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

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

I am not attacking. She made multiple death threats. She has pursued this issue for nearly 33 years. Those are facts.

Ok.  Lots of people may have done the same against their sexual abuser if they'd gone unpunished for over 30 years.  A lot of Fathers may threaten the sexual abuser of their daughter,  some husbands would want to kill anyone who attempted to rape their wife.  I'm not going to judge her for doing that (nor condone it).  But I think it's understandable.

Can you post the details of her "multiple death threats"?  What did they amount to?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I watched this report last night and again today on the midday news. It's true about the victims of sexual abuse not realizing how it is abuse, surprisingly. Utah has three times the national average of sexual abuse. I wonder why...and this is so sickening to me.

 

Three times the amount or three times the reports?

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Ron Leavitt's statement corroborates the former, and goes some way in undercutting the latter."

I don't see it as undercutting Denson's reports unless she specified she told him of the rape...can't remember exactly what she said.

Ron Leavitt, states: "According to her he took (her) and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography."

 He did not report this to the Church or to the police ("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.").

That's his informal recollection to a news outlet.  Assuming that he would say pretty much the same thing under oath, here is how I think his statement becomes relevant:

A. Denson claims that she reported the rape to Leavitt, and that as a result he arranged for her to meet with Elder Asay.  However, Leavitt states that he did not report it to the Church, and that he did not arrange for her to meet with Elder Asay.  This undercuts her claim that she met with Elder Asay.  This undercutting weakens her credibility, and hence her overall narrative (which relies pretty much entirely on her credibility) and legal theory.

B. Denson claims that she told Leavitt in 1984 about the rape, but he states that she disclosed something different (that Bishop took her and "another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography.").  Leavitt's testimony could amount to the admission of her statement to him into the evidence to be considered by the Court.  The 1984 statement attributed to Denson by Leavitt (that Bishop showed her and another sister missionary porn) is substantially different from her more recent allegations (that Bishop isolated her and forcibly raped her).  This statement, if entered into evidence, weakes her credibility, and hence her narrative and her legal theory.

C. Leavitt's statement may be exculpatory evidence in favor of the LDS Church, at least as far as what it knew and when.  He says that he did not report it to the Church.  Denson's legal position relies heavily on a the-LDS-Church-knew-about-this-abuse-for-decades-and-covered-it-up narrative.  Leavitt's statement lends credence to a finding that the Church was not on notice of Denson's allegations against Bishop in the 1984 timeframe, and that the Church instead learned about it long after the statute of limitations had passed.

Quote

The Lindsey blog had some discussion about the delay in reporting (she apparently did not report the fact of the rape itself until 2010 from her own account from 12/6, see http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70478-did-mckenna-denson-meet-with-thomas-s-monson-after-mtc/?do=findComment&comment=1209814677 for summary).

Yep.  This is why her 1984 disclosure to Ron Leavitt becomes important.  It was much closer in time to the purported misconduct.  This, and the above reasons, are why Ron Leavitt's testimony about what Denson told him in 1984 might become very important.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 1, 2018 by smac97

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Three times the amount or three times the reports?

Maybe the reports? I don't know, tell the news not to publish this then, not me.

[Calm]

"Who does not claim to be a percipient witness to what Denson is alleging.  And who alleges that Bishop, in a separate incident, asked her to show him her breasts."

As far as I am aware there is no statement from the second woman that specifies anything.  The Church released this info about her:

Quote

We are aware of one other woman (who is referenced in the December recording) who informed her local ecclesiastical leaders that she was sexually abused by Joseph Bishop while he served as president of the Missionary Training Center. When she reported the alleged abuse to her local Church leaders in 2010, they provided emotional support as well as professional counseling services. Mr. Bishop’s local ecclesiastical leaders were contacted and they confronted him with her claims, which he denied, and local leaders did not feel they could pursue church discipline for Mr. Bishop.

