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

[Honorentheos]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This wasn't McKenna, it was the other missionary. Bishop gets the two confused, if you listen to the interview with McKenna and Bishop, he mentions something to her about getting breast implants and she was like, no that wasn't me! She wore a padded bra, because she mentioned that he grabbed her by the breasts during the rape incident in the storage room, but she had on a padded bra so it was as painful. 

Over and over people mess this up, Bishop was speaking of another missionary not McKenna when he asked her to expose her breasts.

There, have I said 'breasts' enough for one night?!?

Thanks for the clarification. And yes. Probably more than enough. 

Edited to delete a smilie which seemed appropriate to convey appreciation for Tacenda's comment but inappropriate upon stepping back and seeing it in the context of the overall post.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

Under the heading of depraved behaviors, it's worth considering that the victim's accounts are describing a man grooming vulnerable young women who he had information on as to their backgrounds and apparent past sexual abuse. That grooming apparently resulted in his separating them from their missionary group on occasions and, ultimately, gets two of them that we know of into situations where they would later and also separately tell others of having been sexually assaulted by Bishop.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

I make that statement as a general proposition.  It’s human nature to read too much into relatively insignificant bits of evidence, or to make things up entirely, when the evidence doesn’t quite support the conclusions we’ve already arrived at.  

What pieces of evidence in this case do you believe have been "entirely" made up?

Edited May 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

A police interview and report is fairly compelling evidence. 

Keeping in mind that in the victim's account he forceably removed her clothing to get to her breasts while his account to the police is that he asked her to expose her breasts for him and she did so. That's his account making a case for consensual activity and her account making a case for rape. But his account is that of a person in authority asking a subordinate to remove their clothing which wouldn't stand up as consensual anyway. The accounts are only materially different in that Bishop does not admit to committing rape.

I don't think you understand what I am arguing.  I am not arguing there is no evidence for sexual assault at all.  I am saying there is not as much evidence (in terms of numbers and type---depraved, negligence, etc) as is claimed by several here and many more elsewhere...at least at this time (unless there is significantly new info on the Bishop police recording...does he admit to more than one assault in the basement room, does he admit to the other sister missionary---the one identified sexual assault victim imo--- protesting when he touched her buttock or her moving away when the requested back rub went beyond rubbing her back or any behaviour suggesting it was not her who instigated the back rub and she did not want it to go as far as it did, does he admit that when the two preMTC women he described in the transcript exposed herself in the hot tub/flirted with him in her sunsuit, he assaulted them or had other actual sexual interaction with them besides looking, or perhaps something completely?)

 It comes across to me as if people are thinking this is a pretty much legal slam dunk against both Bishop and the Church because they see a lot more admissions from Bishop implicating himself and the Church when much of the accusations require you accept Denson and Jordan's (and others like the linked to timeline that I pointed out problems with earlier) version of the transcript info as accurate at this time with the info provided so far...which it is not, imo; though after seeing tons of people make similar assumptions I don't see their claims as unreasonable interpretations, but many of them solely rest on assumptions as far as I can see and not established facts (especially the claim there was previous inappropriate sexual behaviour on Bishop's part when the two nonMTC women were themselves the only ones sexually inappropriate according to Bishop's report since he implies by saying nothing about what he did that he only looked and likely lusted inwardly).  It is certainly possible they have more info, but the way things were phrased in the press conference and filing, where everything concrete could be traced back to the police report or the transcript imo, nothing hinted at new info...again, imo.

Otoh, the Monson interview was not hinted at as far as I remember, so that could mean they have other additional concrete evidence to support claims...otoh, they may be depending heavily on Wells having knowledge of something problematic for Bishop and thus the Church to provide actual evidence.

I believe the police report is enough to convict imo of nonconsensual activity and thus assault due to his authority over the one certain victim, the one identified as the second victim who came forward in 2010.

 Denson's claim for the rape does not have the same level of confirmation (a confession from Bishop or unless this info is in the recording, details that separate what happened to her with what happened to the confirmed victim.  Thus it is not a slam dunk either against Bishop and definitely not the Church though I personally believe she was assaulted and likely raped (the only hesitation of full acceptance on the rape claim comes from the later apparently documented false accusation at her former place of employment; her use of rape for an explanation of an anxiety attack while on her mission is beyond overkill to me, how could claiming an attempted rape be more embarrassing than saying I am having an anxiety attack...but if she is going to extremes anyway, given the rape was in her mind---if there was a rape---it is understandable why she went there rather than saying it was an attempted mugging, so I have decided that is not in her credibility issues list for me).

