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

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Part of the result of the insistence on getting less redacted material (by consig iirc) got the second victim's name released to the public.  Not particularly impressed by that.  She has a right to privacy if she wants it.  It is a shame she gets to be victimized again (other people making her choices for her) because of their demand of their right to know all.

I don't know... they are supposed to redact names of victims.  Not sure why a copy would be released without victim names redacted.  That is not what RFM requested.

[provoman]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

Part of the result of the insistence on getting less redacted material (by consig iirc) got the second victim's name released to the public.  Not particularly impressed by that.  She has a right to privacy if she wants it.  It is a shame she gets to be victimized again (other people making her choices for her) because of their demand of their right to know all.

yeah that is just wrong. I woukd a victims name squarely falls under violation of privacy for grama request...

An upside, most places that are subject to FOIA or GRAMA, aslo publish the NAME and subject of request of the person making the request.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No.  That is not speculation. 

Yes, that is speculation.

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If Bishop resigns, the church does not have to deal with his actions in a disciplinary council. 

You said: "Bishop resigned so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

You are attributing motives to Bishop.  That's what "so that the Church..." means.

So either you are speculating, or you need to respond to my CFR with documentation that "Bishop resigned so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

So I renew my CFR.  Chapter and verse please.

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They won't have to ever make a call on a potential excommunication. 

"They" being . . . the LDS Church?

But so what?  His record will be annotated.  The net effect to him is not changed if he resigns versus if he is excommunicated.

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That is a factual result of Bishop resigning, not speculation.

You are attributing motives to Bishop.  You said: "Bishop resigned so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

CFR, please, to substantiate this claim.

I will hold you to this.  I want to see documentation that BIshop resigned "so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If BYU PD's authority comes from the State of Utah, than they should be required to say compliant with GRAMA requests. 

Let's just agree that BYU PD needs to comply with civil law.  How's that?  Surey we can agree on that point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

So it sounds like you are saying then bishop Leavitt was not representing the Church/ 

No, I'm not saying that.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If the church first learned about the allegations in 2010, then either Leavitt is lying and he heard nothing from Denson at all, or we can safely say Bishop's are not leaders of local wards, representing the Church.

A local leader, one of thousands of bishops in the Church, received a report of abuse from Denson in 1987 or so.  There is no evidence that he passed on the information to anyone else in the Church, and some evidence that he did not (his own statement, for example).  

Yours is not a serious argument.  If I wanted to sue Wal-Mart, I could not simply take the complaint and hand it over to the cashier at the closest Wal-Mart store.  Does that cashier "represent" Wal-Mart?  Yes.  Does the scope of that representation mean that anything and everything that cashier does or does not do is binding on the entire corporation?  Nope.  

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see how your statements square up. 

I'm okay with that.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

They oppose each other,

No, they don't.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

unless of course, as it seems you have done, Leavitt was never considered representing the Church.  

In a very limited scope, yes.  But not in the sense that is legally relevant here.

Ask yourself why Denson is not making your argument here.  Why is she focusing on Elder Asay, and not paying attention to her disclosure to her Leavitt?  Consider paragraph 42:

Quote

Since approximately 1987, when DENSON disclosed the sexual assault to General Authority Carlos Asay, Defendants, by their actions and inactions that followed, caused DENSON emotional distress. This emotional distress has been ongoing. It has been triggered, or caused again, on each and every occasion throughout the years to the present when DENSON disclosed the sexual assault to a Church leader and the Church’s action or inaction that followed.

Why not say "when DENSON disclosed the sexual assaunt to local bishop Ron Leavitt..."?

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds like a tough sale for sure.  I dont' know what Denson's lawyers are going to do at all, or if they have all given up.  I guess we'll see.  

Well, they won't just give up.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not so concerned about the suit though. 

Yes, it does seem to be losing its utility as a weapon against the Church.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know if it'll come up with anything.  I think it's clear Bishop did some pretty ugly stuff to many women over many years. 

