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

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, esodije said:

I momentarily went to the dark side and listened to one of “consiglieri’s” podcasts over on Mormon Discussions.  (Think he knows that “consiglieri” is the plural form of “consigliere,” or is he given to using the “royal we”?) I had to laugh at his characterizing as “rock-solid corroboration” the supposed fact that an anonymous former MTC employee “confirmed” the existence of Bishop’s naughty room at the MTC and that one of Denson’s teachers “confirmed” that Bishop called Denson out of class on multiple occasions.  It’s sort of hard to elicit testimony from someone who won’t reveal his/her identity, and whereas Denson may well have been pulled out of class, it doesn’t explain why she presumably broke MTC rules and went without her companion.  There is a lot better evidence for the proposition that Denson is mental: (1) the sheer implausibility of the claim; (3) the lack of accusers against Bishop from any period of his professional life except from the MTC (a relatively difficult place for a sexual predator to operate compared to, say, Weber State, the BAN Mission, BYU, or even Happy Acres in Chandler; 3) the fact that Denson’s ex-husband and a relative have strongly implied they don’t believe her claims, (4) the fact that at least two missionaries who knew Denson in the MTC described her on DN fora as worldly and particularly prone to hitting on male missionaries; (5) her history of criminal conduct involving fraudulent intent; (6) her aggressive behavior toward Bishop at the time of the recording (I could not imagine this woman not kicking the crap out of any male attacker, at this or any previous time of her life); and (7) the fact that any delusional person may easily pass a polygraph about falsehoods that he/she sincerely believes are true.

Having had to deal with and humor people closely related to me who lacked contact with reality, I wonder I 

I have to laugh at anyone who has studied the evidence and doesn’t believe that some level of misconduct occurred. 

You’ve got the perpetrator’s recorded confessions to both the victim and the police. 

A bishop validating that the victim made an accusation against JLB some three decades back. 

A second victim of JLB. 

MTC employees corroborating aspects of the story. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well "very wrong" is enough for me.  I wonder what it would be like to be accused of raping someone and then coming to the conclusion that it could have happened...I wouldn't put it past myself--which he essentially does. 

No, I don't think he has done that (admitted to committing rape), "essentially" or otherwise.

Quote

I know you want to make a case about whether or not he really took it far enough to be considered rape,

No, I don't.  I'm evaluating the evidence, that's all.  I'm not particularly invested in one conclusion or another.  

Quote

but that really just comes off as trying to weasel out of this on the grounds of technicality. 

Here is what Leavitt says about Denson's disclosure (per KUTV):

Quote

When you ask the former bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints, Ron Leavitt, about the recent allegations against former MTC mission president, he says he remembers them vividly.

“Oh heavens yes,” Leavitt said as he recalls what he was told in 1984.

Leavitt was a single ward president from 1979 to 1985 and said during his regular post-church meetings with parishioners, a woman told him that Joseph Bishop, a former president of the Missionary Training Center, had acted inappropriately with her.

“According to her he took (her) and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography,” Leavitt explained.

When asked if he reported the incident to the police or the leadership of the LDS Church Leavitt said he did not. “I didn't think it had much credence. I wasn't going to risk sullying the reputation of someone based on that kind of a report,” Leavitt said.

Here are the allegations in Denson's federal lawsuit:

Quote

28. After several of these meetings, BISHOP began calling DENSON to his office alone. During their one-on-one meetings, BISHOP would discuss previous sexual encounters he had with his wife and other women.

29. These sexual grooming incidents escalated over time, culminating with BISHOP asking DENSON to go with him to a special room in the basement where he did his “preparations.”
He escorted her out of his office, down a hallway and through a locked door which led to another hallway or tunnel that was dark and dusty. This hallway or tunnel led to what DENSON describes as a type of storage room. BISHOP unlocked the door to the storage room, escorted DENSON inside, turned on the light and closed the door. The room had no windows, but was furnished with a small bed, a TV, and a VHS player sitting on small table or stand. There was also a metal chair in the room

30. Once inside this room, BISHOP led DENSON to the bed and they chatted generally for a short time, with BISHOP stating how he preferred this room as a quiet place. Then, BISHOP attempted to kiss DENSON, who pushed him away and got up to leave. 

31. Instead of allowing her to leave, BISHOP got in front of DENSON, physically blocking her from the door. He then pushed her back on the bed, grabbed her blouse and tore it open. BISHOP then pulled DENSON’S skirt up, tearing the seam in the back. He pulled her pantyhose and garments down. He exposed himself and briefly penetrated her with his semi-erect penis. During this time, DENSON attempted to push him off, kicking and hitting him. He forced her back down, restraining her with his palms on her shoulders. Eventually, she was able to kick free and pull her garments and hose up enough to get out the door. As DENSON was leaving the room, BISHOP shouted that no one would believe her, saying “Look at you, look at me.” 
...
34. In early 1984, DENSON was raped and sexually assaulted, while a sister missionary, in a secluded room, unknown to the public at large, at Defendant COP’s Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah.