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

There, have I said 'breasts' enough for one night?!?

(Yay!  Emoji list worked for me, I can even see my beloved zombie.  )

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think you understand what I am arguing.  I am not arguing there is no evidence for sexual assault at all.  I am saying there is not as much evidence (in terms of numbers and type---depraved, negligence, etc) as is claimed by several here and many more elsewhere...at least at this time (unless there is significantly new info on the Bishop police recording...does he admit to more than one assault in the basement room, does he admit to the other sister missionary---the one identified sexual assault victim imo--- protesting when he touched her buttock or her moving away when the requested back rub went beyond rubbing her back or any behaviour suggesting it was not her who instigated the back rub and she did not want it to go as far as it did, does he admit that when the two preMTC women he described in the transcript exposed herself in the hot tub/flirted with him in her sunsuit, he assaulted them or had other actual sexual interaction with them besides looking, or perhaps something completely?)

 It comes across to me as if people are thinking this is a pretty much legal slam dunk against both Bishop and the Church because they see a lot more admissions from Bishop implicating himself and the Church when much of the accusations require you accept Denson and Jordan's (and others like the linked to timeline that I pointed out problems with earlier) version of the transcript info as accurate at this time with the info provided so far...which it is not, imo; though after seeing tons of people make similar assumptions I don't see their claims as unreasonable interpretations, but many of them solely rest on assumptions as far as I can see and not established facts (especially the claim there was previous inappropriate sexual behaviour on Bishop's part when the two nonMTC women were themselves the only ones sexually inappropriate according to Bishop's report since he implies by saying nothing about what he did that he only looked and likely lusted inwardly).  It is certainly possible they have more info, but the way things were phrased in the press conference and filing, where everything concrete could be traced back to the police report or the transcript imo, nothing hinted at new info...again, imo.

Otoh, the Monson interview was not hinted at as far as I remember, so that could mean they have other additional concrete evidence to support claims...otoh, they may be depending heavily on Wells having knowledge of something problematic for Bishop and thus the Church to provide actual evidence.

I believe the police report is enough to convict imo of nonconsensual activity and thus assault due to his authority over the one certain victim, the one identified as the second victim who came forward in 2010.

 Denson's claim for the rape does not have the same level of confirmation (a confession from Bishop or unless this info is in the recording, details that separate what happened to her with what happened to the confirmed victim.  Thus it is not a slam dunk either against Bishop and definitely not the Church though I personally believe she was assaulted and likely raped (the only hesitation of full acceptance on the rape claim comes from the later apparently documented false accusation at her former place of employment; her use of rape for an explanation of an anxiety attack while on her mission is beyond overkill to me, how could claiming an attempted rape be more embarrassing than saying I am having an anxiety attack...but if she is going to extremes anyway, given the rape was in her mind---if there was a rape---it is understandable why she went there rather than saying it was an attempted mugging, so I have decided that is not in her credibility issues list for me).

To be clear, I don't think that this is a legal slam dunk against Bishop regarding the rape allegation. I do think the sexual abuse accusation has a lot of weight, however.  But, I'm not really that concerned about the matter between Denson and Bishop.  I assume that will be worked out by attorneys, settlements, and the court system if needed.

What concerns me, as a church member, is the attempted cover up to keep this from the knowledge of the members and the need for us to address cultural and systemic issues within our church that may work in favor of protecting the perpetrators (when they are priesthood leaders) at the expense of the victims.  I would like to see this addressed from the top... starting with President Nelson addressing the subject with all adult members of the church.

[Honorentheos]

Hi Calm,

Thanks for the clarification. I tend to agree that there is a tendency to see significance in events that probably aren't. The accounts of the incident where a woman exposed herself at a hot springs being meaningful because Bishop describes it as a place he enjoyed going with other leaders seems to be overreach to me as well. It also seems that the interview with then-Elder Monson is an artifact of the story that may be interesting but isn't significant in that the victim doesn't describe it as her reporting Bishop to the GA's. 

