast that RFM believes someone at some level of the church has been influencing the cover up.  But, as you have demonstrated with your quotes, RFM cannot state to what level the cover up might rise.  There is no evidence with which to draw such a conclusion.  He just notes what he finds suspicious.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why would I need to make a list where RFM states that "the Church" is behind the redactions?

It's clear to anyone listening to the podcast that RFM believes someone at some level of the church has been influencing the cover up.  But, as you have demonstrated with your quotes, RFM cannot state to what level the cover up might rise.  There is no evidence with which to draw such a conclusion.  He just notes what he finds suspicious.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

I think Prof is saying that sometimes RFM says that they don't know but at other times they state the church's involvement in the cover up as if it is a fact.  So, basically the problem is that RFM is making contradictory statements, sometimes staying with 'the facts' (which is that there isn't any conclusive evidence the church is behind it) but other times ignoring the facts and instead claiming the church is definitely behind it.  

(That's what I think Prof is saying.  I could be wrong.  I haven't listened to any podcasts so don't have an opinion on it).

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think Prof is saying that sometimes RFM says that they don't know but at other times they state the church's involvement in the cover up as if it is a fact.  So, basically the problem is that RFM is making contradictory statements, sometimes staying with 'the facts' (which is that there isn't any conclusive evidence the church is behind it) but other times ignoring the facts and instead claiming the church is definitely behind it.  

(That's what I think Prof is saying.  I could be wrong.  I haven't listened to any podcasts so don't have an opinion on it).

Is "Prof" @provoman?  

If one defines the Church as inclusive of all church owned and controlled entities (which I believe RFM does) than, yes, the Church is behind the cover up.  That's been proven.

If one wants to define the Church as not including all of its owned and controlled organizations, than I guess that needs to be explained.

[provoman]

 

 

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why would I need to make a list where RFM states that "the Church" is behind the redactions?

It's clear to anyone listening to the podcast that RFM believes someone at some level of the church has been influencing the cover up.  But, as you have demonstrated with your quotes, RFM cannot state to what level the cover up might rise.  There is no evidence with which to draw such a conclusion.  He just notes what he finds suspicious.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

Yep he has opinions and suspicion. He does not make a conclusive statement as to who or what entity is behind the various redactions; but creating a 

Gievn the lack of conclusive statement as the the source of the redactions can it be said that the podcast covers "some of the things the LDS Church doesn't want you to know are in the BYU Police reports".  

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is "Prof" @provoman?  

If one defines the Church as inclusive of all church owned and controlled entities (which I believe RFM does) than, yes, the Church is behind the cover up.  That's been proven.

If one wants to define the Church as not including all of its owned and controlled organizations, than I guess that needs to be explained.

Oops!  I meant provoman. I get those names confused sometimes. 

But, if that’s how RFM is defining “the church” than why would RFM say that the redactions look suspicious?  

Edited April 30, 2018 by bluebell

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

 

Yep he has opinions and suspicion. He does not make a conclusive statement as to who or what entity is behind the various redactions; but creating a 

Gievn the lack of conclusive statement as the the source of the redactions can it be said that the podcast covers "some of the things the LDS Church doesn't want you to know are in the BYU Police reports".  

I don't see a problem with the headline.  It's accurate.  We don't know exactly who is behind the various elements of the cover up but it's all being done within the Church.

What is it that you disagree with?

Did you think the Church DOES or DID want us to know about the elements of the investigation and allegations that have been hidden?

Are you suggesting that someone outside the Church has been trying to orchestrate this cover up?

Edited April 30, 2018 by rockpond

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

 

Yep he has opinions and suspicion. He does not make a conclusive statement as to who or what entity is behind the various redactions; but creating a 

Gievn the lack of conclusive statement as the the source of the redactions can it be said that the podcast covers "some of the things the LDS Church doesn't want you to know are in the BYU Police reports".  

 

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see a problem with the headline.  It's accurate.  We don't know exactly who is behind the various elements of the cover up but it's all being done within the Church.

What is it that you disagree with?

Did you think the Church DOES or DID want us to know about the elements of the investigation and allegations that have been hidden?