Denson is the one who alleges that victim is the one Bishop is recalling asking her to expose herself even though Bishop apparently has conflated the two women (given his alleged memory issues I find Denson's claim quite reasonable...memory issues reported by his son and some possible friends as well as evidenced in the transcript).

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe the reports? I don't know, tell the news not to publish this then, not me.

Can you provide a quote of what they said?  I am not arguing the report is wrong, but often people get confused on what the stats are actually about.  A quote would be helpful.

addon:  the transcript does not report her telling her bishop, but states she reported this to SL after she came home from her mission before she got married.  "They sent Elder Asay to me."

https://www.scribd.com/document/374544769/2017-Joseph-L-Bishop-Transcript , page 29

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Ron Leavitt, states: "According to her he took (her) and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography."

I don't think this is required to be one incident, it could be two.

I don't know if Denson specifically states she told him she was attacked.  I quoted above her 12/6 report where she just said she told him about "the incidents".  I need to look in the transcript...if you don't get there first.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can you provide a quote of what they said?  I am not arguing the report is wrong, but often people get confused on what the stats are actually about.  A quote would be helpful.

http://fox13now.com/2018/04/25/billboard-campaign-aims-to-prevent-child-abuse-in-utah/  

“Our confirmed rate of child sexual abuse specifically in the state of Utah is worse,” Lucero said.  “It’s three times the national average.”

But according to what you have offered there is this one to back your analogy. https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/local/cedar-city/2017/02/11/addressing-utahs-child-sex-abuse-problem/97713172/

There are numerous articles, but this one caught my eye as well. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/695261701/Secret-shame-Utahs-sex-offenders-and-their-victims.html

Edited May 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Thanks, Tac, those will be helpful.

[Calm]

Couldn't edit post for some reason...

The transcript says nothing about her reporting to Leavitt.  Instead she states she reported to SL when she came home from her mission and before she got married.  "They sent Elder Asay to me."

She only says he interviewed her and said he would talk to Bishop.  She does not specify what she said here.  In the 12/6 letter, she states she did not tell Elder Asay about the rape.

https://www.scribd.com/document/374544769/2017-Joseph-L-Bishop-Transcript page 29

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then you believe she is being honest and telling the truth?

I think it was Calm that posted details about that (yesterday?)....I'll see if I can find it.  But the teacher remembered her being pulled out of class and confirmed it was when Bishop was there. (I remember reading it because it was a question I'd had and she responded.)

As to the rest of your post, I can't do that with you today (or even follow your lengthy post really).  I just wish you'd concisely state something and not cut up people's posts so much  

But that's just a personal preference and observation!  Anyway, I don't have the energy to follow you breaking every post down into sentences and being so choppy and trying to respond to it.  Let's just say we disagree on some aspects of this case and leave it at that.  I've been pretty clear with my beliefs and feelings regarding it.

BYU Police report, page 5:

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/1/1e/2017-11-28-Brigham_Young_University_Police-Incident_Report_REDACTED-Post_Audio_Leak.pdf

[Calm]

For those who listened to the podcast, did rfm explain why he didn't post the police reports like Mormonleaks did, but only posted his letters requesting the less redacted info?

Also the recording of Bishop's police interview?

He did post Denson's letter or rather the rough draft?  Why the rough draft and not the final copy?  How would he get the rough draft?

Edited May 1, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

I haven't called her a liar.  

Then you believe she is being honest and telling the truth?

I don't know.  I am still weighing the evidence.

But not accepting her story 100% is not equivalent to calling her a liar.  Can you appreciate that?

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

CFR, if you please.  I can't find the reference, but I had thought that the MTC corroborated that she was pulled out of class, but the teacher could not recall why or by whom.

I think it was Calm that posted details about that (yesterday?)....I'll see if I can find it.  But the teacher remembered her being pulled out of class and confirmed it was when Bishop was there. (I remember reading it because it was a question I'd had and she responded.)

Okay.  I'd like to see this evidence.  Calm?  Can you help out?