What does seem interesting, though, are the incidents that included her YSA ward Bishop Levitt. All accounts, including his own, seem to be problematic. He admits to being told by her that Bishop had done something and told her he would move it up the chain, but then says he didn't while she believes he did because she was then interviewed by Carlos Asay. She seems to be under the impression that her report to Levitt set the wheels of ecclesiastical review in motion and moved on for about 10 years. So her later inquiries were to see if her report had been acted on, and ultimately what follows in a decade or so of her escalating her inquiries until the incident in 2010 that is described as a death threat. What do we know about how the Church acted in this time? We don't seem to have good reliable information. But we do know that she told the story to her Bishop in 1988, 30 years ago. She seemed to believe that her report was being acted upon and that as it seemed more and more likely to her that it hadn't resulted in any action against Bishop she began to escalate the pursuit of finding out how the Church chose to respond to her report. 

Now, we can reasonably conclude a few things from this. One, even if the authorities over Bishop had met with him, and he had confessed to this to them and claimed repentance, he does not seem to have ever reached out to the victim to seek her forgiveness. That's odd. It seems surreal that a person accused of raping a person would be considered sincerely repentant while never seeking to make even the most minimal attempt at restitution. Why? And we seem to know that he would have assaulted another woman who reported this later in 2010 and that, had he been seeking to truly repent he would have also sought out this person's forgiveness and to make restitution. It calls into question just how the Church chose to handle Bishop between 1988 and 2010.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Honorentheos

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Under the heading of depraved behaviors, it's worth considering that the victim's accounts are describing a man grooming vulnerable young women who he had information on as to their backgrounds and apparent past sexual abuse. That grooming apparently resulted in his separating them from their missionary group on occasions and, ultimately, gets two of them that we know of into situations where they would later and also separately tell others of having been sexually assaulted by Bishop.

I definitely see this as a big problem.

I also think he constructed a great out for himself with the story of past traumatized sisters seeking him out for counseling and him doing his best while being refused professional help from higher ups...in fact this is the one thing that points to church negligence so far for me (putting nonprofessional counselors in counseling sessions with known abuse victims who are looking for counseling to deal with sexual trauma...which means sexual discussions in detail will likely be brought up; that to me could be easily seen as negligent).  His grooming can all be waved away as "I was out of my depth", but doing his best with no ill intent...to begin with, but he gave into temptation with one sister.

His only problem is the claim he singled them out, which I believe has not been substantiated outside of Denson's claims yet (unless Bishop admitted it to police).  The Spanish teacher could only confirm that Denson was pulled out of class, no one has confirmed any other special treatment of Denson or others as far as we know.  It is very possible the other sister missionary did or could though.  Even if it is established he went looking at least in these four cases instead of them seeking him out, he could explain his reasoning for doing so was to be proactive based on his previous experience with sisters seeking him out.  He could say almost all the survivor  sisters (that were marked as exceptions made by First Presidency approval or who were marked as possibly not to be put in certain situations due to history of abuse or whatever annotations were likely made on the records as it is unlikely to me he just pulled out four abuse victims by sight out of maybe 120 sisters, 10% of the MTC population, just a guess) had previously gotten into difficulties and then sought him out for help, so he decided he would try and help future sisters to avoid these difficulties by starting counseling before the flashbacks or whatever triggers occurred and that is why he picked out Denson and the other three.

Just to be clear, I believe Bishop was a predator...at least during the time he was at the MTC and quite likely afterwards.  I also believe he had a really messed up view of women ( based on his descriptions of his interactions with his two wives and Taylor's account at Weber where he seemed to think single female professors were likely lesbians).  I think he has boundary issues as demonstrated by his having a blacklist and allowing/promoting wiretapping at Weber.

The only reason I am pointing out what I believe are weaknesses are not to defend him, but because I want to know as best as possible the core of the evidence, what can and cannot be disputed  and how all the claims branch off from this core  (I have a profound dislike for the man and no sympathy because of his verbal treatment of his wives, it makes me ill if what he said was not a result of dementia...I really hope for the wives' sake it was, but see no reason to think,so...especially given how his son, Greg, acted which came across as more of the same twisted view of how men and women should relate).  It is both a fascinating puzzle of human behaviour to me (not only the original actors, but how everyone is now responding), but I do hope some true justice is achieved and to do that, facts...as much as we can determine the m...have to be isolated from assumptions and speculations. And that is what I am trying to do.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited May 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[Honorentheos]

Hi Calm,

That's a very fair approach and something I agree with as well. It's very early in the process of public disclosure.