Are you suggesting that someone outside the Church has been trying to orchestrate this cover up?

Meh, it's advertising hyperbole.  I don't get the controversy here.

[Jeanne]

19 hours 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 inclmatudes 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 arofessional legal document addressing the claims; but that does not make sensational press conferences

The biggest bombshell in my view..is Bishop is still a member...priesthood holder???  And probably a card holder to the Temple...whatever part of the body..backrub..butt rub..gees...Perhaps it makes a difference?? Oh..it has to be proved...this guy may have the second annointing so what can  you do??  So lets take this woman's dossier and send her and her daughter to the hell they already live in!

 

 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Meh, it's advertising hyperbole.  I don't get the controversy here.

I don't even think it's hyperbole.  Just a statement of fact.

I do think that Provoman seems desperate to try to discredit him but won't even state what he thinks RFM has got wrong.

[provoman]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see a problem with the headline.  It's accurate.  We don't know exactly who is behind the various elements of the cover up but it's all being done within the Church.

What is it that you disagree with?

Did you think the Church DOES or DID want us to know about the elements of the investigation and allegations that have been hidden?

Are you suggesting that someone outside the Church has been trying to orchestrate this cover up?

If the headline is accurate and if byu pd is "the church", then byu pd is a private organization that is not subject to GRAMA, which means rfm has created an false controversy. 

[Physics Guy]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

I've seen no debate regarding what I put in bold above.  ... There's also been absolutely no blaming of the victim in smac's story ... no "blaming of the victim" here.

Sorry to be unclear with my vague phrase about "back and forth". I think that in fact everyone who expressed support for Mckenna's more active course was clear about not blaming SMAC's other victim, but I thought SMAC definitely rebuked Exiled for criticizing her decisions. And in general I had the impression that the discussion was awkwardly stumbling on this issue. I thought I could help the discussion over a hurdle by presenting a viewpoint from which I thought this point became clear.

Quote

- 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.

I don't want to overblow this. Mckenna hasn't risked her life to save other lives. But she's stirred up a lot of trouble for herself, long after it's likely to do her any good, and there's at least a decent chance that it will end up making things better for others. She'd be within her rights, in my book, to just let this go, now; but instead she's stepped up. So I'm not trying to say she's the greatest hero in history, but to me she's in the category of going above and beyond. I think the right thing to do is respect that, and I'm trying to offer a clear way of explaining why that has nothing to do with blaming anyone else for not doing as much.

If you don't rush into the burning car, you're not blamed. If you do, you are honored. I think the principle is clear and applies here.

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't even think it's hyperbole.  Just a statement of fact.

I do think that Provoman seems desperate to try to discredit him but won't even state what he thinks RFM has got wrong.

You wish. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by provoman

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

If the headline is accurate and if byu pd is "the church", then byu pd is a private organization that is not subject to GRAMA, which means rfm has created an false controversy. 

BYU PD can still be part of the Church and be an organization that is subject to GRAMA.

What do you think RFM has wrong?

How do you define the Church?  Because there are people outside of the BYU PD that have kept this hidden.  It goes beyond the four different versions of the police report and the failure to provide the audio recording of the BYU PD interview with Bishop as well as the statement from Denson.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Sorry to be unclear with my vague phrase about "back and forth". I think that in fact everyone who expressed support for Mckenna's more active course was clear about not blaming SMAC's other victim, but I thought SMAC definitely rebuked Exiled for criticizing her decisions. And in general I had the impression that the discussion was awkwardly stumbling on this issue. I thought I could help the discussion over a hurdle by presenting a viewpoint from which I thought this point became clear.

I don't want to overblow this. Mckenna hasn't risked her life to save other lives. But she's stirred up a lot of trouble for herself, long after it's likely to do her any good, and there's at least a decent chance that it will end up making things better for others. She'd be within her rights, in my book, to just let this go, now; but instead she's stepped up. So I'm not trying to say she's the greatest hero in history, but to me she's in the category of going above and beyond. I think the right thing to do is respect that, and I'm trying to offer a clear way of explaining why that has nothing to do with blaming anyone else for not doing as much.

