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

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I have been reviewing your posts, which is what makes your actual position on this of interest. This idea that a victim of a sexual predator must have lived an exemplary life to be taken seriously when they claim to have been victimized calls into question if you believe that Bishop is, in fact, a predator.

No, I don't think that.  All claims of sexual abuse should be taken seriously.

But note what I said here: "All claims of sexual abuse..."

Do you see the difference between my approach and yours?

Quote

Combined, it makes your behavior appear ignorant of how such trauma impact a person's life.

I've tried to be patient with your persistent efforts to personalize this thread.  I think I'm done with that now.

Let's get back on topic.  The topic is not me.

Quote

The only real explanation that leaves is that you don't believe her claims, and that Bishop's own admissions in the sources available should be discounted.

I have provided my "real explanation" of my current assessment.  A few times now.  Here it is again:

Quote

At present I am inclined to conclude that Denson was molested or otherwise subjected to serious misconduct by Joseph Bishop, but not to the extent that it was rape or attempted rape.  If we go by what Leavitt states she disclosed, then that goes a long way for me in terms of reconciling Denson's claims with my reservations about those claims.  What Leavitt states she disclosed to him about Bishop was something profoundly sinful and wrong, but not rape or attempted rape.  The rape claim, then, became an embellishment on the (still very wrong) misconduct that did occur.  It grew over time.  However, this is not a definitive conclusion.  

There you go.  That is the third or fourth time I have posted this statement.  Verbatim.

No need for you to guess about what my "real explanation" is.  I've told it to you several times now.

So let's get back to the topic, shall we?

Quote

There is a death spiral of absurdism in this line of reasoning that you are exhibiting.

I disagree.  I think my posts are pretty well-reasoned.  And dispassionate.  And based on an evaluation of competent, probative evidence.  

Meanwhile, here's my CFR for you again:

  5 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

This idea that penetrative sex is a bright line that, so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable is repugnant.

Malarky.  The Church doesn't teach this.  Some members will use such silliness to rationalize inappropriate conduct, but that's on them.

So CFR, please, that "the way LDS are taught to think about moral issues" includes "the idea that penetrative sex is a bright line that, so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable."  Chapter and verse, please, as to where this has been "taught."

I will hold you to this.  If you do not respond to my CFR, I will report you to the moderators.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 2, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Quote

Leavitt's statements to the media appear to be relevant to the overall veracity of her claims.

Leavitt admits to having been approached by a young woman who made a claim he didn't feel was worthy of taking seriously according to his own present account.

Yes.  And that was the wrong decision.  I've said that several times.

Quote

Present evidence points to her claims being credible given the established fact there was another victim who reported her assault to the Church in 2010.

What "assault?"  What did she claim he did?

And why are you willing to evaluate Bishop's history of misconduct as to other people, but not Denson's?  If the former is relevant and probative, then why isn't the latter?

Quote

Bishop is reported to have denied this other person's claims which led the local authorities over Bishop to not follow up.

Local authorities did follow up, but could not discipline Bishop for lack of evidence.  Not unlike how the civil authorities in Utah County were not able to press charges against Bishop (because of the statute of limitations).

Quote

All of which demonstrates an institutional bias against female victims of Joseph Bishop.

Meh.  Now you're just coming across as an anti-Mormon crank.

Quote

THAT is what Leavitt's statements mean for this discussion. You should consider the fact you are another example in a long line of persons within this institution demonstrating this same behavior.

Meh.  Please stop personalizing this thread.

Meanwhile, here's my CFR again:

  5 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

This idea that penetrative sex is a bright line that, so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable is repugnant.

Malarky.  The Church doesn't teach this.  Some members will use such silliness to rationalize inappropriate conduct, but that's on them.

So CFR, please, that "the way LDS are taught to think about moral issues" includes "the idea that penetrative sex is a bright line that, so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable."  Chapter and verse, please, as to where this has been "taught."