Now, regarding the question of his grooming behavior, I think we have to start with the victim's letter submitted to police in December. As first person, past recollections it's problematic but it's also the most direct statement against which we can compare other evidence.

From the letter:

Quote

The first day I arrived all the missionaries were asked to meet in an auditorium.  I was singled out in a crowd of 12-1500 missionaries by President Joseph L Bishop and asked to bear my testimony. The following day he singled me out again and asked me to give the prayer. I don’t recall if it was the opening or the closing prayer. I was called out of my Spanish class on multiple occasions to go to the President’s office. One instance included 3 other sister missionaries. We were asked specific questions about our childhood and our family’s activity in the church. We each spoke of childhood trauma. We all seemed to have that commonality. Each of us had endured sexual abuse. On another occasion President Bishop called me out of class and only one of the 3 other sisters was in the President’s office. Her name was ___. She told a story about going to the prom with a boy and she fell asleep on his shoulder and drooled on his shoulder. I remember this because I was mortified. I would have never told that story out loud!  ___ & I met with President Bishop on a couple of other occasions but I don’t recall any conversations that were not centered around our childhoods. I had a baby out of wedlock and gave her up for adoption through the church. President Bishop gave me special permission to go to the temple and write her a letter. 

One a separate occasion in the President’s office he told me (we were alone) that he and his wife were in a sexless relationship. He shared that he liked her to fix a candle lit dinner and wear a blouse that had elastic. I pictured a peasant blouse. President Bishop said he liked her to wear it pulled down over her breasts so she was bare breasted at dinner. 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.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Honorentheos

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I believe the police report is enough to convict imo of nonconsensual activity and thus assault due to his authority over the one certain victim, the one identified as the second victim who came forward in 2010.

 

A police report is rarely enough to convict anyone.  

If that were the case, why hold a trial?  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Hi Calm,

Thanks for the clarification. I tend to agree that there is a tendency to see significance in events that probably aren't. The accounts of the incident where a woman exposed herself at a hot springs being meaningful because Bishop describes it as a place he enjoyed going with other leaders seems to be overreach to me as well. It also seems that the interview with then-Elder Monson is an artifact of the story that may be interesting but isn't significant in that the victim doesn't describe it as her reporting Bishop to the GA's. 

What does seem interesting, though, are the incidents that included her YSA ward Bishop Levitt. All accounts, including his own, seem to be problematic. He admits to being told by her that Bishop had done something and told her he would move it up the chain, but then says he didn't while she believes he did because she was then interviewed by Carlos Asay. She seems to be under the impression that her report to Levitt set the wheels of ecclesiastical review in motion and moved on for about 10 years. So her later inquiries were to see if her report had been acted on, and ultimately what follows in a decade or so of her escalating her inquiries until the incident in 2010 that is described as a death threat. What do we know about how the Church acted in this time? We don't seem to have good reliable information. But we do know that she told the story to her Bishop in 1988, 30 years ago. She seemed to believe that her report was being acted upon and that as it seemed more and more likely to her that it hadn't resulted in any action against Bishop she began to escalate the pursuit of finding out how the Church chose to respond to her report. 

Now, we can reasonably conclude a few things from this. One, even if the authorities over Bishop had met with him, and he had confessed to this to them and claimed repentance, he does not seem to have ever reached out to the victim to seek her forgiveness. That's odd. It seems surreal that a person accused of raping a person would be considered sincerely repentant while never seeking to make even the most minimal attempt at restitution. Why? And we seem to know that he would have assaulted another woman who reported this later in 2010 and that, had he been seeking to truly repent he would have also sought out this person's forgiveness and to make restitution. It calls into question just how the Church chose to handle Bishop between 1988 and 2010.

I agree with everything you say here.

At this point we have limited information about that time period of 20-25 years.  Denson does not know what happened between any church leaders after she told Leavitt even if it ended in her meeting with Elder Asay.  Leavitt...yeah, I need to go watch his interview again because I missed him telling her he was going to move it up the chain.  I assume this is in the video as I just reread yesterday the main article quoting him from KUTV that didn't mention that.  I don't have a good impression of him, rewatching will be good to see if it is bleeding over from my anger he didn't take her seriously and was so dismissive of her.

