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

[bluebell]

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

That could be true, as far as the allegations go.  We of course don't know what occurred between them (thought it seems certain that it was abuse).  But, I wasn't talking about what happened between Bishop and Denson, I was just answering the question that H. asked ("what is rape").

I don't understand his other question and asked for clarification.  Has someone set up a line and claimed that the definition of rape matters in the discussion (as H. has stated has happened)?

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That could be true, as far as the allegations go.  We of course don't know what occurred between them (thought it seems certain that it was abuse).  

I agree.

So whether it was rape or solely sexual abuse, what responsibility do the church leaders have here?  Shouldn't they have at least held a church court (on these and other allegations from the other victim) and warned Bishop's local leaders to keep him away from young women (no callings where he'd be around them)?

Why have they done nothing so far?  Is Bishop still a member? (I've seen it reported that he still a member and has never been disciplined....but I'd like to know the truth here.)

Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.

So whether it was rape or solely abuse, what responsibility do the church leaders have here?  Shouldn't they have at least held a church court (on these and other allegations from the other victim) and warned Bishop's local leaders to keep him away from young women (no callings where he'd be around them)?

Why have they done nothing so far?  Is Bishop still a member? (I've seen it reported that he still a member and has never been disciplined....but I'd like to know the truth here.)

If they knew about the allegations and believed they had merit, then yes, they should have held a court and warned local leaders.  If they didn't know about the allegations or didn't believe they had any merit when they were made known to them, then the church has probably acted reasonably (even if they were ultimately wrong).

I have no idea the current status of Bishop and don't see how we would know unless bishop or his family made it public.  I thought that when someone is involved in a legal issue (stemming from sin) that the church typically waited for that to be resolved before going forth with church discipline.  Maybe i'm wrong on that though.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If they knew about the allegations and believed they had merit, then yes, they should have held a court and warned local leaders.

Didn't they already settle a case with the other victim?  Has nothing been done regarding church discipline for Bishop since then?  What about the confessions Bishop himself made?  Still no courts or discipline?  I have to believe anyone would wonder why this took place.  He definitely shouldn't ever have had another calling where he worked with children or young women.

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Didn't they already settle a case with the other victim? 

I have no idea.

Quote

Has nothing been done regarding church discipline for Bishop since then?

I have no idea.

Quote

What about the confessions Bishop himself made?  Still no courts or discipline?

I have no idea, but a lot would depend on what Bishop actually confessed to.  Some people are not as honest as they should be (or claim they are being).

Quote

I have to believe anyone would wonder why this took place.  He definitely shouldn't ever have had another calling where he worked with children or young women.

I think, as far as the church is concerned, it would greatly depend on what exactly he confessed to.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have no idea.

I thought there is a record of this taking place back in 2010?  Maybe it's just been stated that this took place....

I'm sure Calm knows!!  Calm?  

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think, as far as the church is concerned, it would greatly depend on what exactly he confessed to.

Oh wow.  Ok.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

To put it mildly.  Her "interview" apparently included her extracting a false confession from him.

If by this you mean where he states details of his confession to Wells and included whatever happened at the MTC, if you are claiming there was anything intentional by Denson in getting him to admit to something, true or false, just because he did make a mistake in his details, I strongly disagree.  When the false confession took place, she was not then aware of when the incident he was describing ( the confession to Elder Wells took place).  When later on he again independently stated that he thought he talked to Wells about her as well, she very quickly corrected him on that and pointed out it was impossible.

So yes, he did include some false details in his conversation, but any implication she encouraged or found that acceptable that is wrong imo.  All it demonstrates is he can't be trusted as a reliable witness, not her.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

I believe this is all that is known in regards to the second woman:

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.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018

In two hours I get physical therapy, I am therefore making a public declaration that until something new is released, I am going to very, very, very strongly attempt to only read this thread and not post stuff either here or elsewhere.

I have been getting some minor, but annoying numbness down my left side that is related to back issues and typing in bed aggravates it.  So please flog me if you see me post long stuff at least in the next week while I am taking advantage of my new bed nutrturing my back instead of agonizing it (pain from sore joints miraculously disappeared in three nights on the new bed, so already much better).

I may provide links without the quotes to help find stuff, but must, must be good in order to get back into decent exercising.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I thought there is a record of this taking place back in 2010?  Maybe it's just been stated that this took place....

I'm sure Calm knows!!  Calm?  

Oh wow.  Ok.

 

Yep, i bet Calm knows.   

I'm not sure what is 'wow' about my last statement though?  The church believes in the power of the atonement.  If someone confessed to porn or consensual immorality, they could repent (typically after a few months or a year of disfellowshipment) and be forgiven.  We don't know what Bishop confessed to so how can we judge if the church handled them correctly?