35. The rape and sexual assault was committed by Defendant JOSEPH L. BISHOP...
...
65. Plaintiff DENSON reasonably relied on the omissions and engaged in a trust relationship with the Defendants and their agents. DENSON did not know, prior to her abuse, that BISHOP was a sexual predator and a sex addict, nor that Defendant COP’s MTC was an untrustworthy and unsafe environment. These facts were concealed and hidden by Defendants.  As a result, DENSON trusted BISHOP and went to his secret room inside the Church’s MTC, where she was raped and sexually assaulted. DENSON was damaged as described in the paragraphs above. 
...
69. As a result of Defendants’ concealment or failure to disclose, DENSON trusted BISHOP and went to his secret room inside the Church’s MTC, where she was sexually assaulted and raped. She was damaged as described in the paragraphs above. 

Are you open to the possibility that the U.S. legal system might simultaneously A) utterly condemn both sets of alleged misconduct as profoundly wrong and reprehensible, and B) nevertheless maintain that the distinction between "[Bishop] show[ing] them some pornography" (Denson's allegation disclosed to Leavitt) and Bishop forcibly and violently raping her (Denson's claim in the lawsuit) is more than - as you put it - a "technicality?"

Quote

I mean no offense on that.  Just point out the weakness of your position.  

I'm not sure you understand my position.  You are attributing to me motives I do not have ("I know you want to make a case...").

Here, once again, is my current position:

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.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 10, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I have to laugh at anyone who has studied the evidence and doesn’t believe that some level of misconduct occurred. 

I agree.  

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You’ve got the perpetrator’s recorded confessions to both the victim and the police. 

A bishop validating that the victim made an accusation against JLB some three decades back. 

A second victim of JLB. 

MTC employees corroborating aspects of the story. 

Yep.  You've summed up the most important pieces of evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think he has done that (admitted to committing rape), "essentially" or otherwise.

No, I don't.  I'm evaluating the evidence, that's all.  I'm not particularly invested in one conclusion or another.  

Here is what Leavitt says about Denson's disclosure (per KUTV):

Here are the allegations in Denson's federal lawsuit:

Are you open to the possibility that the U.S. legal system might simultaneously A) utterly condemn both sets of alleged misconduct as profoundly wrong and reprehensible, and B) nevertheless maintain that the distinction between "[Bishop] show[ing] them some pornography" (Denson's allegation disclosed to Leavitt) and Bishop forcibly and violently raping her (Denson's claim in the lawsuit) is more than - as you put it - a "technicality?"

I'm not sure you understand my position.  You are attributing to me motives I do not have ("I know you want to make a case...").

Here, once again, is my current position:

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't really get your complaint here.  You say you have conclude Bishop molested Denson.  Then you seem to want to say showing pornography is not the same as rape.  No oen has said that.  Leavitt's comments seem useless to me.  Denson doesn't even claim that.  I think molestation is close to rape and in fact rape falls within the category of molestation in my mind.  So, I have no idea why you think the rape allegation is an embellishment on top of the molestation.  But, I'm also not sure it matters.  Molestation is bad enough, reaches a bad enough thresehhold to me, that Bishop is convicted either way.  And that the Church did nothing about it until now, after having heard about it, is discouraging.  

[stemelbow]

BTW, I don't know who lifted the ban from me seeing and posting in this thread, but thanks.  I too didn't think it was deserved.  

[smac97]

9 hours ago, esodije said:

I momentarily went to the dark side and listened to one of “consiglieri’s” podcasts over on Mormon Discussions.  

Consig may be overdramatizing things.  But he knows a good story when he sees one.  And this one is a doozy.

Quote

I had to laugh at his characterizing as “rock-solid corroboration” the supposed fact that an anonymous former MTC employee “confirmed” the existence of Bishop’s naughty room at the MTC and that one of Denson’s teachers “confirmed” that Bishop called Denson out of class on multiple occasions.  

As I understand it, the existence of the basement room and its contents does not appear to be in material dispute.  The former MTC employee confirmed it.  The Church confirmed it.

I think the points in dispute are A) how Denson came to know about the basement room, and B) what actually happened in that room.

Leavitt's statement (about what Denson disclosed to him in 1984) is probably the best evidence we have at present as to these two points.

Quote

It’s sort of hard to elicit testimony from someone who won’t reveal his/her identity, and whereas Denson may well have been pulled out of class, it doesn’t explain why she presumably broke MTC rules and went without her companion.  

