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

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Just referring to the fact that the church knew about this case for months before MormonLeaks let the rest of us know.

The tape was given to them in early or mid January.  Mormonleaks released the tape mid March...just so no one assumes when you said "months" you meant anything over 'two months '.

I looked at Mormonleaks to confirm the time of the publication of the leak and came across an interesting fact I had missed before.

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:2017-11-28-Brigham_Young_University_Police-Incident_Report_REDACTED-Pre_Audio_Leak.pdf

Quote

The BYU Police report regarding allegations of sexual misconduct against Joseph Bishop obtained on January 11, 2018 and provided to MormonLeaks™ prior to the release of the audio of Bishop and his victim.

The redactions made by the BYU Police Department are different from the redactions made for the report that was given to the media after the release of the audio.

This means Mormonleaks was aware of the tape by January 11 or before.  Whether or not they were given the tape by Denson or someone Denson gave the tape to, the Church also received the transcript in January ( trying to track down the actual date, if anyone knows it, please post).  It seems unlikely in that short time that someone passed it onto Mormonleaks, at least on their own without instruction from Denson.

It comes across to me like it was Denson's intention all along to make the tape public.  Why else was it released by her almost as soon if not at the same time as it was given to the Church?  Would they have even met to discuss settlements at that time?

Denson had to have started giving out the tape likely no more than a week (ten days at most assuming Mormonleaks asked for the report on the same day they received the transcript and obtained the first redacted report the same day they asked for it) and possibly less.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But you don't know that since we have neither confirmation for a meeting with Monson (though that seems highly likely given the procedure for 1st Pres approval for exceptional cases) and the meeting with Asay...absolutely no confirmation at all.

Correct, Asay has not been corroborated.  The meeting with Monson has been partially corroborated by the Jordan letter in which he confirmed that she met with a GA to seek approval to return to the mission field.

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

The tape was given to them in early or mid January.  Mormonleaks released the tape mid March...just so no one assumes when you said "months" you meant anything over 'two months '.

I looked at Mormonleaks to confirm the time of the publication of the leak and came across an interesting fact I had missed before.

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:2017-11-28-Brigham_Young_University_Police-Incident_Report_REDACTED-Pre_Audio_Leak.pdf

This means Mormonleaks was aware of the tape by January 11 or before.  Whether or not they were given the tape by Denson or someone Denson gave the tape to, the Church also received the transcript in January ( trying to track down the actual date, if anyone knows it, please post).  It seems unlikely in that short time that someone passed it onto Mormonleaks, at least on their own without instruction from Denson.

It comes across to me like it was Denson's intention all along to make the tape public.  Why else was it released by her almost as soon if not at the same time as it was given to the Church?  Would they have even met to discuss settlements at that time?

Denson had to have started giving out the tape likely no more than a week (ten days at most assuming Mormonleaks asked for the report on the same day they received the transcript and obtained the first redacted report the same day they asked for it) and possibly less.

The BYU police investigation was opened on November 28, 2017.  There are only three levels of management between the BYU PD and the Quorum of the Twelve.  Is it your belief that church leadership was not told about a credible accusation against an MTC president until two weeks AFTER the case was closed by a church owned police department?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Thanks, that pretty much removes any excuse for not knowing about the existence of the hotline or the actual number.

Okay.  So I'll accept that it was my fault as I served 15-20 hours per week in the calling as bishop's counselor that I failed to remember the hotline number in section 17.3.2 of the handbook.  I accept my guilt.

So, it is your contention ( @Calm and @smac97) that the Church has done ALL that it can and should to make sure victims of abuse are treated appropriately and that abuse is reported properly?  Nothing else that we can improve on?

[provoman]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  So I'll accept that it was my fault as I served 15-20 hours per week in the calling as bishop's counselor that I failed to remember the hotline number in section 17.3.2 of the handbook.  I accept my guilt.

So, it is your contention ( @Calm and @smac97) that the Church has done ALL that it can and should to make sure victims of abuse are treated appropriately and that abuse is reported properly?  Nothing else that we can improve on?

Consider this, every US has different law concerning reporting.

 

What kind of policies do you think need to be place considering that every US State and Nations has different laws?

[ttribe]

Just now, provoman said:

Consider this, every US has different law concerning reporting.

 

What kind of policies do you think need to be place considering that every US State and Nations has different laws?

Large multi-national corporations figure out how to devise policies that comply with local laws all the time.  It's kind of a head-scratcher that this is your argument.