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

If by this you mean where he states details of his confession to Wells and included whatever happened at the MTC, if you are claiming there was anything intentional by Denson in getting him to admit to something, true or false, just because he did make a mistake in his details, I strongly disagree.  

I think she wanted him to confess to something specific.

What he did confess to, however (the one I have in mind), was not what she wanted.  And was demonstrably false.

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

When the false confession took place, she was not then aware of when the incident he was describing ( the confession to Elder Wells took place).  

Correct.  She was clearly trying to steer him toward confessing to X.  He confessed instead to Y.  Y was factually false.  That is what I am saying.

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

When later on he again independently stated that he thought he talked to Wells about her as well, she very quickly corrected him on that and pointed out it was impossible.

I agree.  But the fact remains that he had previously confessed to something that was factually not true.  It was a false confession.

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

So yes, he did include some false details in his conversation, but any implication she encouraged or found that acceptable that is wrong imo.  

I see your point.  

I think luring an old man into an "interview" under false pretenses, and using manipulative questioning to coax him into saying what she wanted him to say, has some real problems with it, not the least of which is . . . part of what she managed to get from him (even if inadvertently on her part) was a false confession.

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

All it demonstrates is he can't be trusted as a reliable witness, not her.

I can see that.

It is also an indicator that the recorded interview is not useful as evidence to figure out what happened.  That's my point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Didn't they already settle a case with the other victim? 

We don't know if the other victim has brought "a case" needing settlement.

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Has nothing been done regarding church discipline for Bishop since then? 

The matter was investigated, but discipline was not given due to evidentiary problems, IIRC.

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What about the confessions Bishop himself made? 

We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells back in the 70s.  I think we can infer that there was no discipline against him based on that confession (since he was later called to be the president of the MTC, which would be an unlikely thing if he had been subjected to substantial church discipline).

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Still no courts or discipline? 

In the main, we don't know.

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have to believe anyone would wonder why this took place.  He definitely shouldn't ever have had another calling where he worked with children or young women.

The Church apparently first became aware of the claims in 2010 (when he was in his late 70s).  We don't know if he has had any callings since that "where he worked with children or young women."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe this is all that is known in regards to the second woman:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018

In two hours I get physical therapy, I am therefore making a public declaration that until something new is released, I am going to very, very, very strongly attempt to only read this thread and not post stuff either here or elsewhere.

I have been getting some minor, but annoying numbness down my left side that is related to back issues and typing in bed aggravates it.  So please flog me if you see me post long stuff at least in the next week while I am taking advantage of my new bed nutrturing my back instead of agonizing it (pain from sore joints miraculously disappeared in three nights on the new bed, so already much better).

I may provide links without the quotes to help find stuff, but must, must be good in order to get back into decent exercising.

Thank you for the link, Calm.  I'll look into it some more.

And....I hope things go well for you regarding the physical therapy.  I'll be sending healing thoughts and prayers for you! 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

 

Thanks for the youtube of the transcript put with the audio. My word! The transcript was horrendous because it had words in there that weren't the words they said. If someone were to just read that it would be sooo off the mark. That's why at the very beginning I pleaded for everyone to not go by the transcript alone. I actually didn't even know there was 2 1/2 hours of this interview. When I listened to it the first time, I think I must have dozed off or something, I learned so much more sitting here and have listened and read through the whole thing today. 

He mentions at one point of tucking things away, and maybe that's what he'd done with his memory of the rape. I wonder if that's possible? I know it is with victims of horrendous crimes, and they are able to mentally block the whole thing out, gratefully so. I wonder if his mind did this? Or if not, then McKenna is probably in for a day of reckoning for saying it was something it wasn't. But honestly, I pretty much believe her. I didn't like her presentation at times, but feel she was pretty real and not in a la la land like some people that live two lives like this Bishop guy. 

It was hard not to feel for him though, and I kept trying to not feel sorry for him, or I should say, his family. I still feel for them. But he did apologise profusely, and maybe that got under my skin. 

I do believe men who are of his and others' statures that have had to try to live a perfect life such as apostles, prophets etc., might mentally have some personality disorders from the pressure. 

I wish I could shake every LDS out there that is carrying this burden of trying to be perfect, because it does more harm then good. In fact it backfires. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Tacenda

[ttribe]

3 hours 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

Uggh, this is childish.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Uggh, this is childish.

I don't think so.  In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

I am not interested in debating personal opinions about the LDS Church.  But if someone makes a serious and contested factual allegation against it, I will press the matter.

The CFR pertains to the claim 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."  

One of the things that makes this board valuable is the CFR.  It keeps discussions grounded.  It differentiates fact from opinion.

So I want chapter and verse, as to where the above has been "taught."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

It was hard not to feel for him though, and I kept trying to not feel sorry for him, or I should say, his family. I still feel for them. But he did apologise profusely, and maybe that got under my skin. 