I'm no fan of Consig, but I can't fault him for not specualting about "why she presumably broke MTC rules."  

Quote

There is a lot better evidence for the proposition that Denson is mental:

Denson may have some mental/emotional health issues, but that doesn't mean she is fabricating everything.

Quote

(1) the sheer implausibility of the claim;

The claim is not, on its own, implausible.  She really was in the MTC.  She really did have interactions with Bishop.  She really does seem to know things about his personal life.  There really is a second victim who has come forward.  There really was a disclosure to her bishop in 1984.  He admitted to some misconduct to the BYU Police, and also in the recording.

"Aliens stole my tinfoil helmet" is a sheerly implausible claim.  But Denson's allegations of serious misconduct by Bishop have, I think, moved well into "plausible" territory (though at present I think she has significantly embellished what really happened).

Quote

(3) the lack of accusers against Bishop from any period of his professional life except from the MTC (a relatively difficult place for a sexual predator to operate compared to, say, Weber State, the BAN Mission, BYU, or even Happy Acres in Chandler; 

Well, now there are two separate accusers.  And admissions by Bishop.  And Denson having inside information about Bishop's life.  And Denson's disclosure to her bishop in 1984.

Quote

3) the fact that Denson’s ex-husband and a relative have strongly implied they don’t believe her claims,

Yes, those may factor against Denson's credibility as to the rape claim.  Her own admission to having fabricated a rape claim while in D.C. is likewise a strike against her credibility, as is her apparently long history of criminal misconduct.

But this matter is no longer entirely dependent upon Denson's credibility.  Her claim of forcible rape is pretty much entirely dependent on it, and there are some serious problems with that claim.  But we also need to take the other pieces of evidence into account.  If we do that, and if we consider the possibility that her rape claim is an embellishment on lesser but still extremely inappropriate and evil sexual misconduct, then things start to make a bit more sense.

Quote

(4) the fact that at least two missionaries who knew Denson in the MTC described her on DN fora as worldly and particularly prone to hitting on male missionaries;

I don't understand.  What does this have to do with whether she was sexually assaulted?

Quote

(5) her history of criminal conduct involving fraudulent intent;

Yes, this is a pretty big hit on her credibility.  But her subsequent decisiosn in life are not the only pieces of evidence in view.  Again, we have Bishop's admissions (in the recording, to the police), and a second victim, and Leavitt's statement, and Denson knowing things she couldn't otherwise have known about Bishop's private life.

How do you account for these things?  For me, I tend to think that Denson's disclosure to Leavitt in 1984 was probably accurate (“'According to her he took (her) and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography,' Leavitt explained").  This is, for me, the best reconciliation of the evidence.  It accounts for the evidence against Bishop (that he did something extremely wrong, but not rape or attempted rape), and also the evidence against Denson's credibility (that she is embellishing on what really happened so as to extract a substantial financial settlement from the Church).

Quote

(6) her aggressive behavior toward Bishop at the time of the recording (I could not imagine this woman not kicking the crap out of any male attacker, at this or any previous time of her life);

Her aggressive behavior toward Bishop is ambiguous, I think.  It could speak to her having been sexually assaulted by him, or to her having been horribly mistreated by him (him showing her porn and having inappropriate sexual discussions with her while he was MTC president and she was a sister missionary), or to her seeking to extract a confession from him so she could use it to get a big settlement from the Church.

Quote

and (7) the fact that any delusional person may easily pass a polygraph about falsehoods that he/she sincerely believes are true.

This is an unnecessary denigration of her.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 10, 2018 by smac97

[Thinking]

46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And that the Church did nothing about it until now, after having heard about it, is discouraging.  

This is a serious issue IMO.

That there are sexual predators in a large organization (even a religious one) is not a surprise. The perceived institutional handling of the situation (which doesn't look good) could make it difficult for some members to maintain faith in the institution.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Thinking

[provoman]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Molestation is bad enough, reaches a bad enough thresehhold to me, that Bishop is convicted either way.  And that the Church did nothing about it until now, after having heard about it, is discouraging.  

What in your opinion should have been done? And when should it have been done?

We are told that Bishop was approached about the two different accusations, in at least 2010....What should have been done?

 

and case update, still no answers on docket from church or bishop

Edited May 10, 2018 by provoman

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't really get your complaint here. 

I'm not sure I have a "complaint."  I'm just clarifying my position.

Quote

You say you have conclude Bishop molested Denson. 

At present, I'm going with the misconduct as described by Denson to Leavitt (rather than the allegations in her lawsuit).

So "Bishop molested Denson" = "According to her he took (her) and I think another sister missionary down to the basement and showed them some pornography."

Quote

Then you seem to want to say showing pornography is not the same as rape. 