Possibly.  

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's clear the Church was quick to lean to the dishonest as it came out in recent months, which is too bad, and that there was some level of coverup over the years.  

I disagree, but there's no point in arguing mere personal opinions.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

yeah that is just wrong. I woukd a victims name squarely falls under violation of privacy for grama request...

An upside, most places that are subject to FOIA or GRAMA, aslo publish the NAME and subject of request of the person making the request.

Yes, consig appears to have redacted his personal information on the report on his own.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

You are attributing motives to Bishop.  You said: "Bishop resigned so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

CFR, please, to substantiate this claim.

I will hold you to this.  I want to see documentation that BIshop resigned "so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

One of the sources from Reddit, language so no link, but I assume a search on the quote will locate it for you:

Quote

I hate the church as the next person but I'm related to the woman previously married to Joseph bishop. Because we value truth in this sub, the church was about to excommunicate Joseph bishop, but he resigned before they could ex him to save what little he has left of his name. He is truly a coward

I have no clue if this is a credible source or not.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Calm

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But so what?  His record will be annotated.  The net effect to him is not changed if he resigns versus if he is excommunicated.

That's like saying it doesn't matter if somebody was fired from their job with cause, of if they simply resigned. The net effect is the same!

The church also shares this sensibility.* According to the Handbook of Instructions:

Quote

If a member requests name removal and a bishop or stake president has evidence of transgression that warrants convening a disciplinary council, he should not act on the request until Church discipline has been imposed or he has comcluded that no disciplnary council will be held. Name removal should not be used as a substitute for or alternative to Church discipline.

(Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, page 129. Copyright 1998 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc.)

___________

*At least the church once did share this sensibility. This language was removed from the Handbook after it was leaked in 2006. Presumably, the Church doesn't have the legal authority to deny a resignation from membership because it wants to excommunicate them instead.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Analytics

[provoman]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

One of the sources from Reddit, language so no link, but I assume a search on the quote will locate it for you:

I have no clue if this is a credible source or not.

hmmmm, could a resignation be processed before a scheduled DC could be held that a person knows of? reddit rumors are 3 - 4 week turn around depending on the person went about it.

Or is it something like, send the resignation letter directly to the SP and that is deemed as accepted and one is longer a member

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

hmmmm, could a resignation be processed before a scheduled DC could be held that a person knows of? reddit rumors are 3 - 4 week turn around depending on the person went about it.

Or is it something like, send the resignation letter directly to the SP and that is deemed as accepted and one is longer a member

Special circumstances may speed things up, like having your lawyer demand it be done...which is what Reddit reported Bishop did.

But policy now is if resignation is requested, not to go through with scheduled DCs and instead annotate, no matter the timeline.

From the thread Smac linked to discussing process, MormonMason iirc posted this info which has been confirmed for me by bishops:

 

A request for name removal has to be submitted in writing before a resignation can be considered valid.

2. The normal waiting period for said request to termination of membership is 30 days, which can be waived under certain circumstances.

3. If there is serious transgression involved, a report is submitted that annotates your record before the removal.

4. The name is removed from the general Church rolls but there still is a record of the report.

5. Should the person ever apply for readmission to membership in future, a bishop can deny readmission until sincere repentance is in evidence. Generally, proceedings that were put on hold by name removal are reinitiated on a request for readmission. So, it is possible for a disciplinary council to be held after one makes effort at readmission--even years down the road.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That's like saying it doesn't matter if somebody was fired from their job with cause, of if they simply resigned. The net effect is the same!

The church also shares this sensibility.* According to the Handbook of Instructions:

___________

*At least the church once did share this sensibility. This language was removed from the Handbook of Instrructions after it was leaked in 2006. Presumably, the Church doesn't have the legal authority to deny a resignation from membership because it wants to excommunicate them instead.

So anyone here think they should have refused to accept Jeremy Runnells' resignation that occurred in the middle of the DC (he announced it and walked out midway iirc)and instead go through with his excommunication?

[Analytics]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

So anyone here think they should have refused to accept Jeremy Runnells' resignation that occurred in the middle of the DC (he announced it and walked out midway iirc)and instead go through with his excommunication?

If you would have asked this question before 2006, I suspect the answer would have been different.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that is speculation.

You said: "Bishop resigned so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

You are attributing motives to Bishop.  That's what "so that the Church..." means.

So either you are speculating, or you need to respond to my CFR with documentation that "Bishop resigned so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

So I renew my CFR.  Chapter and verse please.

"They" being . . . the LDS Church?

But so what?  His record will be annotated.  The net effect to him is not changed if he resigns versus if he is excommunicated.

You are attributing motives to Bishop.  You said: "Bishop resigned so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

CFR, please, to substantiate this claim.

I will hold you to this.  I want to see documentation that BIshop resigned "so that the Church did not have to take a stand on his actions."

Let's just agree that BYU PD needs to comply with civil law.  How's that?  Surey we can agree on that point.

Thanks,

-Smac

You have quoted my clarifying comments so I assume that you have read them.  It was never my intent to imply motive to Bishop’s rumored resignation.  I tried to make that clear in my follow up statements but I will see if I can go fix the original post.  What I meant to write is that Bishop’s resignation would mean that the church does not have to take a stand on his actions.  

As for the CFR, I have no idea what Bishop’s motivations might be if he either had resigned or does resign.  It is certainly an odd decision for someone who ought to understand excommunications role in the repentance process.  

Either way, a resignation by Bishop would work in favor of the Church not having to take a stand on his actions.  This was my point.  And not speculation. 

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That's like saying it doesn't matter if somebody was fired from their job with cause, of if they simply resigned.

Why a person loses the privileges and blessings associated with membership in the LDS Church is almost entirely between the individual and God.  With some very few exceptions, the Church does not publish the grounds for excommunication, and seldom even publishes any sort of notice about the excommunication itself.  

Similarly, the Church doesn't publicize when a person resigns his/her membership in the Church.  It remains a matter between the individual and God.

So no, there's not a material difference between excommunication and resignation.  Not since the Church changed the procedures associated with this issue (for the better, I think).

An employer/employee relationship, however, can readily involve all sorts of third parties.  Subsequent employers may want to know the reasons for the termination of prior employment.  Government entities may want to know the reason.  Family court judges.  Bankruptcy judges.  Family and friends who the individual asks for financial assistance may want to know the reasons.  

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The net effect is the same!

Yes, the net effect is the same in a church/member setting.

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The church also shares this sensibility.* According to the Handbook of Instructions:

Quote

If a member requests name removal and a bishop or stake president has evidence of transgression that warrants convening a disciplinary council, he should not act on the request until Church discipline has been imposed or he has comcluded that no disciplnary council will be held. Name removal should not be used as a substitute for or alternative to Church discipline.

(Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, page 129. Copyright 1998 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc.)

___________

*At least the church once did share this sensibility. This language was removed from the Handbook of Instrructions after it was leaked in 2006.

CFR, please, as to when the language was removed.

The Handbook presently states as follows:

Quote

A request for name removal should be acted upon whether or not priesthood leaders suspect or have evidence of transgression. Any allegations or evidence of unresolved transgressions are noted on the Report of Administrative Action form so priesthood leaders may resolve such matters in the future if the individual applies for readmission into the Church.

I previously commented on this change here:

Quote

This is kind of cool.  I reviewed this "You can't excommunicate me, I quit" scenario a few years back (see here), and I came to the conclusion that the Church would likely be fine, from a legal perspective, in convening a disciplinary counsel after a person has "resigned" his/her membership.  However, the updated Handbook entry above suggests that the Church has diffused further controversy/acrimony by including "allegations or evidence of unresolved transgressions" in the "Report of Administrative Action" form.  This way the Church gets to protect itself in th future from members who may use resignation to avoid scrutiny of their misconduct, while also respecting the desires of members who want to dissociate from the Church.

It's a win-win solution, I think.

Funny how people can look at things like this and come away with such differing perspectives.  To each his own, I guess.

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Presumably, the Church doesn't have the legal authority to deny a resignation from membership because it wants to excommunicate them instead.

I don't think that was the legal issue.  It's not really about "deny[ing] a resignation."  Clearly the Church can't force someone to remain a member of the Church.  The issue was whether the Church could proceed with a disciplinary proceeding notwithstanding an interim resignation.  The answer to that question was not really explored nationwide.  It was examined in some substantial detail in Oklahoma, with the decision being in favor of the Church.  See here.

However, just because the Church can do something legally doesn't mean that it should.  The Church's current stance is an improvement.  An accommodation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You have quoted my clarifying comments so I assume that you have read them.  

I did.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It was never my intent to imply motive to Bishop’s rumored resignation.  

And yet, you did.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I tried to make that clear in my follow up statements but I will see if I can go fix the original post.  What I meant to write is that Bishop’s resignation would mean that the church does not have to take a stand on his actions.  

Fair enough.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As for the CFR, I have no idea what Bishop’s motivations might be if he either had resigned or does resign.  

Thanks for clarifying.  I withdraw the CFR.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It is certainly an odd decision for someone who ought to understand excommunications role in the repentance process.  

I could see a devout person justifying a resignation as an expression of guilt or remorse.

Or perhaps his mental capacity has diminished, so his motives may not be entirely coherent.

We don't even know if he has resigned, so it's all academic.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Either way, a resignation by Bishop would work in favor of the Church not having to take a stand on his actions.

"Work in favor of the Church."  What a weird thing to say.

The LDS Church has taken a stand by condemning sexual abuse.  Bishop being excommunicated or resigning does nothing to enlarge or diminish that.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This was my point.  And not speculation. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you would have asked this question before 2006, I suspect the answer would have been different.

And your answer?

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did.

And yet, you did.

Fair enough.

Thanks for clarifying.  I withdraw the CFR.

I could see a devout person justifying a resignation as an expression of guilt or remorse.

Or perhaps his mental capacity has diminished, so his motives may not be entirely coherent.

We don't even know if he has resigned, so it's all academic.

"Work in favor of the Church."  What a weird thing to say.

The LDS Church has taken a stand by condemning sexual abuse.  Bishop being excommunicated or resigning does nothing to enlarge or diminish that.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, the Church has taken a stand against sexual abuse.  But, while they didn’t hesitate to smear and diminish the victim if Bishop resigns, they will never need to make a statement about him, the alleged perpetrator.  Works out well for the sake of protecting the institution. 

I disagree that the net effect of resignation and excommunication is the same.  Submitting to priesthood authority for a disciplinary council is part of the repentance process and the first step to getting back into full fellowship in the church.  You and I know this.  Bishop would most likely know this given his past callings.  Resignation, on the other hand, is not considered a step in the repentance process, instead it is an intentional decision to sever oneself from covenants and the church.  The process for coming back is different. 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, the Church has taken a stand against sexual abuse.  But, while they didn’t hesitate to smear and diminish the victim if Bishop resigns, they will never need to make a statement about him, the alleged perpetrator.  Works out well for the sake of protecting the institution. 

I must have missed something.  Where did the church smear Denson?

[Analytics]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why a person loses the privileges and blessings associated with membership in the LDS Church is almost entirely between the individual and God.

Whether you belong to the tribe or not can have a profound effect on your relationships with your family and community. The assertion that it is "almost entirely between an individual and God" is denying the real beings and real relationships who are really effected.

 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please, as to when the language was removed.

According to wikileaks, this language existed in the 1999 version of the Handbook, but was no longer in the subsequent version, which was published in 2006.

 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that was the legal issue.  It's not really about "deny[ing] a resignation."  Clearly the Church can't force someone to remain a member of the Church. 

Before 2006, it seems that the Church didn't agree with us on this point. The official policy was, in certain circumstances, to force people to temporarily remain a member of the Church so that the relationship could eventually be ended on the Church's terms.

 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The issue was whether the Church could proceed with a disciplinary proceeding notwithstanding an interim resignation.  The answer to that question was not really explored nationwide.  It was examined in some substantial detail in Oklahoma, with the decision being in favor of the Church.  See here.

I might be misunderstanding the legalese, but it appears you are misremembering what Hadnot was about. In that case, there was no interim resignation. You quoted the court as saying, "Parishioners admit that at no time during or after the proceedings at issue did they withdraw their Church membership. Thus the Church retained full subject matter and personal jurisdiction to adjudicate the two disciplinary cases against the parishioners." Doesn't that mean that if, upon hearing that a court was to be held "in their behalf," the sisters would have said, "You can't excommunicate us! We quit!" then in that moment they would have ceased being members, and the church would have lost its "subject matter and personal jurisdiction." So while the church won that particular case, it could have been a very different outcome had there been an interim resignation.

 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

However, just because the Church can do something legally doesn't mean that it should.  The Church's current stance is an improvement.  An accommodation.

I agree that the Church's current stance is an improvement and I wouldn't fault them for accepting Bishop's alleged resignation (but if, hypothetically, the Church actually asked him to resign so that they could avoid a Church court, that would be quite hypocritical). 

[Analytics]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

And your answer?

I think the Church should have accepted Runnell's resignation, which I presume it did. 

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I must have missed something.  Where did the church smear Denson?

The dossier.  The March 19 press release.  And each statement they made that left out the details that supported her side of the story (including this latest DN article).  

Edited May 16, 2018 by rockpond

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not saying that.

A local leader, one of thousands of bishops in the Church, received a report of abuse from Denson in 1987 or so.  There is no evidence that he passed on the information to anyone else in the Church, and some evidence that he did not (his own statement, for example).  

Well, that's my point.  If the Church's standards is that bishop's should not report such things, then fine, I suppose you are right the Church has lived up to them.  But if the Church's standard is such things ought to be reported, investigated and something done--then the Church did not live up to its standard.  

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yours is not a serious argument.  If I wanted to sue Wal-Mart, I could not simply take the complaint and hand it over to the cashier at the closest Wal-Mart store.  Does that cashier "represent" Wal-Mart?  Yes.  Does the scope of that representation mean that anything and everything that cashier does or does not do is binding on the entire corporation?  Nope.  

🙄 I'm not big on eye rolls but this deserves one.  If you actually think a bishop of a ward who is supposed to receive such complaints as a leader mistreated me, is the same as a cashier at Wal-Mart, then I'm not sure you're thinking reasonably here.  A comparison may be, perhaps, a store employee abused by young daughter and I went to the cashier to get the manager, who went to the store manager, and then the store manager did nothing.  If you made that comparison you'd have something.  Talk about not being serious, smac.  

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm okay with that.

No, they don't.

In a very limited scope, yes.  But not in the sense that is legally relevant here.

Ask yourself why Denson is not making your argument here.  Why is she focusing on Elder Asay, and not paying attention to her disclosure to her Leavitt?  Consider paragraph 42:

Why not say "when DENSON disclosed the sexual assaunt to local bishop Ron Leavitt..."?

Because he's already made up a different story it seems--I don't think anyone has said anything about them watching pornography besides him.  Why is that relevant, because if the Asay meeting happened, then Leavitt is surely lying.  It is nothing but convenient at this point that the Church has no record of the Asay meeting.  But it is quite telling the Denson called out Asay as he whom she met with when if she told Leavitt and Leavit told another, it is likely the person she would have had to meet with.  Also, let's face it, it is almost silly to think Leavitt remembers the incident so vividly if it was something so inconsequential as he suggests.  But then he also talks about the room...the room that Denson wasn't supposed to know about.  

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, they won't just give up.

Yes, it does seem to be losing its utility as a weapon against the Church.

Possibly.  

I disagree, but there's no point in arguing mere personal opinions.  

 

That's odd, then that seems to be all you do around here.  No offense, I mean that's what we're all doing.  But you do it as prominently as anyone else, it seems.  If there's no point, then why you do keep posting, breaking up people's post as you do to counter nearly everyone's point?  No bother to answer.  If you do though, it'll be kind of funny to see.  

[smac97]

.

Edited May 17, 2018 by smac97

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

The dossier.  The March 19 press release.  And each statement they made that left out the details that supported her side of the story (including this latest DN article).  

I thought that had been discussed previously and that all of the lawyers on the board said that such a thing (in a legal dispute) is standard, as is sharing it with all counsel involved.  I also thought that it was Bishop's son who leaked the information to the press and not the church?

[provoman]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well, that's my point.  If the Church's standards is that bishop's should not report such things, then fine, I suppose you are right the Church has lived up to them.  But if the Church's standard is such things ought to be reported, investigated and something done--then the Church did not live up to its standard.  

🙄 I'm not big on eye rolls but this deserves one.  If you actually think a bishop of a ward who is supposed to receive such complaints as a leader mistreated me, is the same as a cashier at Wal-Mart, then I'm not sure you're thinking reasonably here.  A comparison may be, perhaps, a store employee abused by young daughter and I went to the cashier to get the manager, who went to the store manager, and then the store manager did nothing.  If you made that comparison you'd have something.  Talk about not being serious, smac.  

Because he's already made up a different story it seems--I don't think anyone has said anything about them watching pornography besides him.  Why is that relevant, because if the Asay meeting happened, then Leavitt is surely lying.  It is nothing but convenient at this point that the Church has no record of the Asay meeting.  But it is quite telling the Denson called out Asay as he whom she met with when if she told Leavitt and Leavit told another, it is likely the person she would have had to meet with.  Also, let's face it, it is almost silly to think Leavitt remembers the incident so vividly if it was something so inconsequential as he suggests.  But then he also talks about the room...the room that Denson wasn't supposed to know about.  

That's odd, then that seems to be all you do around here.  No offense, I mean that's what we're all doing.  But you do it as prominently as anyone else, it seems.  If there's no point, then why you do keep posting, breaking up people's post as you do to counter nearly everyone's point?  No bother to answer.  If you do though, it'll be kind of funny to see.  

The Church standard for reporting abuse is to follow the mans law of the Jurisdiction in which the Bishop is located?

Here is a question for you, is it possibke tbat her Bishop knew her history - false report of rape and possible other things about her - before she told him about the MTC? And didnt Denson mention  DVDs, does that mean we discredit her, like you suggest we shoukd discrefit the Bishop?

What I find quite telling is that Denson NEVER publicly mentioned meeting Monson.

 

 

[Stargazer]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

If BYU PD's authority comes from the State of Utah, than they should be required to say compliant with GRAMA requests.  As of now, it seems they are not.

If their authority does not come from the state but they are a private institution, than they are an institution owned/managed by the Church.  And, IMO, the Church should assure that those records are released (less the redaction of names and personal identifying information).

 

Nearly all campus security/safety offices in the US that have "police" in their names have arrest powers.  Do you really think that the government will delegate such powers to private institutions?  BYU PD itself is a state certified law enforcement agency -- regardless of BYU's association with the LDS church, I would find it alarming that any police agency would be subject to the orders of a private group or institution.  Police departments are supposed to enforce the law, not follow the dictates of whoever is supposed to "manage" them.  A city's police department can arrest the city's own Mayor, for goodness sake. What if the Mayor could order the city's police to leave him alone?  In that case, the Mayor could legitimately order the police to harass his opponents in the next election, to keep him in his job.