Apologies made so easily, without even really understanding the accusation or when he does, not owning it because it isn't connected to him really because he doesn't remember it...

If he does not have dementia, it creeps me out, it plays out so false.  When I frame it as a sign of dementia, it makes it almost tolerable, but still,completely meaningless.

Got to go...

Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm

[Hestia]

Honorentheos initially had 24 hours to answer the CFR before further action was considered. However, after having read other reports of misbehavior, he is banned for personal attacks.

Dispute opinions not people.

[ttribe]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

I am not interested in debating personal opinions about the LDS Church.  But if someone makes a serious and contested factual allegation against it, I will press the matter.

The CFR pertains to the claim 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."  

One of the things that makes this board valuable is the CFR.  It keeps discussions grounded.  It differentiates fact from opinion.

So I want chapter and verse, as to where the above has been "taught."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

5 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Honorentheos initially had 24 hours to answer the CFR before further action was considered. However, after having read other reports of misbehavior, he is banned for personal attacks.

Dispute opinions not people.

Well, guess you succeeded in shouting that one down.

[Tacenda]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Apologies made so easily, without even really understanding the accusation or when he does, not owning it because it isn't connected to him really because he doesn't remember it...

If he does not have dementia, it creeps me out, it plays out so false.  When I frame it as a sign of dementia, it makes it almost tolerable, but still,completely meaningless.

Got to go...

Take care Calm, I hope you get the help you need. And maybe we should not rely on you too much for info, so you get to ease up on posts until you're back/side is better.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Well, guess you succeeded in shouting that one down.

I think that less 'you're opinion is immoral!'  and personalization of posts on this thread would be a good thing.    It's been happening more and more as the thread goes on and emotions become heated. I'd rather they remove posters who are struggling with that than shut the whole thread down.

Edited May 2, 2018 by bluebell

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, guess you succeeded in shouting that one down.

A CFR is not "shouting" him "down."  It was a request for him to substantiate his factual assertion.  

And it was not his failure to respond to my CFR that got him banned.

And I never asked that he be banned, only that he respond to my CFR, and that he stop personalizing this thread (which he persisted doing, despite numerous polite requests).

FWIW, I would be fine if he came back and followed the same rules the rest of us are asked to follow.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

 

"There are no facts, only interpretations"

[esodije]

I don’t know how much discussion there has been of the fact that Denson stated in the Bishop audio recording that her pregnancy with the daughter she gave up for adoption was the result of a rape, whereas the complaint in the lawsuit says the baby was “conceived out of wedlock.”  (Theoretically, I guess both could be true, but that’s sort of like comparing rape to “extramarital sex.”). I’ve read that the biological daughter is now 35, so Denson was roughly 20 when she gave birth—roughly five years after she joined the church at 15.  It certainly wasn’t uncommon in the early 80s for young ladies in the church to become pregnant and give birth, but what ~was~ uncommon was for such a young lady to want to serve a mission. Based on the recent experiences of a young man in my ward who fathered a child out of wedlock (who then was given up for adoption, meaning the young man had no child-support obligations), I don’t think anyone who’s parented a child, male ~or~ female, would be allowed to serve a proselytizing mission these days.  And someone with mental-health issues ~and~ a history of having a child out of wedlock would seem to be doubly disqualified under present guidelines.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Kartchner said:

I don’t know how much discussion there has been of the fact that Denson stated in the Bishop audio recording that her pregnancy with the daughter she gave up for adoption was the result of a rape, whereas the complaint in the lawsuit says the baby was “conceived out of wedlock.”  (Theoretically, I guess both could be true, but that’s sort of like comparing rape to “extramarital sex.”). I’ve read that the biological daughter is now 35, so Denson was roughly 20 when she gave birth—roughly five years after she joined the church at 15.  It certainly wasn’t uncommon in the early 80s for young ladies in the church to become pregnant and give birth, but what ~was~ uncommon was for such a young lady to want to serve a mission. Based on the recent experiences of a young man in my ward who fathered a child out of wedlock (who then was given up for adoption, meaning the young man had no child-support obligations), I don’t think anyone who’s parented a child, male ~or~ female, would be allowed to serve a proselytizing mission these days.  And someone with mental-health issues ~and~ a history of having a child out of wedlock would seem to be doubly disqualified under present guidelines.

Maybe it was because she was a convert? I know I heard that statement today while listening, that she said it came from rape. I'll bet it's from someone she knows, maybe a date rape? 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

 "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

"There are no facts, only interpretations"

Well, no.  2+2=4 is a fact, not an interpretation.

Donald Trump is currently the president of the United States.  That is a fact, not an interpretation.

Zac Efron's performance in High School Musical 3 should have earned him an Oscar.  That is . . . something else.

Thanks,

-Smac