If you don't rush into the burning car, you're not blamed. If you do, you are honored. I think the principle is clear and applies here.

Perhaps all her obstacles still does not condone or bring any justice.  I look at your post here and marvel at her determined courage.I can't believe...that YOU believe any of this is okay  You are a devout mormon..you have learned well..just sweep it under the rug.

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Is "Prof" @provoman?  

If one defines the Church as inclusive of all church owned and controlled entities (which I believe RFM does) than, yes, the Church is behind the cover up.  That's been proven.

I realize that you probably didn't see my previous question because it was an edited added on to a post you had probably already read.

But, if RFM defines 'the church' in the way that you are saying they define it (in bold) then why would RFM say that it looks suspiciously like the church is behind the cover-up?  If something's been proven (as you said it has been under RFM's definition of 'the church') then it doesn't make sense for RFM to say that.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Perhaps all her obstacles still does not condone or bring any justice.  I look at your post here and marvel at her determined courage.I can't believe...that YOU believe any of this is okay  You are a devout mormon..you have learned well..just sweep it under the rug.

What are you talking about Jeanne?  What part of PG's post makes you think the bolded things above?

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I realize that you probably didn't see my previous question because it was an edited added on to a post you had probably already read.

But, if RFM defines 'the church' in the way that you are saying they define it (in bold) then why would RFM say that it looks suspiciously like the church is behind the cover-up?  If something's been proven (as you said it has been under RFM's definition of 'the church') then it doesn't make sense for RFM to say that.

I would probably have to listen again, but I'm not sure if I want to.  I don't think RFM is saying that is "looks suspiciously like the church is behind the cover-up".  I think he is saying that it looks suspiciously like people in the Church above the BYU PD are involved in the cover up... and possibly much higher given the short chain of command between BYU PD and the Apostles.

Edited April 30, 2018 by rockpond

[smac97]

So regarding the federal litigation...

Both the Church and Joseph Bishop have submitted acceptances of service stating they will respond to Denson's Complaint by May 15.  So we can expect to see something in the next two weeks.

Thanks,

-Smac

[esodije]

I just came across this topic/thread. Would anyone care to summarize?  I gather Denson told the BYU PD that she went back to the MTC from DC (where she’d been waiting for a visa to go to Colombia?) after some kind of breakdown, but that she was allowed to go back out (to Wisconsin?).  However, for whatever reason, she  told them that first had an interview with then-Elder Monson, in which she apparently did not mention the Bishop attack in the MTC.  I’ve felt from the start, even after listening to the Bishop audio recording, that Denson’s case against Bishop and the church wouldn’t go far unless (a) a succession of other accusers came forward with similar stories (which Denson herself was sure would happen), or (b) there was third-party corroboration of material portions of Denson’s accusations or Bishop’s confessions of sexual misconduct.  So far as I know, there has been only the one other accuser (she of the breast-baring incident), and I still haven’t read any explanation for why Denson would go anywhere in the MTC without a companion, much less to meet one-on-one with the MTC president.  (A couple of posters on Deseret News threads have said they knew Denson in the MTC, and to say they were skeptical of her is an understatement.). What else does anyone purport to know?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

I just came across this topic/thread. Would anyone care to summarize?  

Oi.  A lot of info to cover.

1 minute ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

I gather Denson told the BYU PD that she went back to the MTC from DC (where she’d been waiting for a visa to go to Colombia?) after some kind of breakdown, but that she was allowed to go back out (to Wisconsin?).  

Yes.  

1 minute ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

However, for whatever reason, she  told them that first had an interview with then-Elder Monson, in which she apparently did not mention the Bishop attack in the MTC.  

Apparently, yes.

1 minute ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

I’ve felt from the start, even after listening to the Bishop audio recording, that Denson’s case against Bishop and the church wouldn’t go far unless (a) a succession of other accusers came forward with similar stories (which Denson herself was sure would happen), or (b) there was third-party corroboration of material portions of Denson’s accusations or Bishop’s confessions of sexual misconduct.  