I will hold you to this.  If you do not respond to my CFR, I will report you to the moderators.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 2, 2018 by smac97

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I have been reviewing your posts, which is what makes your actual position on this of interest. This idea that a victim of a sexual predator must have lived an exemplary life to be taken seriously when they claim to have been victimized calls into question if you believe that Bishop is, in fact, a predator. Because being the victim of rape and sexual assault at any age but especially at a young age impacts a person's life, and it's rather shameful to imagine that they must be model citizens to be believable when the person accused seems rather clearly to believe it of themselves. Combined, it makes your behavior appear ignorant of how such trauma impact a person's life. The only real explanation that leaves is that you don't believe her claims, and that Bishop's own admissions in the sources available should be discounted. There is a death spiral of absurdism in this line of reasoning that you are exhibiting. So, let's break out of that cycle and establish a few simple positions for clarity.

Do you believe that Joseph Bishop was/is a sexual predator?

Smac has said repeatedly that he does believe that Bishop is guilty of some sexual offense that is likely worthy of excommunication.  He's also said that he does not, right now, believe that bishop is guilty of rape because there is no evidence to support that accusation other than the accusation itself.  He has also said that he is open to changing this mind later if more evidence comes to light.

And he, like pretty much everyone else who has discussed this on here, has acknowledged that Denson's previous history of false accusations of a sexual abuse hurt her case.  

I'm not sure how that is a death spiral of absurdism.  I understand that others disagree with smac's conclusions but it seems like there is room for reasonable disagreement on most of these issues.

[Honorentheos]

Why is it so hard to make a clear statement about recognizing Bishop as a sexual predator while you seem to have no problem making clear statements that you doubt the credibility of his victim? Again, it's disgusting behavior.

As to your CFR, if you want more than your own posts in this thread which were what initiated the comment, we can start with this article. Feel free to make your next claim, "But where is it explicitly taught over the pulpit by the leadership" to which one can only say, "Eppur si muove ."

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/07/27/how-outdated-mormon-teachings-may-be-aiding-and-abetting-rape-culture/

ETA: Add bluebells' comments about rape to the CFR as well. If it's not a thing, why do LDS keep making it a thing?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Smac has said repeatedly that he does believe that Bishop is guilty of some sexual offense that is likely worthy of excommunication.  He's also said that he does not, right now, believe that bishop is guilty of rape because there is no evidence to support that accusation other than the accusation itself.  He has also said that he is open to changing this mind later if more evidence comes to light.

And he, like pretty much everyone else who has discussed this on here, has acknowledged that Denson's previous history of false accusations of a sexual abuse hurt her case.  

I'm not sure how that is a death spiral of absurdism.  I understand that others disagree with smac's conclusions but it seems like there is room for reasonable disagreement on most of these issues.

What is rape, bluebell? Why does the idea that there had to be penetrative sex involved form a line that makes a difference to the discussion?

Also, this idea that a person who suffers traumatic experiences such as sex abuse as a child and sexual assault at the hands of an important authority figure must be a model citizen to be believed is hogwash. The fact they were traumatized as a child and young adult by authority figures is understood to damage their social development and lead to problems in life. That's the absurd death spiral his, and now your, thinking creates in this discussion.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Why is it so hard to make a clear statement about recognizing Bishop as a sexual predator while you seem to have no problem making clear statements that you doubt the credibility of his victim? Again, it's disgusting behavior.

I've reported you to the mods.  I've asked that you quit personalizing this thread, but you persist in doing so.

Quote

As to your CFR, if you want more than your own posts in this thread which were what initiated the comment, we can start with this article. Feel free to make your next claim, "But where is it explicitly taught over the pulpit by the leadership" to which one can only say, "Eppur si muove ."

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/07/27/how-outdated-mormon-teachings-may-be-aiding-and-abetting-rape-culture/

Nope.  Not sufficient.  Nothing in there about LDS leaders teaching that "penetrative sex is a bright line," or that "so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable."

Here's the CFR again:

Quote

So CFR, please, that "the way LDS are taught to think about moral issues" includes "the idea that penetrative sex is a bright line that, so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable."  Chapter and verse, please, as to where this has been "taught."