The time between the Leavitt account and 2010 is very much behind black curtains for all involved, imo.  We have hints at the stories.  Some details from the three years of Denson's married life and a nasty remark from her exhusband who If he is as she described is something one scrapes off one's shoe or at least he was...so not assuming he is being honest about her though she could be completely lying about him (wonder if old divorce records can be accessed to see any claims were made by either), supposed documented police reports about Denson we have never seen but were apparently authenticated by media....but everything left pretty vague in confirmed or even half confirmed details.

Bishop's life is a bit more exposed on the surface but unless he reveals personal details in his books....anyone read them?....it comes across as all bright and shiny, except for the tragic death of his first wife which he then turns into a story of love and survival and living the gospel in one of his books as I understand it( which is completely contrary to the claims "she didn't love me" of the interview).  So it looks like his public life was this facade and the question is did it hide more than two dysfunctional marriages and a likely at least self-perceived problem with sexual fantasizing or possibly porn or was it only being "male" as his son described it .  The last section of the transcript where Bishop provides the only details---though still vague---about his addiction includes his belief there is no more addiction because surgery removed any ability to become aroused, so he sees himself as cured which suggests it was more than just mental fantasizing to me (speculation here, but when I read it, my brain went "porn, porn, porn" so my interpretation is it was more than just being "male" and getting flashes of physical interest when encountering a desirable or sexually proactive woman.  How much more though?  Were his MTC predator days a tragic blip or the constant theme of his life...or was his life from beginning to end meandering up and down somewhere in between with the confirmed MTC nonviolent, but nonconsensual assault its worst moment ?  

And what was going on in the Church up to 2010?  It could have been nothing if Denson is lying about meeting with Elder Asay because then only Leavitt would have known and he sounds like he slept soundly whatever his decision was.  There could have been an investigation with a finding that Bishop needed to repent of using porn and to refrain from getting emotionally involved with women besides his wife, his job probably didn't give him much opportunity unlike when at the MTC**** so not much concern perhaps among those making the decision to not discipline him more, maybe there was an informal probation as I hear those don't get recorded so there is no knowledge at headquarters even though some discipline was undertaken (Bishop would be lying or had forgotten in this case).  There could have been an investigation and a decision to cover the whole thing up by pretending it never happened including destroying records of Elder Asay meeting with Denson and Bishop with Bishop warned he could continue on looking good and serving in the Church as long as he swore to keep his mouth shut and his hands to himself, but any chance of him becoming a GA got torpedoed (he makes the claim his addiction or something did this; it is a weird, really pathetic, poor little me aside in the transcript; if he didn't see himself originally as on the GA track, I will be shocked as it appears he saw it as his destiny).  Elder Wells might have been left out of the dark as he was not his file leader at that time, so he was not duplicitous even in this case with his representation of Bishop in the book.  Or Wells could be part of a big coverup.  ( I admit I see this as unlikely.  I think a coverup would include removing Bishop from having opportunities to influence women so as to avoid the increased likelihood of it all coming out if there were more victims.  Besides believing Church leaders are generally too nice of people to put anyone in harm's way if there is a chance they could prevent it without harming someone else, I don't believe they are stupid and it would be pure stupidity to put a known predator in a target rich environment.)

Church press and lawyers are keeping the lid on at this time over the details up to the 2010 episodes, save to say there is no record of a meeting with Asay.  Which is the intelligent thing to do and I don't expect anything else, but it leaves us nothing solid to work with.  Anything about these years and the Church's leadership involvement therefore would be speculation.

*****"After 1986, Bishop was executive director of the BYU–Public School Partnership, where he coordinated the interface between five school districts and BYU's college of education.[5] After his retirement, Bishop ... served as the LDS Church's area welfare agents for Central America, headquartered in Guatemala, 1994–1996"(Wikipedia)

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I did some FB stalking tonight. I looked up Greg Bishop because I was curious what he looked like. 

Tacenda, Greg's family does not deserved to be publicly dragged through this with him.  He may have put himself in the spotlight by choice, they did not.  Please remove the info, especially the names immediately.

I went looking too, I am not chiding you for that.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Hi Calm,

That's a very fair approach and something I agree with as well. It's very early in the process of public disclosure.

Now, regarding the question of his grooming behavior, I think we have to start with the victim's letter submitted to police in December. As first person, past recollections it's problematic but it's also the most direct statement against which we can compare other evidence.