I'm not sure that adds much to the body of evidence.  We already knew he met with her and other sister missionaries.  That he pulled her out of class is not evidence that he took her alone to a basement room and forcibly raped her.

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As to the rest of your post, I can't do that with you today (or even follow your lengthy post really).  I just wish you'd concisely state something and not cut up people's posts so much  But that's just a personal preference and observation! 

I try to be concise, but also precise.  This is particularly so when dealing with sensitive and difficult issues like this one.

Proverbially speaking, you seem to be looking at the forest of allegations and evidence.  I am looking at individual trees.

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Anyway, I don't have the energy to follow you breaking every post down into sentences and being so choppy and trying to respond to it.  Let's just say we disagree on some aspects of this case and leave it at that.  I've been pretty clear with my beliefs and feelings regarding it.

I'm fine with that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

While I believe that Denson met with Monson (the Jordan letter implies that the Church has a record of this), I doubt she would reiterate to Monson what happened to her in the MTC since her goal was to get back into the mission field.  An accusation against the MTC president would likely delay her re-entry into the mission.

The meeting with Asay is curious... no corroborating witnesses (right?) but if she made it up she must have done her research since he was over the mission department at the time.

I think the big problem for the Church are Leavitt's statements:  Having done nothing because he didn't want to sully the reputation of a church leader when the accusations turn out to be valid.  While there is definitely some element of human nature there, the efforts by other church members and possibly leaders to later cover it all up likely won't play well in front of a judge.  But I'm not an attorney.

Edited May 1, 2018 by rockpond

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

For those who listened to the podcast, did rfm explain why he didn't post the police reports like Mormonleaks did, but only posted his letters requesting the less redacted info?

Also the recording of Bishop's police interview?

He did post Denson's letter or rather the rough draft?  Why the rough draft and not the final copy?  How would he get the rough draft?

He did not say why he didn't post the police reports... I would assume it is because MormonLeaks already posted them.

Per the podcast from 29-April, the recording of Bishop's police interview had not been released by the BYU PD.  This is one reason why RFM believes they are in violation of GRAMA and he continues to request all available information.

In the 29-April podcast, RFM explains that the BYU PD had only received Denson's rough draft when the case was closed (because of the statute of limitations).  As far as he is aware, there never was a final copy.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  Lots of people may have done the same against their sexual abuser if they'd gone unpunished for over 30 years.  A lot of Fathers may threaten the sexual abuser of their daughter,  some husbands would want to kill anyone who attempted to rape their wife.  I'm not going to judge her for doing that (nor condone it).  But I think it's understandable.

Can you post the details of her "multiple death threats"?  What did they amount to?

Not sure if I can explain it, but her doing those things is why I believe something happened that involved Bishop.

 

The death threat in 2010, and the death threat in December 2017 interview with Bishop, She says something along the lines of  " I have *redacted* and if you touch then I will kill you". My suspicion is she was telling Bishop she has daughters and that she would kill Bishop if he touched her daughters.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think the big problem for the Church are Leavitt's statements:  Having done nothing because he didn't want to sully the reputation of a church leader when the accusations turn out to be valid.  While there is definitely some element of human nature there, the efforts by other church members and possibly leaders to later cover it all up likely won't play well in front of a judge.  But I'm not an attorney.

I think a lot of it will come down to whether or not it was reasonable for Leavitt to doubt accusations that an MTC president took a sister missionary into the basement of the MTC and showed her porn.  From my perspective, it doesn't so much matter whether or not the accusations (in some way) turned out to be true, but whether or not Leavitt should have reasonable assumed they had merit.

Edited May 1, 2018 by bluebell

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While I believe that Denson met with Monson (the Jordan letter implies that the Church has a record of this), I doubt she would reiterate to Monson what happened to her in the MTC since her goal was to get back into the mission field. 

And yet she left the mission field because, according to her, Bishop's misconduct traumatized her so much that she fabricated a story about being raped in a parking lot (p. 43).