I will hold you to this.  Chapter and verse.  If you do not respond to my CFR, I will report you to the moderators.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 2, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

Quote

I don't think we have much in the way of Bishop's "side of the story."  He did not recognize her in the interview.  He confused her with another sister missionary, in fact.

I need to make this semi brief to finish the second half of my 8 hours of sleep (assuming no dog barking).  Will provide details later if anyone wants it itemized, I took extensive notes on who said what first as well as Bishop's shifts in tone of voice, strength, hesitancy, difficulty finding words, etc.  yesterday I spent an hour or more going back over the first half hour or so of the confrontation where the inappropriate stories are detailed and some basement info is shared.  I wanted to see who said what because of the impression I had that these stories at least partially supported the grooming claim.

In the beginning of the confrontation around 45 minutes into the interview, she starts telling him bits and pieces.  Whenever he tries to contribute to fill in the narrative, to identify her, he gets it wrong.

52:20  The hot tub story...Denson was the source of the entire story, his correction was limited to saying something similar had happened, but in Utah.  Way he said it...sounded to me like he was struggling to process it and may have been creating a memory rather than remembering one to fill the gap.  At the end when the transcript says "it did happen" sounds more to me like he is saying "it didn't happen" whether he meant in Wyoming or not like she said, couldn't say.

53:30The next story is about his wife at the dinner table.  He only contributes one detail, the type of clothing his wife was wearing (it is not clear from sound so much as context), he interrupts her to add it, his voice indicates to me this is an actual memory, he knows exactly what she is talking about...at least up to that point.  I am therefore certain he did tell her this...which is extremely inappropriate and counts as sexual harassment to me and likely grooming.  Given his habit of responding to her many times by sharing stories where he is either or both hero and victim, this fits that pattern and means to me he likely has been responding to people in narcissistic ways much of his life.  And as this would be consistent with him setting himself up as an unloved husband deserving love from someone, I see this sharing as part of a probable grooming/seduction effort. (Though I need to check if the sexless marriage was part of the original story or his later self justification, sob story)

He discounts her question about there being many women.  Just the two at the MTC, then he shifts to a different tone with 'one while I was in a bishopric'...can't tell if this is a memory or a creation because he is trying to contribute, be a part of the discussion...got to get back to being brief..

All the discussion about the second victim, he states at the end of the story of how she ended up at his house and gets a frisky back rub, that "that is all that ever happened with her"

In the original  talk about the basement...he perks up and solidly confirms the room exists, but  that's it. 1:05:36  He refuses to confirm anything she says about the basement and then goes to set her straight by saying 'let me tell you what I remember'.  He then goes immediately into discussing her breast enhancement and not any actual encounter and the conversation gets off track so we never get any more.  My interpretation is he connects seeing breasts with being in the room.  I think that means his confession about asking a woman to show her his breasts there and her doing so is accurate.  I think he is certain it is her because she says she was in the basement with him.

-----

I stopped at that point, so memory here is the only other story he shares is of a woman flirting with him in a revealing sun suit, but there is iirc no indication he shared that story with her originally, instead it is part of his recitation of his sins.

----

I think this makes it problematic to assume he was in the private sessions telling her all these stories over time.  He definitely in my view shared the info about his wife, but other than that she is the only source of actual info on the storytelling.  His memory of the second woman...he insists all he ever did with her was the frisky backrub.  As far as the basement, he confirms the room's existence and for some reason thinking about it takes him to thinking about a particular sized breast, so imo he is remembering seeing this in the basement.  We get no other info from him about what happened, Denson is the source.

----

If he repeats these details in the police interview, this may be a result of his memory clearing up with time to think or the conversation with her may have implanted false memories.

I wish she had allowed the police to go first.  I suspect if this goes to trial or even in the discussions, Bishop's lawyer will be arguing she jumped the gun and went out to Arizona before the police got a chance to interview him in hopes of persuading him her version of events was what happened, but the reality is only the two consensual acts of exposing breasts and the back rub took place.