From the letter:

 

 

Can any personal names be edited...I just feel so bad if friends or family put two and two together and assume someone was assaulted or find it out without being told and the survivor isn't ready to share the details.  I realize it may seem unlikely to us, but if most of the story had been shared without adding the worst details, I see it as possible.  I just don't want the board to be part of making people's lives harder when they didn't set themselves up to be part of a scandal.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

A police report is rarely enough to convict anyone.  

If that were the case, why hold a trial?  

Good to know.  It just seemed logical a confession to a likely semi impartial police department ( they may have sounded quite sympathetic to the alleged victim, but they had to know the heavy consequences for the Church and its members if true...how could they not hope she was lying?) would be quite damning in a trial and thus result in a conviction (if no technicalities or statue of limitations are involved) as long as there were no conflicting details impreaching it.  But my law experience is limited to reading lots of mysteries and seeing way too many police procedurals that I know are likely total bunk.  Please educate me.    (really, when you and other lawyers share info, I count them as my favorite posts in legal issue threads)

What would be the defense against such a confession in your view?

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Honorentheos]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can any personal names be edited...I just feel so bad if friends or family put two and two together and assume someone was assaulted or find it out without being told and the survivor isn't ready to share the details.  I realize it may seem unlikely to us, but if most of the story had been shared without adding the worst details, I see it as possible.  I just don't want the board to be part of making people's lives harder when they didn't set themselves up to be part of a scandal.

Done. Didn't notice that the redaction in the original did not carry over when copied. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited May 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tacenda, Greg's family does not deserved to be publicly dragged through this with him.  He may have put himself in the spotlight by choice, they did not.  Please remove the info, especially the names immediately.

I went looking too, I am not chiding you for that.

You're right, I deleted it. 

[Honorentheos]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree with everything you say here.

At this point we have limited information about that time period of 20-25 years.  Denson does not know what happened between any church leaders after she told Leavitt even if it ended in her meeting with Elder Asay.  Leavitt...yeah, I need to go watch his interview again because I missed him telling her he was going to move it up the chain.  I assume this is in the video as I just reread yesterday the main article quoting him from KUTV that didn't mention that.  I don't have a good impression of him, rewatching will be good to see if it is bleeding over from my anger he didn't take her seriously and was so dismissive of her.

The time between the Leavitt account and 2010 is very much behind black curtains for all involved, imo.  We have hints at the stories.  Some details from the three years of Denson's married life and a nasty remark from her exhusband who If he is as she described is something one scrapes off one's shoe or at least he was...so not assuming he is being honest about her though she could be completely lying about him (wonder if old divorce records can be accessed to see any claims were made by either), supposed documented police reports about Denson we have never seen but were apparently authenticated by media....but everything left pretty vague in confirmed or even half confirmed details.

Bishop's life is a bit more exposed on the surface but unless he reveals personal details in his books....anyone read them?....it comes across as all bright and shiny, except for the tragic death of his first wife which he then turns into a story of love and survival and living the gospel in one of his books as I understand it( which is completely contrary to the claims "she didn't love me" of the interview).  So it looks like his public life was this facade and the question is did it hide more than two dysfunctional marriages and a likely at least self-perceived problem with sexual fantasizing or possibly porn or was it only being "male" as his son described it .  The last section of the transcript where Bishop provides the only details---though still vague---about his addiction includes his belief there is no more addiction because surgery removed any ability to become aroused, so he sees himself as cured which suggests it was more than just mental fantasizing to me (speculation here, but when I read it, my brain went "porn, porn, porn" so my interpretation is it was more than just being "male" and getting flashes of physical interest when encountering a desirable or sexually proactive woman.  How much more though?  Were his MTC predator days a tragic blip or the constant theme of his life...or was his life from beginning to end meandering up and down somewhere in between with the confirmed MTC nonviolent, but nonconsensual assault its worst moment ?  