So she would fake a rape while on her mission as a reaction to anxiety caused by Bishop's abuse of her, but would not then report that abuse because she wanted so desperately to go back?

Quote

An accusation against the MTC president would likely delay her re-entry into the mission.

Perhaps.

Quote

The meeting with Asay is curious... no corroborating witnesses (right?)

Correct.  As far as we know.  And the only non-Denson evidence we do have is the statement from her YSA ward bishop, Ron Leavitt, who states that A) she did not report a rape, but instead reported that Bishop took Denson and another sister missionary to a room and showed them pornography, and B) he (Leavitt) never told the Church about Denson's allegations (which rather undercuts the idea that her report to Leavitt triggered an interview with Elder Asay).

Then again, perhaps not.  I need to review Calm's compilation on this point.

Quote

but if she made it up she must have done her research since he was over the mission department at the time.

Perhaps.  

Quote

I think the big problem for the Church are Leavitt's statements:  Having done nothing because he didn't want to sully the reputation of a church leader when the accusations turn out to be valid.

I agree that Leavitt's admitted inaction is very concerning, but I'm not sure it's a big legal issue.  And the Church has, since 1984, put in place all sorts of mechanisms and training so that the risks of such inaction are reduced.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 1, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Who does not claim to be a percipient witness to what Denson is alleging.  And who alleges that Bishop, in a separate incident, asked her to show him her breasts."

As far as I am aware there is no statement from the second woman that specifies anything.  

Ah.  I stand corrected.  Bishop has admitted to this misconduct.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The Church released this info about her:

Quote

We are aware of one other woman (who is referenced in the December recording) who informed her local ecclesiastical leaders that she was sexually abused by Joseph Bishop while he served as president of the Missionary Training Center. When she reported the alleged abuse to her local Church leaders in 2010, they provided emotional support as well as professional counseling services. Mr. Bishop’s local ecclesiastical leaders were contacted and they confronted him with her claims, which he denied, and local leaders did not feel they could pursue church discipline for Mr. Bishop.

 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Denson is the one who alleges that victim is the one Bishop is recalling asking her to expose herself even though Bishop apparently has conflated the two women (given his alleged memory issues I find Denson's claim quite reasonable...memory issues reported by his son and some possible friends as well as evidenced in the transcript).

Pretty easy to get mixed up on important details.  Thanks for this.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think a lot of it will come down to whether or not it was reasonable for Leavitt to doubt accusations that an MTC president took a sister missionary into the basement of the MTC and showed her porn.  From my perspective, it doesn't so much matter whether or not the accusations (in some way) turned out to be true, but whether or not Leavitt should have reasonable assumed they had merit.

My comments weren't meant to "convict" Leavitt.  I agree with him that such accusations would be tough to believe.  The problem is that the Church needs to figure out a way to prevent that kind of response in the future.  That's not an easy task.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet she left the mission field because, according to her, Bishop's misconduct traumatized her so much that she fabricated a story about being raped in a parking lot (p. 43).

So she would fake a rape while on her mission as a reaction to anxiety caused by Bishop's abuse of her, but would not then report that abuse because she wanted so desperately to go back?

Perhaps.

Correct.  As far as we know.  And the only non-Denson evidence we do have is the statement from her YSA ward bishop, Ron Leavitt, who states that A) she did not report a rape, but instead reported that Bishop took Denson and another sister missionary to a room and showed them pornography, and B) he (Leavitt) never told the Church about Denson's allegations (which rather undercuts the idea that her report to Leavitt triggered an interview with Elder Asay).

Then again, perhaps not.  I need to review Calm's compilation on this point.

Perhaps.  

"When the accusations turn out to be valid?"  Where are you getting that?

I agree that Leavitt's admitted inaction is very concerning, but I'm not sure it's a big legal issue.  And the Church has, since 1984, put in place all sorts of mechanisms and training so that the risks of such inaction are reduced.

Thanks,

-Smac

I can't speak to what an anxiety attack might have caused her to do or claim.