I can understand her wanting to put pressure on, I think she was hoping to get stories from him that opened up a gotcha moment because in the past he had just denied everything.  When he was just rambling around, she took a more direct approach and while it did open him up, it definitely doesn't amount to a useful confession imo.

The best way to check my conclusions and descriptions out is a you tube video that has the audio and transcript linked.  There are a few errors where it has the wrong person briefly saying something included in the other's comment, but since you hear it at the same time as reading no confusion.

It is here, I included the time stamps so you can jump to that moment, however to pick up on the changes of his voice to get better input on what is him going along with her and what is actually coming straight from him, listening to it from a little bit before the confrontation all the way through is helpful, paying attention to how quickly her responds, how much effort he puts into saying something, and especially the volume and crispness of his words.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qYVoDnU-gP8

I am not concluding he didn't tell her the details she shared, I am only saying the transcript doesn't demonstrate that nor the rape.  Think it demonstrated the breast exposure in the basement, but even that isn't a direct hit, especially since he is definite that all that happened with the second victim was a back rub while Denson says the exposure happened to the second victim, not herself.

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

Just now, Honorentheos said:

What is rape, bluebell? Why does the idea that there had to be penetrative sex involved form a line that makes a difference to the discussion?

She has made specific claims of rape or attempted rape in federal lawsuit.  Those words have actual definitions and meanings and legal significance.

Just now, Honorentheos said:

Also, this idea that a person who suffers traumatic experiences such as sex abuse as a child and sexual assault at the hands of an important authority figure must be a model citizen to be believed is hogwash.

Strawman.

Just now, Honorentheos said:

The fact they were traumatized as a child and young adult by authority figures is understood to damage their social development and lead to problems in life. That's the absurd death spiral his, and now your, thinking creates in this discussion.

Still personalizing the thread, it seems.

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wish she had allowed the police to go first.  

I understand why she didn't wait on the police.  They'd never come.  She had probably previously been told that her 30+-year-old claim of sexual abuse would not be investigated because prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations.  The prosecutor says he believed her, but there's no point in wasting public funds to investigate claims that have zero chance of being prosecuted.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I suspect if this goes to trial or even in the discussions, Bishop's lawyer will be arguing she jumped the gun and went out to Arizona before the police got a chance to interview him in hopes of persuading him her version of events was what happened and that only the two consensual acts of exposing breasts and the back rub took place.

I don't think that argument will be made.  She didn't "jup the gun" because the gun wouldn't have been fired.  There was never going to be a police investigation.  Even now, the police are not investigating, except for the interviews by BYU Police.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can understand her wanting to put pressure on, I think she was hoping to get stories from him that opened up a gotcha moment because in the past he had just denied everything.  When he was just rambling around, she took a more direct approach and while it did open him up, it definitely doesn't amount to a useful confession imo.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Honorentheos]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She has made specific claims of rape or attempted rape in federal lawsuit.  Those words have actual definitions and meanings and legal significance.

Strawman.

Still personalizing the thread, it seems.

-Smac

And the charges of rape will be settled in the suit.

This discussion is not a legal case. It's a reflection of how a particular subculture behaves towards victims of sexual abuse and assault when male leaders are the ones accused. So far, the tendency to seek to discredit the victim seems to be both institutional and cultural. I've asked the question of you as to your stance on Bishop's behavior being predatory to see if that can break through the impulse to set aside personal moral judgments in favor circling the wagons - a tendency that undermines the idea that LDS culture is a great place to teach people to be good and moral individuals. Can it be possible to treat a simple moral issue as a matter of values over parochialism? I'm not going to hold my breath given the evidence to date.

[Calm]

Okay, you (Smac) have made me reconsider motive.  She knew from being told by the PG Police it was past the statue of limitations, it could not be prosecuted and she had their example of no inquiry, so that expectation was likely there.