And likely not even then.  The statute of limitations / laches issue is not going to go away.  The flawed legal strategy of we-must-depose-Elder-Wells-regarding-what-Joseph-Bishop-confessed-to-him is incoherent (since the purported confession preceded the puported assault of Denson) and likely barred by the priest/penitent privilege.

1 minute ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

So far as I know, there has been only the one other accuser (she of the breast-baring incident), and I still haven’t read any explanation for why Denson would go anywhere in the MTC without a companion, much less to meet one-on-one with the MTC president.  

Well, the MTC president could conceivably get away with bending rules like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

I just came across this topic/thread. Would anyone care to summarize?  I gather Denson told the BYU PD that she went back to the MTC from DC (where she’d been waiting for a visa to go to Colombia?) after some kind of breakdown, but that she was allowed to go back out (to Wisconsin?).  However, for whatever reason, she  told them that first had an interview with then-Elder Monson, in which she apparently did not mention the Bishop attack in the MTC.  I’ve felt from the start, even after listening to the Bishop audio recording, that Denson’s case against Bishop and the church wouldn’t go far unless (a) a succession of other accusers came forward with similar stories (which Denson herself was sure would happen), or (b) there was third-party corroboration of material portions of Denson’s accusations or Bishop’s confessions of sexual misconduct.  So far as I know, there has been only the one other accuser (she of the breast-baring incident), and I still haven’t read any explanation for why Denson would go anywhere in the MTC without a companion, much less to meet one-on-one with the MTC president.  (A couple of posters on Deseret News threads have said they knew Denson in the MTC, and to say they were skeptical of her is an understatement.). What else does anyone purport to know?

Uhhh, you need to read the thread.  I can't say anyone is going to do your homework for you.  Sorry.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

I just came across this topic/thread. Would anyone care to summarize?  I gather Denson told the BYU PD that she went back to the MTC from DC (where she’d been waiting for a visa to go to Colombia?) after some kind of breakdown, but that she was allowed to go back out (to Wisconsin?).  However, for whatever reason, she  told them that first had an interview with then-Elder Monson, in which she apparently did not mention the Bishop attack in the MTC.  I’ve felt from the start, even after listening to the Bishop audio recording, that Denson’s case against Bishop and the church wouldn’t go far unless (a) a succession of other accusers came forward with similar stories (which Denson herself was sure would happen), or (b) there was third-party corroboration of material portions of Denson’s accusations or Bishop’s confessions of sexual misconduct.  So far as I know, there has been only the one other accuser (she of the breast-baring incident), and I still haven’t read any explanation for why Denson would go anywhere in the MTC without a companion, much less to meet one-on-one with the MTC president.  (A couple of posters on Deseret News threads have said they knew Denson in the MTC, and to say they were skeptical of her is an understatement.). What else does anyone purport to know?

Too much to summarize.

There was a second accuser.  There are multiple third-parties corroborating material portions of Denson's accusations (her MTC instructor, an MTC employee, and her YSA bishop).  Bishop himself has corroborated a few of the material portions... not just in the audio recording with Denson but in his interview with BYU PD.  BYU PD sought to hide significant evidence from the public after freedom of information / GRAMA requests.  Likewise, the Church's statements in the wake of the Denson audio leak were less than forthcoming given facts that have since surfaced about what the Church knew and did with that knowledge.

Radio Free Mormon has several podcast episodes that do a thorough job of going through all of the evidence.  https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/03/radio-free-mormon-28-church-sex-scandal-cover/

 

[esodije]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And likely not even then.  The statute of limitations / laches issue is not going to go away. 

Well, the MTC president could conceivably get away with bending rules like this.

-Smac

The injunctive-relief thing (request to order the church to change its interview policies) was the most-ludicrous part of the complaint.  Denson’s lawyers must have thought they were in the 9th Circuit or something.

Even if the MTC president could pull Denson out of class without her companion, multiple people would have taken note.  Her companion’s recollections in that regard would be interesting to know.

[esodije]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Uhhh, you need to read the thread.  I can't say anyone is going to do your homework for you.  Sorry.

I tried—too convoluted.