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Quote

No oen has said that. 

Then I stand corrected.  I just wanted to be sure about that.

Quote

Leavitt's comments seem useless to me. 

I think Leavitt's comments are very useful.  Perhaps even pivotal.

Quote

Denson doesn't even claim that. 

I acknowledge that.  That's part of the problem.  What Denson claims is tainted by her very poor credibility.  And her poor credibility and criminal history lends support to the suspicion that she has a motive to embellish.  An allegation of "he showed me porn" is not nearly as salacious (and potentially financially rewarding) as "he forcibly raped me."

Quote

I think molestation is close to rape and in fact rape falls within the category of molestation in my mind. 

Now I'm confused.  Just a minute ago you summarized my position (accurately, I think) as "showing pornography is not the same as rape."  You then said "No oen has said that," which I took to mean "No one has said that showing pornography is the same as rape."

But now you are saying that "molestation is close to rape and in fact rape falls within the category of molestation."

At present, I think that Bishop A) had sexually inappropriate discussions with Denson, during which he disclosed details of his private life to her, and B) he later took her and perhaps another sister missionary to the basement room in the MTC and showed them some pornography.

Perhaps you could set aside labels that are conclusory and/or ambiguous (like "molestation") and state in simple terms what you think Bishop did that was wrong.So what is it that you think Bishop did? 

Quote

So, I have no idea why you think the rape allegation is an embellishment on top of the molestation. 

First, I don't know what you mean by "the molestation."  

Second, I think the rape allegation is an embellishment because it is the best explanation for the evidence.  Leavitt states that she did not report a rape or an attempted rape, but that she did report other misconduct (showing her pornography).  Bishop admits to some serious misconduct, but has been pretty consistent in denying allegations of rape.  There is no forensic or testimonial evidence to support Denson's allegations of rape.  Zero.  We have her say-so only, and her say-so is lacking in credibility.  She has previously admitted to fabricating a rape claim (her ex-husband and another family member says that she has made false claims twice).  She was recently arrested in New Mexico for identity theft.  In 1999 she (falsely, it seems) claimed she had 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" and concluded that her report was "unfounded."  She "leaked" the audio transcript of her "interview" of Bishop to media outlets, then she materially misled the public by feigning surprise about the "leak."  So as between Denson's at-the-time statement to Leavitt and her much-later-and-impossible-to-substantiate-except-to-go-by-her-credibility-as-an-honest-person statements given to the media and to the court, I think the former is more persuasive.

Third, she also has a significant motive to embellish what happened.  She has filed a lawsuit against the LDS Church seeking money damages.  An allegation of "Bishop showed me porn" is not nearly as salacious (and potentially financially rewarding) as "he forcibly raped me."

Quote

But, I'm also not sure it matters. 

If you were Joseph Bishop, or his attorney, or his family member, I think you would find the difference between "Bishop showed me porn" and "he forcibly raped me" to matter.  Quite a bit.

And if you were Denson's attorneys (whose leverage for a big financial settlement from the LDS Church is much stronger with a "Bishop forcibly raped our client" claim as compared to a "Bishop showed her porn" claim), the difference matters quite a bit.

In a sense, though, I agree with you.  From the Church's point of view, both allegations are profoundly disturbing.  A defense of "I didn't rape her in a basement room at the MTC, I only showed her porn there" does not wash.  The absence of the one type of misconduct (rape) does not mitigate the seriousness of the other (a priesthood leader showing a sister missionary pornography).

Quote

Molestation is bad enough, reaches a bad enough thresehhold to me, that Bishop is convicted either way. 

But convicted of what?  And by whom?

Quote

And that the Church did nothing about it until now, after having heard about it, is discouraging.  

What is it that you think the Church should have done prior to now?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 10, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This is a serious issue IMO.

That there are sexual predators in a large organization (even a religious one) is not a surprise. The perceived institutional handling of the situation (which doesn't look good) could make it difficult for some members to maintain faith in the institution.

Agreed.

I'm also responding to SMac here:

 

Quote

If you were Joseph Bishop, or his attorney, or his family member, I think you would find the difference between "Bishop showed me porn" and "he forcibly raped me" to matter.  Quite a bit.

And if you were Denson's attorneys (whose case is much stronger with a "Bishop forcibly raped our client" claim as compared to a "Bishop showed her porn" claim), the difference matters quite a bit.

In a sense, though, I agree with you.  From the Church's point of view, both allegations are profoundly disturbing.  A defense of "I didn't rape her in a basement room at the MTC, I only showed her porn there" does not wash.  The absence of the one type of misconduct (rape) does not mitigate the seriousness of the other (a priesthood leader showing a sister missionary pornography).