All we have is Leavitt v Denson on the Asay claim.  I see no compelling evidence to believe one over the other.

Bishop has confessed to much of what Denson accused him of.

I agree that Leavitt's response to Denson is not a big legal issue.  I'm not sure how civil suits work but I don't feel that the Church can show that it has dealt with it as your statement above implies.  The Church had much of this evidence long before MormonLeaks broke the story and it appears that they were still covering it up and protecting Bishop's reputation.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

I think the big problem for the Church are Leavitt's statements:  Having done nothing because he didn't want to sully the reputation of a church leader when the accusations turn out to be valid.  While there is definitely some element of human nature there, the efforts by other church members and possibly leaders to later cover it all up likely won't play well in front of a judge.  But I'm not an attorney.

I think a lot of it will come down to whether or not it was reasonable for Leavitt to doubt accusations that an MTC president took a sister missionary into the basement of the MTC and showed her porn.  

I would say that he should have reported the claim, regardless of whether he believed it or not.  But that's easy to say in 2018.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  But was Leavitt aware that Denson has fabricated a rape claim while she was serving as a missionary in D.C.?  And if he was, might that have, rightly or wrongly, colored his perception of the veracity of her accusation against Joseph Bishop?  

The accusation itself - that the MTC president took her into a basement room with another sister missionary and showed them pornography, is a very bold claim.  I could see some reflexive skepticism about it.  But if Leavitt also knew that Denson had previously fabricated a rape claim, then his failure to report it to the Church and law enforcement becomes more understandable (though, I think, still not acceptable).

Moreover, I am not sure that the Church had clear guidelines in place for bishops when they encountered allegations of abuse.  We as a society (not just Mormons) were much less willing to address such things then as compared to today.

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, it doesn't so much matter whether or not the accusations (in some way) turned out to be true, but whether or not Leavitt should have reasonable assumed they had merit.

He should have reported it.  But that's water under the bridge.  At present, the Church has clear guidelines in place for bishops, and mechanisms for them to address such things.  I am very glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While I believe that Denson met with Monson (the Jordan letter implies that the Church has a record of this), I doubt she would reiterate to Monson what happened to her in the MTC since her goal was to get back into the mission field.  An accusation against the MTC president would likely delay her re-entry into the mission.

The meeting with Asay is curious... no corroborating witnesses (right?) but if she made it up she must have done her research since he was over the mission department at the time.

I think the big problem for the Church are Leavitt's statements:  Having done nothing because he didn't want to sully the reputation of a church leader when the accusations turn out to be valid.  While there is definitely some element of human nature there, the efforts by other church members and possibly leaders to later cover it all up likely won't play well in front of a judge.  But I'm not an attorney.

My thoughts exactly!

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would say that he should have reported the claim, regardless of whether he believed it or not.  But that's easy to say in 2018.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  But was Leavitt aware that Denson has fabricated a rape claim while she was serving as a missionary in D.C.?  And if he was, might that have, rightly or wrongly, colored his perception of the veracity of her accusation against Joseph Bishop?  

The accusation itself - that the MTC president took her into a basement room with another sister missionary and showed them pornography, is a very bold claim.  I could see some reflexive skepticism about it.  But if Leavitt also knew that Denson had previously fabricated a rape claim, then his failure to report it to the Church and law enforcement becomes more understandable (though, I think, still not acceptable).

Moreover, I am not sure that the Church had clear guidelines in place for bishops when they encountered allegations of abuse.  We as a society (not just Mormons) were much less willing to address such things then as compared to today.

He should have reported it.  But that's water under the bridge.  At present, the Church has clear guidelines in place for bishops, and mechanisms for them to address such things.  I am very glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

CFR she fabricated a rape claim in the mission field. 

[provoman]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Church had much of this evidence long before MormonLeaks broke the story and it appears that they were still covering it up and protecting Bishop's reputation.

You are referring to the settlement negotiations that Denson was participating in?