However, iirc her interview with the police was scheduled before she went out to Arizona so she knew at least that interview would take place and maybe she held out hope she could trigger an actual investigation and prosecution because she didn't understand the legal issues....or she figured even a limited interview of herself would be good foundation for a civil lawsuit.  They may not have told her they were going to interview him, so the tape may have been an attempt to give them a reason to do so or simply to get his confession on record...assuming she gave them or at least played the recording for them.  If they told her up front there would be an interview of him, the recording would help ensure they asked him the right questions and then even if no prosecution, she had a police interview of him for a civil suit...persuasive evidence to convince a good lawyer to take her on as a client as well as to help establish their case.

This would be in addition to any hoped for cathartic benefit.

Hmm...late enough, I think I will go for a walk to start resetting the sleep cycle...again.  I should have known better, lol.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[Honorentheos]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've reported you to the mods.  I've asked that you quit personalizing this thread, but you persist in doing so.

Nope.  Not sufficient.  Nothing in there about LDS leaders teaching that "penetrative sex is a bright line," or that "so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable."

Here's the CFR again:

I will hold you to this.  Chapter and verse.  If you do not respond to my CFR, I will report you to the moderators.

Thanks,

-Smac

Cool. I guess this idea that the moderators need to vet whether or not both you and bluebell demonstrated a pattern that is also discussed in the article obtains.

Funny how parochial-based morality works.

[Honorentheos]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Okay, you (Smac) have made me reconsider motive.  She knew from being told by the PG Police it was past the statue of limitations, it could not be prosecuted and she had their example of no inquiry, so that expectation was likely there.

However, iirc her interview with the police was scheduled before she went out to Arizona so she knew at least that interview would take place and maybe she held out hope she could trigger an actual investigation and prosecution because she didn't understand the legal issues....or she figured even a limited interview of herself would be good foundation for a civil lawsuit.  They may not have told her they were going to interview him, so the tape may have been an attempt to give them a reason to do so or simply to get his confession on record...assuming she gave them or at least played the recording for them.  If they told her up front there would be an interview of him, the recording would help ensure they asked him the right questions and then even if no prosecution, she had a police interview of him for a civil suit...persuasive evidence to convince a good lawyer to take her on as a client as well as to help establish their case.

This would be in addition to any hoped for cathartic benefit.

Hmm...late enough, I think I will go for a walk to start resetting the sleep cycle...again.  I should have known better, lol.

It seems to me that her motives in the interview shift as she discovers that Bishop does not remember her while to her the events that occurred were placed next to her being abused by her step-father in their discussion. She moves from earlier comments about wanting to know what happened to him, if he was ever talked to by authorities in the Church, if he was disfellowshipped. She also seems to want a clear acknowledgment of what he did as part of an apology. And as he apologizes but can't say he can acknowledge what he can't remember, and that at every point when his discussions with Church authorities show he failed to either hold himself accountable to them or be held accountable by them, she begins to call into question how this could be possible given in her recollection she was raped by this man. She postulates reasons that this could be so, seeming to settle on it being indicative there must be multiple other victims for him to be able to have forgotten her, and begins to develop this idea that the Church must have covered up the claims against him.

It's not a clean process. But I do think the interview shows he knew he used techniques that he describes as seeking to titillate while she seems to have enough background in social services to label it as grooming. I think part of what seems like her planting ideas in his mind is her background supplying better terminology for things he knows to be tools he used to manipulate women but lacks the self-knowledge or professional exposure to address them in the discussion in the same way.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

This discussion is not a legal case.

It's a discussion about a legal case.

15 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

It's a reflection of how a particular subculture behaves towards victims of sexual abuse and assault when male leaders are the ones accused.

No, it's not.  If it were, we would be addressing (and commending) the LDS Church for its prompt treatment of the Smartt matter.  We would be addressing (and commending) the LDS Church for maintaining a hotline for bishops to use when they encounter allegations of abuse.  We would be addressing (and commending) the LDS Church for stories like this:

Quote

n Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.

...