It would be funny if all this was about him showing her some pornography.  I think Leavitt and Bishop are the one's showing credibility issues...and I've explained that earlier in this thread.  Leavitt lacks credibility clearly because first, he suggested she accused him of showing pornography, and instead of doing anything, according to him, he laughed it off and thought her crazy for suggesting it.  There is no integrity in that approach.  He apparently had a number of phone calls with the Church before he suggested this.  not a very credible story.  Bishop seems like he had nothing but lies in his life.  What a torturous existence really.  

 

But interesting you went from 

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.

To:

Quote

At present, I think that Bishop A) had sexually inappropriate discussions with Denson, during which he disclosed details of his private life to her, and B) he later took her and perhaps another sister missionary to the basement room in the MTC and showed them some pornography.

In two posts.  I wonder what your next At present will be.  Seriously, I'm quite curious.  

I think in every case you seem blinded and are not letting the evidence lead you, instead of trying to force evidence into the inconsequential, painting it, with each passing post, to a less and less matter.  

Edited May 10, 2018 by stemelbow

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This is a serious issue IMO.

That there are sexual predators in a large organization (even a religious one) is not a surprise. The perceived institutional handling of the situation (which doesn't look good) could make it difficult for some members to maintain faith in the institution.

What do you think the Church should have done differently?

I think everyone agrees that Leavitt should have reported Denson's disclosure to him.  But what else?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 10, 2018 by smac97

[Thinking]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What do you think the Church should have done differently?

I think everyone agrees that Leavitt should have reported Denson's disclosure to him.  But what else?

Thanks,

-Smac

When the Church first  (March 20, 2018) released an official statement about the issue, the following paragraph was included.

Quote

The Church, as a religious organization, does not have the investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies. Nor can the Church substitute for the courts in adjudicating legal claims. The Church has great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims. Nevertheless, the Church takes seriously its responsibility to hold its members accountable for their conduct with respect of the laws of God and man. To that end, the Church is continuing its investigation of this individual's claims and will act consistent with its long-standing policy of no tolerance for abuse. Link

That the Church would leave things to the legal system doesn't make sense because there are things that are legal that are still against church standards. Has the church adopted the legal system's burden of proof and its standards?

Three days later (updated March 23, 2018) the Church decided to have the resources to conduct its own investigation.

Quote

We share the anger and distress Church members and others feel to learn of incidents where those entrusted with sacred responsibilities violate God’s commandments and harm others. Such behavior is repulsive and sinful. The Church is looking into all aspects of the assertions on the recording of Joseph Bishop. This includes the work of outside legal counsel, who are interviewing priesthood leaders, family members, law enforcement officials and others with knowledge of these incidents.

Emphasis mine.

The official statement answered your question.

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It would be funny if all this was about him showing her some pornography. 

"Funny?"  How so?

And he apparently also had inappropriate sexual discussions with her.  That too is deeply disturbing.

Quote

I think Leavitt and Bishop are the one's showing credibility issues...and I've explained that earlier in this thread.  Leavitt lacks credibility clearly because first, he suggested she accused him of showing pornography, and instead of doing anything, according to him, he laughed it off and thought her crazy for suggesting it. 

I don't understand.  How does that lessen his credibilty?  (Also, he never says he "laughed it off").

Quote

There is no integrity in that approach. 

What does this mean?  That he should have reported it?

Quote

He apparently had a number of phone calls with the Church before he suggested this.  not a very credible story. 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I think Leavitt comes across pretty badly for not reporting a serious accusation.  He should have.  The Church now how resources in place, and training, for bishops to handle such things.

But you're just weaving a conspiracy out of thin air (and Leavitt and the LDS Church are colluding to tell a falsehood).  Baseless conjecture, nothing more.

Quote

But interesting you went from 

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.

To:

Quote

At present, I think that Bishop A) had sexually inappropriate discussions with Denson, during which he disclosed details of his private life to her, and B) he later took her and perhaps another sister missionary to the basement room in the MTC and showed them some pornography.

In two posts. 

Not really.  I've been clear on my position for a few weeks now.  I added part (A) above because Denson claims that Bishop did this, and because this explains how Denson came to know details about Bishop's private life.  It's plausible.

Quote

I wonder what your next At present will be.  Seriously, I'm quite curious.  

I'm going with the evidence.

Unlike the guy who just barely fabricated a conspiracy theory out of thin air.

Quote

I think in every case you seem blinded and are not letting the evidence lead you,

Says the guy who just barely fabricated a conspiracy theory out of thin air, and who has done so with nary a shred of "evidence."

If you have a substantive critique of my analysis, I'm all ears.  

Quote

instead of trying to force evidence into the inconsequential, painting it, with each passing post, to a less and less matter.  