And what was going on in the Church up to 2010?  It could have been nothing if Denson is lying about meeting with Elder Asay because then only Leavitt would have known and he sounds like he slept soundly whatever his decision was.  There could have been an investigation with a finding that Bishop needed to repent of using porn and to refrain from getting emotionally involved with women besides his wife, his job probably didn't give him much opportunity unlike when at the MTC**** so not much concern perhaps among those making the decision to not discipline him more, maybe there was an informal probation as I hear those don't get recorded so there is no knowledge at headquarters even though some discipline was undertaken (Bishop would be lying or had forgotten in this case).  There could have been an investigation and a decision to cover the whole thing up by pretending it never happened including destroying records of Elder Asay meeting with Denson and Bishop with Bishop warned he could continue on looking good and serving in the Church as long as he swore to keep his mouth shut and his hands to himself, but any chance of him becoming a GA got torpedoed (he makes the claim his addiction or something did this; it is a weird, really pathetic, poor little me aside in the transcript; if he didn't see himself originally as on the GA track, I will be shocked as it appears he saw it as his destiny).  Elder Wells might have been left out of the dark as he was not his file leader at that time, so he was not duplicitous even in this case with his representation of Bishop in the book.  Or Wells could be part of a big coverup.  ( I admit I see this as unlikely.  I think a coverup would include removing Bishop from having opportunities to influence women so as to avoid the increased likelihood of it all coming out if there were more victims.  Besides believing Church leaders are generally too nice of people to put anyone in harm's way if there is a chance they could prevent it without harming someone else, I don't believe they are stupid and it would be pure stupidity to put a known predator in a target rich environment.)

Church press and lawyers are keeping the lid on at this time over the details up to the 2010 episodes, save to say there is no record of a meeting with Asay.  Which is the intelligent thing to do and I don't expect anything else, but it leaves us nothing solid to work with.  Anything about these years and the Church's leadership involvement therefore would be speculation.

*****"After 1986, Bishop was executive director of the BYU–Public School Partnership, where he coordinated the interface between five school districts and BYU's college of education.[5] After his retirement, Bishop and his wife, Carolyn, served as the LDS Church's area welfare agents for Central America, headquartered in Guatemala, 1994–1996"(Wikipedia)

The interview between the victim and Bishop is the other part of the evidence that I find very compelling. In it, she and he both agree on essential issues such as his first noting that the reason he told the story about the woman in the hot tub was to titillate her which she pointed out was grooming behavior. In the interview, he talks about his being ill-prepared and the wrong person to council women who had the traumatic backgrounds they had, and its in this context that Elder Asay comes up as interacting with Bishop during his time as mission president that is questionable by Bishop's own admission.

I don't know how one unravels the threads of what happened in that time period but we see in the interview that for his part he seems to be dishonest and concerned about exposing what he'd truly done in interviews with his priesthood leadership so my general impression is that there wasn't a sense that the Church knew him to be a chronic threat. The Elder Asay example in the interview does suggest a certain hubris on the part of the leadership in believing that they could handle problems, and there is also a clear problem with believing someone's account that Levitt's behavior exposes.

[Calm]

Quote

Now, regarding the question of his grooming behavior, I think we have to start with the victim's letter submitted to police in December. As first person, past recollections it's problematic but it's also the most direct statement against which we can compare other evidence

This stuff (not going to repeat some of the stuff on principle that I see it as private personal info unnecessary to the discussion of guilt) is what I was basing my idea he could claim he was trying to put them at ease or show how others, including himself, had to deal with relationship/sexual/other issues even though it really gets into a stretch there with the story of his wife.

I do think he really crosses a huge line with that one.  I can see telling the hot tub/hot springs/whatever story as a humorous joke as to how anyone, including a bunch of pure as the driven snow church leaders can be thrown for a loop by getting exposed suddenly to 'sin'...she might have been an international tourist and didn't realize or care that standards were different, so I put sin in scare quotes as I consider nudity, like wine, to be context specific for sin**** (he said it happened in Utah, aren't there some hot springs around here?, she said he told her Wyoming, but she didn't seem set on it in the transcript and was definitely vague on hot tub vs. something else)

****my husband on on occasion tells the story of dealing with women lifting their tops to feed babies by simply removing his glasses, there is actually a benefit to being practically blind without them.  

But the wife story...how could any intelligent man/leader in a Church that teaches pretty conservative chastity rules not realize that was not appropriate conversation with anyone but his own wife?  'I'm sorry, I got lost in the moment and it just came out without me thinking'.  Hey, I buy that for a lot of stuff (like posting people's personal info because it's out there   ).  I would be a hard sell on this one if I was on a jury though.  I buy it as grooming as it plays into the "my home life is so unfulfilling, my wife doesn't love me" leading to "I have a sexless marriage, it means nothing now" to "Would you love me?" logic way too smoothly, imo.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You're right, I deleted it. 