[smac97]

On 5/1/2018 at 4:36 PM, Calm said:

Quote

I wrote that she has been accurate "about all of her claimed meetings with church leaders".  That is just one specific aspect of her overall testimony.  I'm sure you realize that, so please don't twist my words.

But you don't know that since we have neither confirmation for a meeting with Monson (though that seems highly likely given the procedure for 1st Pres approval for exceptional cases) and the meeting with Asay...absolutely no confirmation at all.

If anything, the only evidence in view is that she did not meet with Elder Asay.  She claims that she disclosed to her YSA bishop, Ron Leavitt, and that Ron Leavitt arranged for her meeting with Elder Asay.  

And yet Leavitt states that Denson "did not use the words rape or attempted rape, instead describing other misconduct."

Leavitt also denies that he reported Denson's claims to the Church (which undermines her claim that he arranged for her to meet with Elder Asay).

Leavitt's anticipated testimony would, I think, be competent, probative and admissible.  It may also tend to undermine some pretty fundamental portions of Denson's narrative.

But Leavitt's testimony may not matter anyway, since this case may never get to trial.  Statute of limitations, laches, priest/penitent privilege, etc. are significant hurdles to overcome.  I suspect Denson's attorneys recognize this.  I also suspect that the Church may not want to resolve this matter on legal technicalities, and may want to provide some compensation to Denson.  While there are some very real weaknesses in her legal case, I think it's more likely than not that something bad (even if not rape or attempted rape) happened to her while she was in the MTC.  So the Church may be motivated to work something out (to avoid a trial, and to compensate Denson for her injury), and Denson's attorneys may also be motivated to work something out (since there are substantial flaws in their case).  If so, then this case may end up getting settled after all.

The wild card here is . . . Denson herself.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

Consider this, every US has different law concerning reporting.

 

What kind of policies do you think need to be place considering that every US State and Nations has different laws?

What your answer to the question I posed?

My answer:  For starters the Prophet could address this situation personally and directly to all adult members (as I’ve stated multiple times on threads related to the Denson-Bishop case). Beyond that, our church leaders have access to revelation from God for the Church and they can bring in experts.  I’m confident that they can help us improve in this regard and I sustain them in doing so.  

Now, would you care to answer my question?  Has the Church done ALL that it can and should to protect abuse victims?

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Large multi-national corporations figure out how to devise policies that comply with local laws all the time.  It's kind of a head-scratcher that this is your argument.

ok. And the quedtion still stands, what policies would rockpond like see put in place.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If anything, the only evidence in view is that she did not meed with Elder Asay.  She claims that she disclosed to her YSA bishop, Ron Leavitt, and that Ron Leavitt arranged for her meeting with Elder Asay.  

And yet Leavitt denies that Denson "did not use the words rape or attempted rape, instead describing other misconduct."

Leavitt also denies that he reported Denson's claims to the Church (which undermines her claim that he arranged for her to meet with Elder Asay).

Leavitt's anticipated testimony would, I think, be competent, probative and admissible.  It may also tend to undermine some pretty fundamental portions of Denson's narrative.

But Leavitt's testimony may not matter anyway, since this case may never get to trial.  Statute of limitations, laches, priest/penitent privilege, etc. are significant hurdles to overcome.  I suspect Denson's attorneys recognize this.  I also suspect that the Church may not want to resolve this matter on legal technicalities, and may want to provide some compensation to Denson.  While there are some very real weaknesses in her legal case, I think it's more likely than not that something bad (even if not rape or attempted rape) happened to her while she was in the MTC.  So the Church may be motivated to work something out (to avoid a trial, and to compensate Denson for her injury), and Denson's attorneys may also be motivated to work something out (since there are substantial flaws in their case).  If so, then this case may end up getting settled after all.

The wild card here is . . . Denson herself.  

Thanks,

-Smac

In my experience, the Plaintiff is FREQUENTLY the wild card...but that's a different kind of discussion.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  So I'll accept that it was my fault as I served 15-20 hours per week in the calling as bishop's counselor that I failed to remember the hotline number in section 17.3.2 of the handbook.  I accept my guilt.

It's not a matter of guilt.  It's a matter of you finding fault with the Church for not telling you about a hotline that A) has nothing to do with your calling, B) you would never have used, and C) you could have easily learned about by reading the handbook.

So if you insist on allocating fault for your ignorance (about something that, frankly, I don't fault you for being ignorant of), then there you go.

Endless faultfinding will eventually come back around and kick you the keister.