The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . Kirton & McConkie.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

So the Church already has some pretty good safeguards in place.  The Law of Chastity.  Clear policies for when priesthood leaders are meeting with youth or women (they are to be chaperoned).  A published-to-the-world "zero tolerance" policy for abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.  A helpline staffed with lawyers to help local leaders navigate legal complexities that can arise.

But none of this has been brought up.  Because none of this matters.  Because your objective here is to convert the Denson story into a skewed referendum on Mormonism.

You want to weaponize this story.  I do not.

15 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

So far, the tendency to seek to discredit the victim seems to be both institutional and cultural.

Baloney.

15 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I've asked the question of you as to your stance on Bishop's behavior being predatory to see if that can break through the impulse to set aside personal moral judgments in favor circling the wagons - a tendency that undermines the idea that LDS culture is a great place to teach people to be good and moral individuals.

I've made my stance very clear.

15 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Can it be possible to treat a simple moral issue as a matter of values over parochialism? I'm not going to hold my breath given the evidence to date.

Whatever.

So, back to the topic.  And my CFR.  Here it is again:

  5 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

This idea that penetrative sex is a bright line that, so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable is repugnant.

Malarky.  The Church doesn't teach this.  Some members will use such silliness to rationalize inappropriate conduct, but that's on them.

So CFR, please, that "the way LDS are taught to think about moral issues" includes "the idea that penetrative sex is a bright line that, so long as it isn't crossed makes the actions of a sexual predator somehow excusable."  Chapter and verse, please, as to where this has been "taught."

I will hold you to this.  If you do not respond to my CFR, I will report you to the moderators.

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Cool. I guess this idea that the moderators need to vet whether or not both you and bluebell demonstrated a pattern that is also discussed in the article obtains.

Nope.  The mods only need to vet your response or non-response to my CFR, and your persistent efforts to personalize this thread.

15 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Funny how parochial-based morality works.

Whatever.

Still waiting for your response to my CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

What is rape, bluebell? Why does the idea that there had to be penetrative sex involved form a line that makes a difference to the discussion?

Well, rape is by definition forcing another to have sexual intercourse against their will.  Usually, if sexual intercourse doesn't occur, it's referred to as 'attempted rape.'  I'm guessing that's where the idea that sex has to be penetrative (intercourse) for it to be rape comes from.  But, I don't think I'm understanding exactly what you are asking?  Who has set up a line and claimed that it makes a difference to the discussion?  

Quote

Also, this idea that a person who suffers traumatic experiences such as sex abuse as a child and sexual assault at the hands of an important authority figure must be a model citizen to be believed is hogwash. The fact they were traumatized as a child and young adult by authority figures is understood to damage their social development and lead to problems in life. That's the absurd death spiral his, and now your, thinking creates in this discussion.

Who has said the bolded above?  You'd have to show that someone was actually saying the bolded above before you can accuse them of the 'absurd death spiral'.  I certainly didn't say that.  

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Well, rape is by definition forcing another to have sexual intercourse against their will.  Usually, if sexual intercourse doesn't occur, it's referred to as 'attempted rape.'  I'm guessing that's where the idea that sex has to be penetrative (intercourse) for it to be rape comes from.  But, I don't think I'm understanding exactly what you are asking?  Who has set up a line and claimed that it makes a difference to the discussion?

I don't think it applies to what allegedely took place between Bishop and Denson.  There was penetration, just not completion (if I'm remembering correctly) according to Denson.

(I think she went into more detail in the press conference, but I may be wrong here.)

Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

It seems to me that her motives in the interview shift as she discovers that Bishop does not remember her while to her the events that occurred were placed next to her being abused by her step-father in their discussion. She moves from earlier comments about wanting to know what happened to him, if he was ever talked to by authorities in the Church, if he was disfellowshipped. She also seems to want a clear acknowledgment of what he did as part of an apology. And as he apologizes but can't say he can acknowledge what he can't remember, and that at every point when his discussions with Church authorities show he failed to either hold himself accountable to them or be held accountable by them, she begins to call into question how this could be possible given in her recollection she was raped by this man. She postulates reasons that this could be so, seeming to settle on it being indicative there must be multiple other victims for him to be able to have forgotten her, and begins to develop this idea that the Church must have covered up the claims against him.