I have no idea what you are talking about.  An MTC president having inappopriate sexual discussions with a sister missionary is extremely disturbing.  Him disclosing personal details about his life and his relationship with his wife is extremely disturbing.  Him asking another sister missionary (apparently not Denson) to show him her breasts is extremely disturbing.  Him taking Denson and another sister missionary to a basement room and showing them pornography is extremely disturbing.

The problem here is that there is an allegation of "rape," but virtually no evidence for it.  No forensic evidence.  No testimonial evidence.  Just Denson's say-so.  And her credibility is very poor.  And she has a strong financial incentive to embellish.

That, in a nutshell, is my assessment of  the evidence.  I am not excusing or mitigating Bishop's apparent misconduct one whit.  I am just trying to sort out what happened based on the evidence.

Again, perhaps you could set aside labels that are conclusory and/or ambiguous (like "molestation") and state in simple terms what you think Bishop did that was wrong.  So what is it that you think Bishop did? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 10, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

When the Church first  (March 20, 2018) released an official statement about the issue, the following paragraph was included.

Quote

The Church, as a religious organization, does not have the investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies. Nor can the Church substitute for the courts in adjudicating legal claims. The Church has great faith in the judicial system to determine the truth of these claims. Nevertheless, the Church takes seriously its responsibility to hold its members accountable for their conduct with respect of the laws of God and man. To that end, the Church is continuing its investigation of this individual's claims and will act consistent with its long-standing policy of no tolerance for abuse. Link

That the Church would leave things to the legal system doesn't make sense because there are things that are legal that are still against church standards.

The Church leaves things to the legal system all the time.  The Church is not a law enforcement or investigative agency.

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Has the church adopted the legal system's burden of proof and its standards?

No.  

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Three days later (updated March 23, 2018) the Church decided to have the resources to conduct its own investigation.

Quote

We share the anger and distress Church members and others feel to learn of incidents where those entrusted with sacred responsibilities violate God’s commandments and harm others. Such behavior is repulsive and sinful. The Church is looking into all aspects of the assertions on the recording of Joseph Bishop. This includes the work of outside legal counsel, who are interviewing priesthood leaders, family members, law enforcement officials and others with knowledge of these incidents.

Emphasis mine.

The official statement answered your question.

No, it doesn't.  The Church's recent investigation arose when new information came to light, notably including A) Bishop's statement to the BYU police, B) the recording of his "interview" with Denson, and C) the lawsuit filed by Denson.

It makes sense that the Church would return to investigating this matter from a legal perspective.  But in the absence of the lawsuit (that is, prior to the lawsuit), what do you think the Church should have done differently?

I am not looking for a fight here.  I am genuinely interested in hearing your views on this subject.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It makes sense that the Church would return to investigating this matter from a legal perspective.  But in the absence of the lawsuit (that is, prior to the lawsuit), what do you think the Church should have done differently?

What it's decided to do after the lawsuit.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

It makes sense that the Church would return to investigating this matter from a legal perspective.  But in the absence of the lawsuit (that is, prior to the lawsuit), what do you think the Church should have done differently?

What it's decided to do after the lawsuit.

Could you explain your reasoning here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

32 minutes ago, Thinking said:

What it's decided to do after the lawsuit.

Are you saying the Church should have hired outside legal Counsel to speak to Bishop in 2010?

[Jeanne]

A question...how do lawyers for the church investigate?  Stories are so different.  Don't slam me..but in my own observation..it seems that church/lawyers investigation means ..find something..anything in a file..use it..then hide all the rest.  If this doesn't work...pull up an old case...that is long fore gotten and use it for some PR.😒 This whole thing saddens me...such a disappointment in the church leaders on many levels.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Jeanne

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

A question...how do lawyers for the church investigate? 

As I understand it, and as pertaining to allegations of abuse involving employees or representatives of the Church, lawyers give legal advice to bishops in accordance with reporting requirements under secular civil/criminal statutes.  These vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and are modified by state legislatures from time to time, so it makes sense for the Church to have attorneys monitoring these things on an ongoing basis.

As far as "investigating," however, I am not sure how much lawyers do.  The Church does not want to get into the law enforcement/investigation business, nor does it want to interfere with or take the place of civil law enforcement authorities' efforts.  And yet the Church also does not want to turn a blind eye to allegations of abuse, either.

Take a look at the Smartt matter (discussed at some length here). 

Quote

Stories are so different.  Don't slam me..but in my own observation..it seems that church/lawyers investigation means ..find something..anything in a file..use it..then hide all the rest. 

"Hide" meaning . . . not publish to the world?

What are your thoughts about the Church's handling of the Smartt matter?

Quote

If this doesn't work...pull up an old case...that is long fore gotten and use it for some PR.😒 This whole thing saddens me...such a disappointment in the church leaders on many levels.