Quote

So, it is your contention ( @Calm and @smac97) that the Church has done ALL that it can and should to make sure victims of abuse are treated appropriately and that abuse is reported properly?  Nothing else that we can improve on?

There is always room for improvement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 2, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

Just now, smac97 said:

 

There is always room for improvement.

Thanks,

-Smac

And that was my point.  I’m glad we agree. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

ok. And the quedtion still stands, what policies would rockpond like see put in place.

Answered.  Your turn now. 

[provoman]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

What your answer to the question I posed?

My answer:  For starters the Prophet could address this situation personally and directly to all adult members (as I’ve stated multiple times on threads related to the Denson-Bishop case). Beyond that, our church leaders have access to revelation from God for the Church and they can bring in experts.  I’m confident that they can help us improve in this regard and I sustain them in doing so.  

Now, would you care to answer my question?  Has the Church done ALL that it can and should to protect abuse victims?

Address what to adults? And how do you see the Prophet speaking to adults as protecting a victim - a victim being someone that has already been harmed? 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Address what to adults? And how do you see the Prophet speaking to adults as protecting a victim - a victim being someone that has already been harmed? 

Sorry... this isn’t an interrogation.  You need to dialogue with me.  

[smac97]

Just now, ttribe said:

In my experience, the Plaintiff is FREQUENTLY the wild card...but that's a different kind of discussion.

Yes.  But Denson is a really wild card. 

She blew up the settlement negotiations her own attorneys requested with the Church.

She apparently extracted a false confession from Joseph Bishop (others disagree with me on this, but so far I think it's still worth considering).

She admits to having threatened to murder Joseph Bishop (twice, IIRC).

She publicly faked surprise and consternation over the audio recording being "leaked," only to turn out to have been the source of the leak.

She admits that she fabricated a rape claim while she was a missionary (and her ex-husband and another relative claims she did that twice).

She made "unfounded" claims in 1999 (according to investigating detectives) of having been "pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked," except that police "learned she had been fired shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability."

She was arrested in February for identity theft.

Not an ideal client.

-Smac

 

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But Denson is a really wild card. 

She blew up the settlement negotiations her own attorneys requested with the Church.

She apparently extracted a false confession from Joseph Bishop (others disagree with me on this, but so far I think it's still worth considering).

She admits to having threatened to murder Joseph Bishop (twice, IIRC).

She publicly faked surprise and consternation over the audio recording being "leaked," only to turn out to have been the source of the leak.

She admits that she fabricated a rape claim while she was a missionary (and her ex-husband and another relative claims she did that twice).

She made "unfounded" claims in 1999 (according to investigating detectives) of having been "pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked," except that police "learned she had been fired shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability."

She was arrested in February for identity theft.

Not an ideal client.

-Smac

 

Can't argue with that.

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sorry... this isn’t an interrogation.  You need to dialogue with me.  

I have not served in a Bishopric or been involved with speaking to a Church leader about abuse, nor have I read Handbook 1 regarding abuse. I think, I would go to police rather than go to Church Leader in the first place. I am intimately aware of the turmoil a victim faces when it comes to how to respond as a victim of abuse.

 

To the best of my knowledge Church leaders are instructed to call a hotline regarding abuse. As I understand the purpose of the hotline is to advise the Church Leader as to what legaly needs to be done based on the secular jurisdiction. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

I have not served in a Bishopric or been involved with speaking to a Church leader about abuse, nor have I read Handbook 1 regarding abuse. I think, I would go to police rather than go to Church Leader in the first place. I am intimately aware of the turmoil a victim faces when it comes to how to respond as a victim of abuse.

A good point.  The bishop, bearing the responsibility of a priest/penitent privilege, has good reason to know about and use the hotline.  Everyone else (except for stake presidents, mission presidents, GAs) would seem to be free to just call the police.

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

To the best of my knowledge Church leaders are instructed to call a hotline regarding abuse. As I understand the purpose of the hotline is to advise the Church Leader as to what legaly needs to be done based on the secular jurisdiction. 

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The BYU police investigation was opened on November 28, 2017.  There are only three levels of management between the BYU PD and the Quorum of the Twelve.  Is it your belief that church leadership was not told about a credible accusation against an MTC president until two weeks AFTER the case was closed by a church owned police department?

I am opened to the possibility.  BYu police had listened to the recording...maybe they had a copy, maybe she just had them listen to it when they were at her house interviewing her.  I would not be surprised to learn the Church knew of the recording before it was given to them officially by Vernon.  Maybe they even had a copy.  Maybe Denson assumed they did.

However, I am talking about timing of things surrounding settlement negotiations and not whether or not the Church knew.  Iirc, it was said negotiations were started in .january when her lawyer sent the tape to the Church.  How long to exchange a few emails  and have a meeting discussing it?  I don't see that as happening overnight or instantly grinding to a halt.  Iirc, the negotiations were going on until the tape was published in March, but I feel weak on that memory, so very open to correction.

For whatever reason, Denson appears to have shared the tape at the very beginning of the negotiations with at least someone who gave it to Mormonleaks if she didn't give it herself.

I am not at this point suggesting it means anything.  I am trying to create an accurate timeline and it simply struck me as odd.  What it means, who knows.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But Denson is a really wild card. 

She blew up the settlement negotiations her own attorneys requested with the Church.

She apparently extracted a false confession from Joseph Bishop (others disagree with me on this, but so far I think it's still worth considering).

She admits to having threatened to murder Joseph Bishop (twice, IIRC).

She publicly faked surprise and consternation over the audio recording being "leaked," only to turn out to have been the source of the leak.

She admits that she fabricated a rape claim while she was a missionary (and her ex-husband and another relative claims she did that twice).

She made "unfounded" claims in 1999 (according to investigating detectives) of having been "pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked," except that police "learned she had been fired shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability."

She was arrested in February for identity theft.

Not an ideal client.

-Smac

 

Let’s consider for a moment that Denson’s accusations are true.  That she was molested, possibly raped.  That this caused her severe anxiety attacks.  That her pleas for justice were disregarded by men she believed were God’s ordained servants.  That she went on to marry in the temple only to have her husband cheat on her.  Assuming all of this is true, it’s reasonable to expect that the trauma would have been emotional and psychologically scarring and could have changed the trajectory of her life. 

Perhaps we should keep all that in mind.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  So I'll accept that it was my fault as I served 15-20 hours per week in the calling as bishop's counselor that I failed to remember the hotline number in section 17.3.2 of the handbook.  I accept my guilt.

So, it is your contention ( @Calm and @smac97) that the Church has done ALL that it can and should to make sure victims of abuse are treated appropriately and that abuse is reported properly?  Nothing else that we can improve on?

Not my contention at all.  Not sure why you are jumping to that extreme conclusion.  I have repeatedly stated I think there should be s public hotline for anyone to call.  I think there are other things that can be done, conference talks, instructions of bishops to have talks in SM on it, maybe a fifth Sunday.  Much more internal Church membership discussion needs to be done to ensure everyone (well, as much as possible) understands it is a good thing to go to the police if one is able to among other things.

But leaders and members need to do their part by using the resources the Church provides or all the Church's efforts will likely be wasted.

As far as the Handbook, only you can judge your own situation, but on this board you have expressed your situation as having concerns about the way the Church's handles abuse.  Perhaps I misunderstood and that didn't arise until after you were released.  If I were in the position of encountering situations of abuse as you state counselors were and if I understood you correctly, you actually encountered, one of the first things I would do is hit the Handbook to doublecheck what were the policies regarding abuse.  I have a hard time imagining a leader having concerns and not taking advantage of the easiest source that might hold some answers to those concerns and I would judge myself very harshly if I missed something like this because I saw it as low priority.  Whether or not that resembles your situation in the least, obviously there is no way for me or anyone else to know besides yourself.  I have given you the info, decide for yourself what you want to do with it.

I know a lot of leaders who ignore what is in the Handbook by choice, but that is in the cases where they were confident in what they were doing.  I was never particularly impressed by their results though.

---

It does seem to me somewhat unjust to complain about the Church not doing enough when you personally did not take advantage of one of the easiest sources of information about what the Church does do.  I do think you are probably not the only one who does this and somehow the Church needs to find a way to ram this stuff down leaders' throats, even if they are all volunteers who may at times choose to miss training sessions, ignore letters from the First Presidency, ignore legal and insurance requirements, or neglect checking the Handbook on occasion to refresh their memory about crucial, mandatory procedures (I personally know of all of that list occuring).  The only thing I can think of is not allowing someone to be called until participation in a training session or maybe a online computer test of familiarity with the major mandatory requirements of the Handbook occurs.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Let’s consider for a moment that Denson’s accusations are true.  That she was molested, possibly raped.  That this caused her severe anxiety attacks.  That her pleas for justice were disregarded by men she believed were God’s ordained servants.  That she went on to marry in the temple only to have her husband cheat on her.  Assuming all of this is true, it’s reasonable to expect that the trauma would have been emotional and psychologically scarring and could have changed the trajectory of her life. 

Perhaps we should keep all that in mind.

I agree that our life experiences affect our future decisions.

 

side note: "That her pleas for justice were disregarded by men she believed were God’s ordained servants."     I dont think we go to Church Leaders for justice. I think we go to Church to report our own sins or to report sins done to us by another. What I demand as justice very likely will not be what a person Priesthood Leader will regard as justice - prime example the reaction on this board concerning the woman that woukd not stoo gossiping.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Let’s consider for a moment that Denson’s accusations are true.  

Okay.

Quote

That she was molested, possibly raped.  

Quite a big spectrum in those words.

Leavitt says Denson reported that Bishop showed her porn.  She claims that Bishop forcibly raped her.  Both are very bad from a Church standpoint, but from a legal standpoint, there is quite a difference.

Quote

That this caused her severe anxiety attacks.  

Or exacerbated them.  She had an extremely traumatic childhood.

I'm not minimizing.  Just contextualizing.

Quote

That her pleas for justice were disregarded by men she believed were God’s ordained servants.

That's pretty vague.  But okay, I'll go with it.

The LDS Church can't really mete out "justice."  God can.  Civil authorities can.  The Church, however, is materially constrained by what it can do (see D&C 134:10).

Let's say that the Church learned that Denson's claims were true way back in the day, and that the Church excommunicated Bishop as a result (as it did more recently in the Smartt matter).  I wonder how much Denson would have considered that to be "justice."  Perhaps quite a bit.  Perhaps very little.  Hard to say.

Quote

That she went on to marry in the temple only to have her husband cheat on her.  

Another factor that may have exacerbated things.

I'm inclined to believe her claims about her childhood and her marital problems.

Quote

Assuming all of this is true, it’s reasonable to expect that the trauma would have been emotional and psychologically scarring and could have changed the trajectory of her life. 

Yes.

Quote

Perhaps we should keep all that in mind.

Yes.

But let's also keep in mind that her allegations may not be substantively true (or else they are embellished/exaggerated), and all the ramifications that flow from that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 2, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not my contention at all.  Not sure why you are jumping to that extreme conclusion.  I have repeatedly stated I think there should be s public hotline for anyone to call.  I think there are other things that can be done, conference talks, instructions of bishops to have talks in SM on it, maybe a fifth Sunday.  Much more internal Church membership discussion needs to be done to ensure everyone (well, as much as possible) understands it is a good thing to go to the police if one is able to among other things.

But leaders and members need to do their part by using the resources the Church provides or all the Church's efforts will likely be wasted.

As far as the Handbook, only you can judge your own situation, but on this board you have expressed your situation as having concerns about the way the Church's handles abuse.  Perhaps I misunderstood and that didn't arise until after you were released.  If I were in the position of encountering situations of abuse as you state counselors were and if I understood you correctly, you actually encountered, one of the first things I would do is hit the Handbook to doublecheck what were the policies regarding abuse.  I have a hard time imagining a leader having concerns and not taking advantage of the easiest source that might hold some answers to those concerns and I would judge myself very harshly if I missed something like this because I saw it as low priority.  Whether or not that resembles your situation in the least, obviously there is no way for me or anyone else to know besides yourself.  I have given you the info, decide for yourself what you want to do with it.

I know a lot of leaders who ignore what is in the Handbook by choice, but that is in the cases where they were confident in what they were doing.  I was never particularly impressed by their results though.

---

It does seem to me somewhat unjust to complain about the Church not doing enough when you personally did not take advantage of one of the easiest sources of information about what the Church does do.  I do think you are probably not the only one who does this and somehow the Church needs to find a way to ram this stuff down leaders' throats, even if they are all volunteers who may at times choose to miss training sessions, ignore letters from the First Presidency, ignore legal and insurance requirements, or neglect checking the Handbook on occasion to refresh their memory about crucial, mandatory procedures (I personally know of all of that list occuring).  The only thing I can think of is not allowing someone to be called until participation in a training session or maybe a online computer test of familiarity with the major mandatory requirements of the Handbook occurs.

I read every letter that was sent and studied the handbook.  I never had an issue of abuse arise in my time as a counselor or I would have gone back to the handbook as I frequently did with other questions. 

Somehow we got off on this tangent of a hotline.  My point all along has been that, as a church, we still have areas where we need to improve in this area.  Do you disagree?