Thanks both of you.

The whole redaction thing really bothers me because of names and too much nonessential detail shared.  I am all for BYU Police keeping those parts redacted and I think consig does a disservice to at least one victim and imo two church leaders (I have heard of death threats being sent to a number of church leaders whose names get put into the news when connected to a controversy even if they themselves did nothing wrong) by not saying 'look, I know I made a big thing about redactions, but these are truly good ones and add no info we need to know" and blacking those out.

Have no problem with the Monson statement being unredacted.  It is related though doesn't provide anything but information the Church was following a decent procedure at this point.  If she claims she told Elder Monson somewhere else, then it becomes very, very relevant. There is no reputation of a dead man who can't defend himself being involved though even remotely so far, so no biggie, imo.  It would also have been very weird if she was giving a timeline as she was and left him out (it was in fact striking to me he wasn't mentioned in the transcript).

Btw, in all my cutting and pasting I have included stuff that I shouldn't, but caught myself...I hope.  Please let me know if anything needs to be removed in your opinion.  I want to err on the side of caution.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Done. Didn't notice that the redaction in the original did not carry over when copied. Thanks for pointing that out.

Maybe you can let consig know the redaction isn't actually working thoroughly?

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

The Elder Asay example in the interview does suggest a certain hubris on the part of the leadership in believing that they could handle problems, and there is also a clear problem with believing someone's account that Levitt's behavior exposes.

I have the same thoughts on these.

My hope is he was overdramatizing in the Elder Asay instruction story because it is another example of him being the hero of the piece.  He is always doing this "look at me, look at me" stuff, like his story about helping his son...sometimes it is rather awkward placement, like he has a stack of stories he runs out for company as has been my experience with many geriatrics, but not so many keep themselves so firmly as the prima donna; in this case however, his tone and intensity is real emotion, it is not a canned speech, so I fear it is accurate.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

In the police report dated 12/19/17 Bishop states that he asked her to show him her breasts and that she did. He is denying that he raped her but not that he was engaging in sexually harassing and other types of behavior that it would be an understatement to say was unbecoming of an MTC president.

Catching up on older posts...

I think I made it clear I see this as problematic to suggest Bishop was confirming he assaulted her because he mixes her up,with someone else so I won't repeat myself on that. (It also appears given your other posts you are not going so far as this, but simply being specific as to what he said).

However, I do agree with the sexual harassment part.  I think there was enough independent offering of content by Bishop to confirm he had told her stories with sexual content, including a way TMI about his then wife.  That definitely qualifies as sexual harassment to me and at the very least the one story reads grooming to me as I explain above.  (And it that was grooming, I see the others as likely manipulative as well since grooming usually occurs over time building on inoffensive actions and then mildly offensive on up, but won't go so far as to label them inherently so.)

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Physics Guy]

12 hours 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.

If my posts have given any impression that I think MTC presidents assaulting missionaries with impunity is okay, I must have really written badly. It's not okay for people to die in burning cars, either. I'm willing to let non-heroic bystanders go blameless for not running into a burning wreck to save people, but if an incompetent driver caused the wreck—or a negligent company built a defective car—then they should hang high.

In fact if you want to nail that negligent company, you need to focus on that one major target and not get bogged down in distractions. In this case the distraction about defending the honor of women who don't speak up is one that keeps coming up. Just saying, "We don't blame them!" isn't enough to make that distraction stay down, because if that's all you say, it's not convincing. People naturally think in simple opposite pairs, so if it's good for Mckenna to be complaining now, they figure it must have been bad for others to keep quiet. Just denying that you mean to blame the others for that doesn't make clear enough immediate sense, so the distraction remains.

The burning car analogy was supposed to be a way to get rid of that distraction quickly and firmly, by explaining clearly why blame for silent victims is not involved. Evidently the analogy is not clear enough. Perhaps it can be improved somehow?

I have never been Mormon, and I'm afraid my impression of Joseph Smith's polygamy is that abuse of spiritual authority for sexual gratification is Mormonism's original sin. Since I'm not Mormon I don't really see this as my fight, but I have daughters. I don't want anything about this swept under a rug. I want the light to stay focused. How did Bishop get away with this? What has to change so it won't happen again?