It's not a clean process. But I do think the interview shows he knew he used techniques that he describes as seeking to titillate while she seems to have enough background in social services to label it as grooming. I think part of what seems like her planting ideas in his mind is her background supplying better terminology for things he knows to be tools he used to manipulate women but lacks the self-knowledge or professional exposure to address them in the discussion in the same way.

I am not suggesting she is intentionally planting ideas in his head just in case it comes across that way; I think she is like you said using current terminology.  I think she is aiming for clarity and details...but unfortunately in most cases is the only one really supplying them. 

There is some stuff later on he contributes as original thought, strong voice etc. iirc from my first time going through reading while listening (notes posted earlier somewhere).  I don't think it helps her case as there is nothing that suggests imo he did anything but fantasize before and after the MTC (and he insists there are only two MTC victims, though towards the end he sounds resigned there will be more coming forward when she states that iirc so the insistence may be based on awareness she only knows of herself and the other who shared sessions with her and he is hoping to diminish what he has done as much as possible), but does establish him as a man who has had long term issues with women, is narcissistic, who thinks he is cured of something sexual (I lean toward minimum of it being porn, but it could be argued it was only fantasy since he never comes out and says it) that he has struggled to control because surgery killed his sex drive and therefore since he is no longer tempted that means he has fully repented and should be forgiven/protected from consequences, though he goes along with her calling him on that crap because he is fearful of what she is going to do as well as somewhat resigned it is going to be awful.

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't think it applies to what allegedely took place between Bishop and Denson.  There was penetration, just not completion (if I'm remembering correctly) according to Denson.

yes Denson said there was penetration.  by currently law in utah - penetration - is rape.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Exactly This!

Does that explain why she traveled all the way to Arizona to get Bishop actually on tape so that people couldn't just pass her off as some crazy woman.  Does that explain why she threatened to shot Bishop? Does that explain why she leaked the tape?  Does that explain why by leaking the tape she lost any chance of a cover up quiet big check negotiated settlement?  

For me, the question is, Why wouldn't she make this all public and get the church to finally do something.  She does this knowing full well that she will be demonized, her family will be dragged into this possibly, (which ended up happening) all the dirt on her will be dug up and paraded before the public. (which also happened). I think finally getting justice is a big deal for her because of al the emotional and psychologically scarring  that this has caused in her life.  If someone were to ask her, Was it all worth it even if she doesn't receive a single dime?  What do you think she would say?

Based on her actions, I assume she would say yes.

[provoman]

TIN-FOIL HAT TIME:

The Churvh has a Security Department which conducts investigations. This information is found in depositions of Kirton&McKonkie attorneys - on mormonleaks - in what I believe is a defamation lawsuit by a former member..

 

Not posistive but may be related to 

http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke_county/roanoke-county-woman-sues-local-mormon-church/article_d102cce7-a012-5cb3-b498-7c1c77600679.html

 

I suspect this is a physical security department that is referenced in the depositions

Edited May 2, 2018 by provoman

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't think it applies to what allegedely took place between Bishop and Denson.  There was penetration, just not completion (if I'm remembering correctly) according to Denson.

I don't remember anyone disagreeing with Denson saying what she described was labeled as rape by the detectives even though she described originally in the Bishop interview as attempted rape (though she when she describes coping with what is happening with her, she labels it rape iirc).

There is the contradiction between her claim that rape occurred and Bishop's denial about rape to the police...and I think if you look at everything he says about the basement, he is denying that in the recording as well because he says 'I don't remember it happening that way' and starts to give his version.  Whether this is because the rape didn't happen or he is avoiding any hint of nonconsensual sexual activity (possibly from habit), I don't think can be established by the info given.  

