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

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

It is reported the GB did provide some information from the overall document. It is not established who leaked the full document; the attorneys and likely Denson had a copy....so who leaked it?

[stemelbow]

 

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

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.

 

 

Anythings possible, as they say.  It is possible that there was no false report of rape at all.  If you mean when she told her companion that she was raped, while on her mission...I dont' see that as a false report.  It seems to me she is alluding to the Bishop event.  Denson mentioned, DVDs?  In 1987?  That'd be weird.  I think she mentioned tapes and a TV.  Bishop Leavitt's story doesn't add up.  Simple as that, for me.  

I don't see the significance of Denson meeting Monson while she was home from her mission.  There doesn't seem to be anything in that that alludes to the Bishop incident.  

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Anythings possible, as they say.  It is possible that there was no false report of rape at all. 

Odd, then, that Denson would admit to it.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you mean when she told her companion that she was raped, while on her mission...I dont' see that as a false report.  It seems to me she is alluding to the Bishop event. 

Her ex-husband and another unnamed family member referenced it here (from an interview with The Republic)...

Quote

In separate interviews with The Republic, the woman's former husband and another family member also questioned her motives and credibility.

On at least two additional occasions, they said, the woman reported being raped — once while on her Mormon mission in Washington, D.C.

The ex-husband, who is not named in this report so as not to reveal the woman's identity, said, "This is an insult, especially, to women who have gone through something like that and really have been hurt."

I think Denson herself also referenced it during the recording (see page 43 of the transript).  Right in the middle of an extended exposition about the effect Bishop's purported misconduct had on her life, she says this:

Quote

And I knew I wouldn't be the last one [to be abused by Bishop], but I never said a word. I went on my mission, supposed to [REDACTED], pretended somebody in the f****ng parking lot tried to rape me, because I was having an anxiety attack and I didn't want to tell anybody. I didn't tell anybody. I went home, I didn't go home, I went to [REDACTED], stayed with some Mormon family. Sent me to see some therapist. 

So Denson's family members allege that Denson has reported "two additional occasions" of her being sexually assaulted, one of which Denson herself corroborates (the one that supposedly took place while she was a missionary in D.C.), and also which Denson admits was fabricated ("{I} pretended somebody in the f****ng parking lot tried to rape me, because I was having an anxiety attack...").

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Denson mentioned, DVDs?  In 1987?  That'd be weird. 

Not really.  From page 27 of the transcript:

Quote

Do you remember the movies in the basement?  The DVD, the VHS player and the TV?

It seems like a slip of the tongue, nothing more.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

Anythings possible, as they say.  It is possible that there was no false report of rape at all.  If you mean when she told her companion that she was raped, while on her mission...I dont' see that as a false report.  It seems to me she is alluding to the Bishop event.  Denson mentioned, DVDs?  In 1987?  That'd be weird.  I think she mentioned tapes and a TV.  Bishop Leavitt's story doesn't add up.  Simple as that, for me.  

I don't see the significance of Denson meeting Monson while she was home from her mission.  There doesn't seem to be anything in that that alludes to the Bishop incident.  

page 76 - i believe - of the trascript she stated she pretended someone in a parkinglot tried to rape her...so unless we suggest she is lying and about a lying, then we have to assume she told others a false story about an attempted rape.

 

page 27 she mentions DVD

[stemelbow]

Thanks Smac and Provoman, you two are correct.  She did, in the woes of an anxiety attack made up the rape allegation, as she said.  I forgot about that, and the allusion to DVD's.  I appreciate the corrections.

I have to admit though, the made up rape story doesn't bother me.  I dont' think there's any reason to think she told Bishop Leavitt about it.  I tend to give people some leeway when they are breakdowns as she seemed to have at that time.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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?

Yes, it is standard.  As is sharing it with all counsel involved.  And, it was Bishop's son who leaked it to the press.

Something being legal and standard doesn't mean that it is the way I want my Church to act.  I look at this who incident and think... Who is the "least of these" and how did we do?

[bluebell]

Just now, rockpond said:

Yes, it is standard.  As is sharing it with all counsel involved.  And, it was Bishop's son who leaked it to the press.

Something being legal and standard doesn't mean that it is the way I want my Church to act.  I look at this who incident and think... Who is the "least of these" and how did we do?

So, when someone legally goes after the church, you feel it's unChrist-like for the church to defend itself?

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks Smac and Provoman, you two are correct.  She did, in the woes of an anxiety attack made up the rape allegation, as she said.  I forgot about that, and the allusion to DVD's.  I appreciate the corrections.

I have to admit though, the made up rape story doesn't bother me.  I dont' think there's any reason to think she told Bishop Leavitt about it.  I tend to give people some leeway when they are breakdowns as she seemed to have at that time.  

Since the Church bears some responsibility for what happened to Denson in the MTC, we ought to be looking at everything that happened after through the lens of how the Bishop incident may have impacted her mental and emotional stability.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

So, when someone legally goes after the church, you feel it's unChrist-like for the church to defend itself?

For three decades a woman reached out to the church seeking some kind of resolution for the pain and agony inflicted on her by her priesthood leader while serving as a missionary.  Is there a more Christ-like way for the Church to have reacted, even under threat of litigation?  I believe so.  Absolutely.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

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.

I agree.  My understanding is the BYU PD is a governmental agency, though funded by the Church through BYU.  I believe that BYU PD should be fully subject to GRAMA and FOIA laws and that they should release all evidence from the Bishop-Denson case per the GRAMA requests (with personal identifying info redacted).

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Since the Church bears some responsibility for what happened to Denson in the MTC, we ought to be looking at everything that happened after through the lens of how the Bishop incident may have impacted her mental and emotional stability.

Exactly.  I think it's clear that the incident impacted her to the point of driving the anxiety attack referenced here.

Quote

or three decades a woman reached out to the church seeking some kind of resolution for the pain and agony inflicted on her by her priesthood leader while serving as a missionary.  Is there a more Christ-like way for the Church to have reacted, even under threat of litigation?  I believe so.  Absolutely.

I'm very concerned so many seem happy with the way the Church has handled this.    Some seem happy with whatever the Church does, as if by default the Church just does everything right.

[provoman]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

For three decades a woman reached out to the church seeking some kind of resolution for the pain and agony inflicted on her by her priesthood leader while serving as a missionary.  Is there a more Christ-like way for the Church to have reacted, even under threat of litigation?  I believe so.  Absolutely.

The resolution that she was seeking was about any discipline received by the Church....and that is none of her business, which contributed to her issuing a death threat against him. Not until 2017 did she go to the police.

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks Smac and Provoman, you two are correct.  She did, in the woes of an anxiety attack made up the rape allegation, as she said.  I forgot about that, and the allusion to DVD's.  I appreciate the corrections.

I have to admit though, the made up rape story doesn't bother me. 

Objectively, it affects my assessment of her credibility.  And her ex-husband and another family member claim that she faked another rape claim as well.

Her criminal history also affects my assessment of her credibility.  So does her misleading conduct about the "leak."

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I dont' think there's any reason to think she told Bishop Leavitt about it. 

I agree.  She never said she told Leavitt about her fake rape claim, and Leavitt doesn't mention it either.

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I tend to give people some leeway when they are breakdowns as she seemed to have at that time.  

So do I.  She apparently had a very traumatic childhood and young adulthood.  She had an abusive father (step-father?), and she says she was sexually assaulted, and that she had a child out of wedlock.  Then she joined the Church, presumably had spiritual experiences, and desired to serve a mission.  Then she went into the MTC, and Bishop apparently did something to her that may have exacerbated her prior traumatic experiences, plus made her feel betrayed by the community that had promised to much to her.  And yet she kept trying afterwards, including going back to complete her mission after her anxiety attack, returning and getting married in the temple, and reporting this matter to her bishop who apparently either did nothing with it (according to Leavitt) or passed on the information to Elder Asay, who did nothing with it (according to Denson).  Then her marriage (to a priesthood holder) failed.  She places her ex-husband in a very negative light, accusing him of significant infidelity during their marriage.  Then she apparently spiraled down in life, which apparently involved some criminal conduct (the fake kidnapping claim, the identity theft issue, etc.).

So yes, I give her some leeway as well.  I cannot condemn her misconduct, but I can't really condone it either.  Fortunately, I don't have to address such things.  I've never met her, never been injured by her, and I have no stewardship over her.  It's not my job to judge her, or to condemn or exonerate her.  I have disagreed with some of the things she's done, but to the extent I have "judged" her in any meaningful sense, I regret that.  Taken together, she seems like she needs a lot of patience and understanding.  That is what I will work on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, it is standard.  As is sharing it with all counsel involved.  And, it was Bishop's son who leaked it to the press.

He shared portions of it, yes.

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Something being legal and standard doesn't mean that it is the way I want my Church to act. 

The Church didn't leak the letter.  The Church didn't write the letter.  The Church hired an attorney in a litigation matter, who did his job.  His job includes sharing information with other attorneys in the litigated matter.  One of those attorneys shared some of the information the Church's attorney discovered, and the press (KUTV) got the full letter through apparently a different source.  Denson and her attorneys chose to take this matter to the media, including publicly attacking Bishop.  It's not surprising that Bishop's attorney (and son) would counter such attacks.

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I look at this who incident and think... Who is the "least of these" and how did we do?

I don't fault the Church for the daisy-chained events described above.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, provoman said:

The resolution that she was seeking was about any discipline received by the Church....and that is none of her business, which contributed to her issuing a death threat against him. Not until 2017 did she go to the police.

Your signature quote says "In the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no place for ridicule, bullying, or bigotry. ~ Elder Neil L. Andersen, April 2014."

For me, I don't see the way the church handled this case as consistent with that ideal.  Do you?

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He shared portions of it, yes.

The Church didn't leak the letter.  The Church didn't write the letter.  The Church hired an attorney in a litigation matter, who did his job.  His job includes sharing information with other attorneys in the litigated matter.  One of those attorneys shared some of the information the Church's attorney discovered, and the press (KUTV) got the full letter through apparently a different source.  Denson and her attorneys chose to take this matter to the media, including publicly attacking Bishop.  It's not surprising that Bishop's attorney (and son) would counter such attacks.

I don't fault the Church for the daisy-chained events described above.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes.  The Church did exactly what it should have to protect itself.  No argument there.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  The Church did exactly what it should have to protect itself.  No argument there.

The Church didn't do anything inappropriate or wrong, either.

-Smac

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

For three decades a woman reached out to the church seeking some kind of resolution for the pain and agony inflicted on her by her priesthood leader while serving as a missionary.  Is there a more Christ-like way for the Church to have reacted, even under threat of litigation?  I believe so.  Absolutely.

When did she reach out to the church again?  I thought it was just twice, once in 1987 and once in 2010.  Am I getting the timeline wrong?

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

For three decades a woman reached out to the church

Actually, I don't think she did this.  She reported misconduct to her bishop in 1987, but that bishop says he did not notify the Church about her allegations.  She didn't contact the Church again until, I think, 2012, when she made a report to her stake president in Colorado.

So "three decades" of "reach[ing] out" is a melodramatic exaggeration.

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

seeking some kind of resolution for the pain and agony inflicted on her by her priesthood leader while serving as a missionary.

Had Ron Leavitt notified the Church about Bishop's misconduct, then the Church could have (A) provided/facilitated counseling - ecclesiastical and professional - to Denson (as it did in the Smartt matter to the sister missionaries who were victims of Smartt's misconduct), and (B) disciplined Bishop.  As to (A), there really isn't much to say.  There are a lot of woulda/coulda/shouldas that can be thrown out (including Denson's apparent failure to notify the Church of Bishop's misconduct between 1987 and 2012), but it looks like the Church didn't know anything about Denson's allegations until 2010.  By then the damage of Leavitt's omission was done. 

As to (B), that would have involved Denson to some extent, but mostly in her capacity as a witness agianst Bishop.  Again lots of potential woulda/coulda/shouldas (including, against, Denson's failure to notify the Church of Bishop's misconduct between 1987 and 2012), but the Church (apart from Leavitt) was not aware of the alleged misconduct until 2010.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church didn't do anything inappropriate or wrong, either.

-Smac

How do you know that? CFR (and, to use your standard of CFR’ing, I want a full list of what the Church actually did, with proper references).

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When did she reach out to the church again?  I thought it was just twice, once in 1987 and once in 2010.  Am I getting the timeline wrong?

The timeline appears to be 1987 (when she disclosed to Ron Leavitt) and 2010 (when she called the Church and made threats against Bishop), and then 2016 or so (when she contacted a stake president in Pueblo, Colorado).

According to this article, "starting in 1998, she made multiple reports of the incident to the LDS Church."  However, the Church has stated it did not know about the allegations until 2010.  

I am curious about the "multiple reports" claimed here, but we'll likely never find substantiation for them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 17, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

How do you know that? CFR (and, to use your standard of CFR’ing, I want a full list of what the Church actually did, with proper references).

Here you go.

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here you go.

Nope, sorry, that’s just your opinion on what you read. Unless you’re saying you were privy to all the proceedings on the side of the Church? Is that what you are claiming?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Nope, sorry, that’s just your opinion on what you read.

Right.  You ask for a reference for my opinion, and I gave it.

5 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Unless you’re saying you were privy to all the proceedings on the side of the Church? Is that what you are claiming?

"The Church didn't do anything inappropriate or wrong, either" is a statement of opinion.  Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 17, 2018 by smac97

[Marginal Gains]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  You ask for a reference for my opinion, and I gave it.

"The Church didn't do anything inappropriate or wrong, either" is a statement of opinion.  Do you agree?

Thanks,

-Smac

No, that’s a statement of fact. Which you can’t support because you don’t know the extent of the Church’s actions or inactions. You could’ve said “I haven’t seen anything that suggests to me the Church has done anything inappropriate”.

Releasing records from confidential LDS Adoption records is inappropriate. As is releasing and using Church record information against a plaintiff. In my opinion.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Marginal Gains