I think you are relying on a caricature, rather than reality.

What are your thoughts about the Church's duty to publicize sensitive allegations of sexual misconduct by members of the Church?  Is there some sort of affirmative duty to disclose in all circumstances?  Or just some?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 10, 2018 by smac97

[Jeanne]

Back when it all happened, I believe the church did the best thing they could do in the Smartt  matter..but it suddenly appears when the Bishop matter comes up?? Coincidence?  Hiding means a certain coverup.  It seems investigation of the sins of a perp is really an investigation of the victim..Yes..I am angry.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Back when it all happened, I believe the church did the best thing they could do in the Smartt  matter..but it suddenly appears when the Bishop matter comes up?? Coincidence? 

Apparently.  Peggy Fletcher-Stack broke the story, not the Church.

If you have evidence that the Tribune somehow colluded with the LDS Church to make the Smartt matter "suddenly appear," I'll listen.  But the Trib is not exactly in the habit of carrying water for the Church.  

Quote

Hiding means a certain coverup. 

"Hiding" infers a duty to disclose.  I am asking you to explain that.

Let me illustrate: If I were to ask you for your social security number and bank login/password, you would probably refuse to disclose those things to me (and rightly so).  Would it be reasonable, then, for me to publicly accuse you of "hiding" and "a certain coverup" because of you refuse to disclose this information?  Nope.  Why?  Because you have no duty to disclose, and in fact it would be unreasonable and unfair to expect you to disclose.

Hence my previous questions: What are your thoughts about the Church's duty to publicize sensitive allegations of sexual misconduct by members of the Church?  Is there some sort of affirmative duty to disclose in all circumstances?  Or just some?  

Quote

It seems investigation of the sins of a perp is really an investigation of the victim..

I don't understand.  Wouldn't an investigation of the victim's claims necessarily be a part of "investigation of the sins of a perp?"  Particularly given the unique circumstances in the Denson matter (serious allegations made decades after the fact, no competent evidence, demands for big financial payment, etc.)?

Quote

Yes..I am angry.

I understand.  But I wonder if we could set aside the hostilities and attempt to sort out these things with some measure of dispassionate analysis.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 10, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Funny?"  How so?

And he apparently also had inappropriate sexual discussions with her.  That too is deeply disturbing.

yes, it is.  But not as deeply disturbing as his claimed molesting someone, nor the alleged rape.  

Quote

I don't understand.  How does that lessen his credibilty?  (Also, he never says he "laughed it off").

What does this mean?  That he should have reported it?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I think Leavitt comes across pretty badly for not reporting a serious accusation.  He should have.  The Church now how resources in place, and training, for bishops to handle such things.

But you're just weaving a conspiracy out of thin air (and Leavitt and the LDS Church are colluding to tell a falsehood).  Baseless conjecture, nothing more.

What did the Church and he talk about?  Why multiple calls before his own interview?  That is an odd thing considering his claims of what was alleged was way different than what McKenna had claimed.  There's no reason to think Bishop shows McKenna pornography nor that is what he was thinking of when he said she ought to blame him.  

Quote

Not really.  I've been clear on my position for a few weeks now.  I added part (A) above because Denson claims that Bishop did this, and because this explains how Denson came to know details about Bishop's private life.  It's plausible.

That's not clear within a couple of posts, Smac.  You alleged at least possible molesting.  But on the second point you dropped that completely and left it as he talked inappropriately and showed her pornography.  Everyone, I do believe, would say he had certainly did speak inappropriately with her.  He'd probably say that too.  

Quote

I'm going with the evidence.

I dont' think so.

Quote

Unlike the guy who just barely fabricated a conspiracy theory out of thin air.

There's no conspiracy theory presented, smac.  I indicated that Leavitt becomes, at least to me, a less reliable witness about the alleged molestation/rape.  Not because of anything but that his story doesn't add up.  She came in and told him and he just brushed it off as nothing to worry about?  It's weird because if Bishop was down in that room watching pornography someone knew about it at some point.  But Denson never says so, at least not that I've seen.  
How would Leavitt have just guessed that?  You say, he couldn't have and Denson told him.  But Denson never says that.  The only reason why you believe it is because LEavitt, who says so 30 years later, about an incident he didn't think important at all.  Seems incredible to me, no credible.  

Quote

Says the guy who just barely fabricated a conspiracy theory out of thin air, and who has done so with nary a shred of "evidence."

If you have a substantive critique of my analysis, I'm all ears.  

I have no idea what you are talking about.  An MTC president having inappopriate sexual discussions with a sister missionary is extremely disturbing.  Him disclosing personal details about his life and his relationship with his wife is extremely disturbing.  Him asking another sister missionary (apparently not Denson) to show him her breasts is extremely disturbing.  Him taking Denson and another sister missionary to a basement room and showing them pornography is extremely disturbing.

And even more disturbing is his claim of molesting another girl, and the allegation of rape, I'd say.  

Quote

The problem here is that there is an allegation of "rape," but virtually no evidence for it.

moreso than the watching of pornography.  

Quote

  No forensic evidence.  No testimonial evidence.  Just Denson's say-so.  And her credibility is very poor.  And she has a strong financial incentive to embellish.

It's easy to dismiss I suppose if you are want to defend.  

Quote

That, in a nutshell, is my assessment of  the evidence.  I am not excusing or mitigating Bishop's apparent misconduct one whit. 

SUre you are. changing your tune from molestation or something near it to watching pornography is a change.  

Quote

I am just trying to sort out what happened based on the evidence.

Again, perhaps you could set aside labels that are conclusory and/or ambiguous (like "molestation") and state in simple terms what you think Bishop did that was wrong.  So what is it that you think Bishop did? 

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe Mckennas' story at this point.  I see no reason whatsoever to doubt it.  I find your reasons of doubting it wanting.  It's really that simple.  Her story, and elements fo it have been corroborated in a number of ways.  Leavitt's has not.  Bishop's has not.  

Edited May 10, 2018 by stemelbow

[esodije]

It’s possible that all, or a significant part, of Denton’s allegations are true.  But I wouldn’t regard either Denson or Bishop as a reliable witness.  Too many people totally ignore her obvious psychological issues and his equally obvious senility.  I’m dealing in my life right now with someone with mental-health issues that make it literally impossible to take anything this person says at face value.  This person is highly intelligent, yet they have memories of various long-ago events, mostly bad things that happened to them, that I know never happened.  I also have a parent who’s in their dotage, which is how I know that nobody with even a modicum of control of his/her faculties, guilty or  innocent, would continue talking to someone whose false pretenses, and clear intention to gather incriminating statements, became clear 40 minutes into an interview.  That revelation didn’t even faze Bishop—and I’m supposed to take all his “confessions” as gospel?  There are a few other things that could be taken as inculpatory or corroborative, but we haven’t even heard from other people who knew Denson in the MTC and elsewhere.  Don’t you think their input might be useful?  I mean, almost everyone believed Crystal Mangum...until they didn’t.

[Thinking]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain your reasoning here?

Sometimes things happen that people and organizations wish hadn't happened. Sometimes those things are dealt with appropriately and sometimes they're not. When they're not dealt with appropriately, often there is a wish that those things will just go away. When those things don't go away, the people or organizations that should have done more have to not only do what they should have originally done, but also have to clean up the mess that was created by not dealing with the problem correctly in the fist place.

[stemelbow]

20 hours ago, provoman said:

What in your opinion should have been done? And when should it have been done?

We are told that Bishop was approached about the two different accusations, in at least 2010....What should have been done?

 

and case update, still no answers on docket from church or bishop

In my estimation, the Church should have...taken more seriously the "confessions" Bishop said he cleared with priesthood authority for years.  In the context of him talking about that, he was alluding to mistreatment of women.  Instead the Church gave him more authority over more vulnerable women.  That's the first thing the Church should have done--reversed it's attempts to exalt him amongst people.

After the Church should have not given him authority over others, they should have evaluated his membership status, so when it came time, the ladies who were mistreated wouldn't have seen him as a great Church leader.  That influence he used made this all the worse, and is exactly the way the Church is involved here.

Now if the Church did neither of those things, which it didn't, the Church should have taken her claims to her bishop (her immediate representative of the Church) seriously.  The bishop apparently just shrugged it off, probably has a bad memory of what was told him, since he himself suggested it was inconsequential.  

I also do think she met with Asay.  I don't think she made that up.  It fits perfectly with who she could have met with at that time.  And, the Church did nothing in response.  It should have done something.

Fewf!.  A lot of the Church should haves...and we're not done.

Consider the Church did not do well in all of the scenarios above....the Church should have taken more seriously the allegations made in 2010.  They did not, instead they took seriously her threats on Bishop's life (which is fine).  The Church seemed to shrug, perhaps asked bishop at most, and dropped it.  It appears there was plenty of reason to already accept that he did something by then, because as he put it he already apologized to one victim and confessed his misdeeds.  The Church did nothing.

Ok, so we assume now the Church did nothing all the way up until Dec 2017, which is exactly what happened.  Now the Church gets notice.  But it keeps quiet.  it keeps his books for sale at Deseret book.  he remains a member for months later.  Then the story is leaked.  Suddenly the Church decides to act--"take his books off the shelf....call that old bishop of hers a few times and make sure we get that all settled".  Way too little way too late.