Even if limited to what he admits to on his own, it is abuse imo.  I will be honest and say I am unsure if the alleged rape took place, but not because I think Bishop is incapable of it (I can easily see him taking his seduction routine too far, Denson's description of the alleged rape sounds quite reasonable to me given how he presents himself in other situations).  My issue is his mental state, his voice doesn't sound defensive to begin with and much of the conversation outside of the rape accusation, but confused and agreeable when he says he doesn't remember stuff that Denson is describing leading up to the rape.   I think he is present enough when rape is being discussed he could easily be lying there, the gravity of the accusation gets him fully awake at least for a time (he goes in and out of alertness and assertiveness, imo).   It is when he is all vague, he doesn't provide any hints that he is recognizing rape precursor details, he recognizes the room is all.  His memory loss/possible dementia in other ways doesn't seem that bad, he has problems following along, makes weird connections rather than logical and reasonable predictions of where the conversation is headed even when he himself is telling a story (jumps to speculating she has biker friends when she talks about threatening to kill him as if he is thinking she would get them to do it or maybe get a gun from them; starts out one story with helping his son spiritually), but he is very articulate in his story about Elder Asay.  And he gets the implications of her going public on his family.  So it seems to me he would have provided more confirming details because he didn't understand where she was heading, but I don't see him doing that.  Otoh, his dementia could be worse than it appears and actually have caused him to forget those details or he could be more coherent and practiced at playing dumb, so I am still very open to there being a rape.  

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

It seems to me that her motives in the interview shift as she discovers that Bishop does not remember her while to her the events that occurred were placed next to her being abused by her step-father in their discussion.

I don't think her motive shifted much.  She planned from the get-go to use false-pretenses to lure Bishop into the "interview," to get him to "confess" to raping her, and to record it all.  Thereafter, she hired attorneys to pursue a financial settlement with the Church.

That was the plan, I think.  (It does not mean that she wasn't abused.)

2 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

She moves from earlier comments about wanting to know what happened to him, if he was ever talked to by authorities in the Church, if he was disfellowshipped. She also seems to want a clear acknowledgment of what he did as part of an apology. And as he apologizes but can't say he can acknowledge what he can't remember, and that at every point when his discussions with Church authorities show he failed to either hold himself accountable to them or be held accountable by them, she begins to call into question how this could be possible given in her recollection she was raped by this man. She postulates reasons that this could be so, seeming to settle on it being indicative there must be multiple other victims for him to be able to have forgotten her, and begins to develop this idea that the Church must have covered up the claims against him.

It's not a clean process.

To put it mildly.  Her "interview" apparently included her extracting a false confession from him.  And a reminder to him that she had threatened to murder him.  And at a point in time in which Bishop's mental state appears confused and not fully lucid (he had undergone surgery two days prior).

Yeah, not really a "clean process."  This is part of why I don't think the recording is very useful as evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

One thing I haven't seen discussed regarding Leavitt.

In his 29-April podcast, RFM says that Leavitt sent his daughter to live with Denson after she had married and moved to Taiwan.  RFM raises the question:  If Leavitt felt that Denson was making a false accusation against a former MTC President why would he then sign her temple recommend to be married in the temple and then send her daughter to live with Denson in Taiwan?

I think it's a valid question but I don't know the source of his claim about Leavitt's daughter living with Denson in Taiwan.  Does anyone know the source on that?

Edited May 2, 2018 by rockpond

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if limited to what he admits to on his own, it is abuse imo.

Yes.  (And thanks for all the additional details too).

So, the question is.....if the statute of limitations have run out regarding the rape, does it really matter when it comes to holding the church responsible (for them placing Bishop in this leadership role at the MTC) whether or not he actually raped Denson or only abused her in the basement?  (And...any abuse is serious, I use the word "only" as meaning "solely").  

Or do you believe it comes down to only punishing Bishop and not church leaders?

If so, I and many others wonder why the church leaders never held any sort of church disciplinary proceedings for him or didn't warn local leaders & members about him?  That's negligence right there, IMO.

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson