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

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What I believe we can say for absolute certain is that God would not have wanted Bishop to abuse young girls.  What we also know (if we believe the doctrine of the gospel) is that God allows things to happen all the time that He would not want to happen.  But whether or not God would allow Bishop to be put into a position where he could choose betray the trust put in him, I don't know.

Besides that, it sounds like you are talking about the philosophical Problem of Evil-

The existence of evil and suffering in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect God. If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it. And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering.  These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist claim that there exists a perfectly good God. The challenged posed by this apparent conflict has come to be known as the problem of evil.

Here are a couple of logical answers to that problem (these are answers that philosophers find logical and therefore valid.  That doesn't mean that all philosopher's agree with them though)--

Plantinga's Free Will Defense has been the most famous theistic response to the logical problem of evil because he did more to clarify the issues surrounding the logical problem than anyone else. It has not, however, been the only such response. Other solutions to the problem include John Hick's (1977) soul-making theodicy. Hick rejects the traditional view of the Fall, which pictures humans as being created in a finitely perfect and finished state from which they disastrously fell away. Instead, Hick claims that human beings are unfinished and in the midst of being made all that God intended them to be. The long evolutionary process made humans into a distinguishable species capable of reasoning and responsibility, but they must now (as individuals) go through a second process of "spiritualization" or “soul-making,” during which they become “children of God.” According to Hick, the suffering and travails of this life are part of the divine plan of soul-making. A world full of suffering, trials and temptations is more conducive to the process of soul-making than a world full of constant pleasure and the complete absence of pain. Hick (1977, pp. 255-256) writes,

The value-judgment that is implicitly being invoked here is that one who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptations, and thus by rightly making responsible choices in concrete situations, is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virtue…. I suggest, then, that it is an ethically reasonable judgment… that human goodness slowly built up through personal histories of moral effort has a value in the eyes of the Creator which justifies even the long travail of the soul-making process.

Unlike Plantinga's response to the logical problem of evil, which is merely a "defense" (that is, a negative attempt to undermine a certain atheological argument without offering a positive account of why God allows evil and suffering), Hick's response is a "theodicy" (that is, a more comprehensive attempt to account for why God is justified in allowing evil and suffering).

Eleonore Stump (1985) offers another response to the problem of evil that brings a range of distinctively Christian theological commitments to bear on the issue. She claims that a world full of evil and suffering is "conducive to bringing about both the initial human [receipt of God's gift of salvation] and also the subsequent process of sanctification" (Stump 1985, p. 409). She writes,

Natural evil—the pain of disease, the intermittent and unpredictable destruction of natural disasters, the decay of old age, the imminence of death—takes away a person's satisfaction with himself. It tends to humble him, show him his frailty, make him reflect on the transience of temporal goods, and turn his affections towards other-worldly things, away from the things of this world. No amount of moral or natural evil, of course, can guarantee that a man will [place his faith in God].... But evil of this sort is the best hope, I think, and maybe the only effective means, for bringing men to such a state. (Stump 1985, p. 409)

Stump claims that, although the sin of Adam—and not any act of God—first brought moral and natural evil into this world, God providentially uses both kinds of evil in order to bring about the greatest good that a fallen, sinful human being can experience: a repaired will and eternal union with God.

The responses of both Hick and Stump are intended to cover not only the logical problem of evil but also any other formulation of the problem as well. Thus, some of those dissatisfied with Plantinga's merely defensive response to the problem of evil may find these more constructive, alternative responses more attractive. Regardless of the details of these alternatives, the fact remains that all they need to do in order to rebut the logical problem of evil is to describe a logically possible way that God and evil can co-exist. A variety of morally sufficient reasons can be proposed as possible explanations of why a perfect God might allow evil and suffering to exist. Because the suggestions of Hick and Stump are clearly logically possible, they, too, succeed in undermining the logical problem of evil.

So, I don't think that your conclusions about where the logic of my statements must lead are necessarily correct. There are other logical conclusions as well. (I hate how this is suddenly in a large font like the pasted stuff above, but I can't figure out how to change it back.)

Thanks for the great response, bluebell.  I think we basically agree (if I'm reading you correctly).  I do believe if logically followed, one can draw the conclusions that appeared to me (and Julie and others, iirc).  But I see your point as well.

I do believe that God allows things to happen (even things that are hurtful or harmful), however, I do not believe He would cause or put someone in a position (or calling) and approve of that if it would result in abuse.   I believe there's a difference between the two.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Not really..but if you met with an apostle..would you not disclose those thing that most concern you...? 

You're applying the standard of "if I was in this situation I would do this, so why wouldn't everyone else do the same." 

[bluebell]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Not really..but if you met with an apostle..would you not disclose those thing that most concern you...? 

Honestly I have no idea!  Who could even try to guess what a sexual abuse victim would see as being a reasonable and rational at a moment like that.  I'm kind of surprised that you feel like you know what she would have done, despite her own words.

But the facts are (and you said yesterday that facts are very very important to you) that there is no evidence that she told Monson anything (sadly) and a lot of evidence to support that she didn't.  So there's your answer to your pervious question of "why are we and why is she...still dealing with all of this?"

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Honestly I have no idea!  Who could even try to guess what a sexual abuse victim would see as being a reasonable and rational at a moment like that.  I'm kind of surprised that you feel like you know what she would have done, despite her own words.

But the facts are (and you said yesterday that facts are very very important to you) that there is no evidence that she told Monson anything (sadly) and a lot of evidence to support that she didn't.  So there's your answer to your pervious question of "why are we and why is she...still dealing with all of this?"

I have an attorney friend who had a client (also a personal friend) who was sexually assaulted by a member of the Church.  There was pretty solid forensic evidence.  The prosecutor initially pressed felony charges, but then let the case drag, and ultimately dropped the charges.  The client was initially very upset, but decided she wants to proceed with her life.  So she's letting it go.  No civil suit.  Just moving on.

My friend spoke with the client's mother (in his capacity as a friend, rather than an attorney) about whether the client has considered reporting the sexual assault to the Church.  He suggested that notifying the Church might reduce the risk of the perp assaulting someone else.  The answer came back: No, she wants to get on with life.

Should we second-guess this woman?  Ignore her wishes?  Fault her for how she has decided to proceed?  No.  Not at all.  There is no script, no correct answer.  We cannot walk in her shoes, nor can we dictate to her what is the "right" response to what happened to her.

What I would have done doesn't matter.  Not here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for the great response, bluebell.  I think we basically agree (if I'm reading you correctly).  I do believe if logically followed, one can draw the conclusions that appeared to me (and Julie and others, iirc).  But I see your point as well.

I do believe that God allows things to happen (even things that are hurtful or harmful), however, I do not believe He would cause or put someone in a position (or calling) and approve of that if it would result in abuse.   I believe there's a difference between the two.

I honestly can't concieve of a good way to maintain a difference between the two. The idea that something could happen that God does not approve of, means that He is impotent to bring about his Will.  In my view, God put us all here in positions where we are destined to hurt others. He places limits on what can happen to us and the extent to which we use our agency. I don't see God answering the question of Evil by saying: "Yeah, I know it sucks, but that's the best I could do. Sorry."

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I honestly can't concieve of a good way to maintain a difference between the two. The idea that something could happen that God does not approve of, means that He is impotent to bring about his Will. 

I don't see it that way (but know people have different perspectives too and respect that).

For me it's the difference of someone going on their own (making their own decision) to go somewhere they know they may be harmed vs. God putting the thought into their head to go or inspiring them or leading them to go to this place.  There are probably better analogies....but, in the first case, God may allow the harm to follow a decision He did not inspire vs. someone being harmed because God led them to that dangerous place.  I think many accidents are allowed to happen (car, etc.) vs. God using his power to cause the accident that harms someone.

In the case of Bishop being called, it may be that God allowed the leaders to make a mistake that caused harm (to the church as well).  One they are most likely learning from now.  Just a thought....

But, I do not believe that God put the name of Joseph Bishop into their minds or inspired them to call him knowing that Mckenna Denson (and other young women) would be invited down by him into that private room in the basement of the MTC.

Edited April 26, 2018 by ALarson

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, I do not believe that God put the name of Joseph Bishop into their minds or inspired them to call him knowing that Mckenna Denson (and other young women) would be invited down by him into that private room in the basement of the MTC.

Just to be clear, do you think that people who are called into a calling cannot do bad things if they are called of God?  Being called of God should be a sign that the person so called cannot commit serious sin?

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Just to be clear, do you think that people who are called into a calling cannot do bad things if they are called of God? 

I think people have choices and there are, of course, varying degrees when you say "bad things".    But believing that an all knowing God placed Joseph Bishop in a position of power over so many young women?  No, I do not believe that God did that or inspired men to do that. 

I know some disagree with me here and I'm fine with that.  But I believe that was a decision made by fallible men and it was one of the times a mistake was made.

Edited April 26, 2018 by ALarson

[Danzo]

Just now, ALarson said:

I think people have choices and there are, of course, varying degrees when you say "bad things".    But believing that an all knowing God placed Joseph Bishop in a position of power over so many young women?  No, I do not believe that God did that or inspired men to do that. 

I know some disagree with me here and I'm fine with that.  But I believe that was a decision made by fallible men and it was one of the times a mistake was made.

Good to know where you are coming from, I disagree and think people are and should be free to do what they want (good or bad) before, after, and during ones calling.

I know that it is possible to have ones "calling and election made sure" but I don't know that is a prerequisite to being called as a mission president  (these and other incidents lead me to believe that isn't the case).   

 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I know that it is possible to have ones "calling and election made sure" but I don't know that is a prerequisite to being called as a mission president  (these and other incidents lead me to believe that isn't the case).   

I wonder about that too....I agree.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for the great response, bluebell.  I think we basically agree (if I'm reading you correctly).  I do believe if logically followed, one can draw the conclusions that appeared to me (and Julie and others, iirc).  But I see your point as well.

I do believe that God allows things to happen (even things that are hurtful or harmful), however, I do not believe He would cause or put someone in a position (or calling) and approve of that if it would result in abuse.   I believe there's a difference between the two.

I agree, there is a difference between the two, but whenever I think about this issue I keep coming back to "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

This is why I am not comfortable ever saying "I know that God would never do this or that."  I'm not saying that we can't ever know what God would or wouldn't do (I think we can know) but I don't think we can ever use our own personal morality as the measuring stick.  In fact, the scriptures seem to teach that we can't depend on our thoughts and opinions to know God's will or how He would act.  I think the only way we can know such things is when God specifically tells us (through the spirit).  

And God hasn't told me anything about the leaders who called bishop.  I think that they were probably mislead and mistaken to some degree or another, but I don't know that.  

Edited April 26, 2018 by bluebell

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Though the Balm of Gilead provides complete consolation and healing, No?

Clearly, that is a matter of faith.  If one is struggling with his/her faith, dismissing the matter with a wave of a hand and a "Gods ways are not our ways" is not likely to be a very faith promoting experience.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That comes from the Atonement.  (but I think that you are wrong.  I have known victims who have found great comfort in the above).

Since there is nothing but anecdotal observations available, I don't deny your observations, but suspect they may be the exception rather than the rule.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

Just to be clear, do you think that people who are called into a calling cannot do bad things if they are called of God?  Being called of God should be a sign that the person so called cannot commit serious sin?

Just like Judas - clearly Christ didn't have the gift of discernment.

[Marginal Gains]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Just like Judas - clearly Christ didn't have the gift of discernment.

Except being crucified was all part of the plan, so he needed someone to betray him. In many respects (as Mormon teachings on the topics go), Judas was used the same way Eve was. They were both required to do something wrong to facilitate the desired outcome of the plan. What they did wrong, was actually right. Apparently.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

The daughter in the quote I provided did not say she had to deal with a bunch of bureaucrats to finout who her mother was, but that she had to do incredible sleuthing to find her.

What do you think that sleuthing entailed?

Are you saying that she got a hold of McKenna's other family members before getting a hold of her; therefore she was in touch with them and they told the Church and it's attorneys her name when the Church already had her name?  Sounds like an incredible explanation.  But you are certainly entitled to it.  

18 hours ago, Calm said:

------

Have you listened to or read the entire transcript?

Yes.  But it was a good month or so ago.  

[Exiled]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have an attorney friend who had a client (also a personal friend) who was sexually assaulted by a member of the Church.  There was pretty solid forensic evidence.  The prosecutor initially pressed felony charges, but then let the case drag, and ultimately dropped the charges.  The client was initially very upset, but decided she wants to proceed with her life.  So she's letting it go.  No civil suit.  Just moving on.

My friend spoke with the client's mother (in his capacity as a friend, rather than an attorney) about whether the client has considered reporting the sexual assault to the Church.  He suggested that notifying the Church might reduce the risk of the perp assaulting someone else.  The answer came back: No, she wants to get on with life.

Should we second-guess this woman?  Ignore her wishes?  Fault her for how she has decided to proceed?  No.  Not at all.  There is no script, no correct answer.  We cannot walk in her shoes, nor can we dictate to her what is the "right" response to what happened to her.

What I would have done doesn't matter.  Not here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Did this victim friend of yours talk to her bishop and/or stake president or some other church leader prior to making the decision to let it go, a decision that undoubtedly benefits the church? I know of a few victims over the years who were counseled to let the church handle it internally because who would want to give the Lord's one true church a black eye?

Do you think the prosecutor dropped the ball due to undue influence from higher ups, maybe church officials? Why do you think the prosecutor dragged his feet and then dropped the charges? What went on there? Was the prosecutor afraid to give the church a black eye?

I think your friend should have pursued this given the weakness displayed by the prosecutor.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Exiled

[california boy]

16 hours ago, kllindley said:

I honestly can't concieve of a good way to maintain a difference between the two. The idea that something could happen that God does not approve of, means that He is impotent to bring about his Will.  In my view, God put us all here in positions where we are destined to hurt others. He places limits on what can happen to us and the extent to which we use our agency. I don't see God answering the question of Evil by saying: "Yeah, I know it sucks, but that's the best I could do. Sorry."

If you believe that God inspires leaders and are called by God, then it becomes problematic that God would inspire a leader to call someone who is sexually abusing people.  God inspiring someone to call that guy, he has been sexually abusing people, he will make a good leader just sounds horribly wrong.  To me that is the difference.  

If you believe that men call leaders to church positions, then I would agree with you.  God is not going to interfere with that process.

Maybe this idea that leaders have some kind of spirit of discernment should go by the wayside. Maybe people are called to positions because there is a need and they seem best suited to fulfill that need.   It doesn't seem this call of God concept has any decent track record of being true.  

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you believe that God inspires leaders and are called by God, then it becomes problematic that God would inspire a leader to call someone who is sexually abusing people.  God inspiring someone to call that guy, he has been sexually abusing people, he will make a good leader just sounds horribly wrong.  To me that is the difference.  

If you believe that men call leaders to church positions, then I would agree with you.  God is not going to interfere with that process.

Maybe this idea that leaders have some kind of spirit of discernment should go by the wayside. Maybe people are called to positions because there is a need and they seem best suited to fulfill that need.   It doesn't seem this call of God concept has any decent track record of being true.  

Thank you for sharing. I respect your opinion, but your response really didn't answer the question. If it works for you, again I respect that. 

[SJR3t2]

I ran into this statement by Jessica Lowder on FB the other day.

I was adopted as a baby through the Mormon church. Two years after placing me for adoption my birth mother decided to serve a mission. When she was at the MTC (mission training center) she was raped by Joseph Bishop, the MTC President. Joseph Bishop had had previously sexually assaulted women and the church knew this fact through his confessions. Not only did the church not discipline him, they continued to put him in high positions where he worked with young vulnerable women. My birth mother has tried to get justice for over 30 years and after the church refused to take action and accountability she took matters into her own hands. She posed as a reporter and sat down with her attacker and was able to obtain a recorded confession where he apologized and explained he was a sex addict who should have never held those positions in the church.
The church heard the tape and as an attempt to keep my birth mother quiet they compiled a dossier filled with any dirt they could gather. Not only did this include her private church records, they also dug into my confidential, closed adoption record and exposed my first and last name in the dossier. The church had this information because I was adopted through them. My name was then given to Joseph Bishop’s son Greg Bishop and leaked to the media which I believe was not only an intimidation tactic to scare my birth mother but also a warning to other victims to demonstrate what would happen if they decide to come forward as well. Not only was this a complete breach of privacy, they objectified me and used me as one of the skeletons in my birth mothers closet with complete disregard for my feelings and privacy. They didn’t even know if I was aware who my birth mother was or the circumstances of my birth. They didn’t care. I grew up in the church and never expected this. They have shown a dark and ruthless side that needs to be exposed. I will not be used and I will not allow them to get away with what they did. They have been digging this hole for the past 33 years and only seem to be making it worse. This is shameful. I can’t put into words how livid I am, how much anxiety this has caused and how hurtful the church has been by crushing others to keep up their facade. The church needs to take accountability now.

https://www.facebook.com/JessicaLowder/posts/10215462726657264

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Did this victim friend of yours talk to her bishop and/or stake president or some other church leader prior to making the decision to let it go, a decision that undoubtedly benefits the church?

My attorney friend is also a bishop, and he has spoken with the family extensively about this, and they have said nothing about being discouraged from reporting this matter by the victim's bishop (or anyone else, for that matter).

Your implication is kind of silly.  She reported this matter to, and then fully cooperated with, the police.  Criminal charges were pressed (twice).  And I don't see how "let[ting] it go" "benefits the Church."  Letting it go means that the Church does not know about a member of the Church being credibly accused of rape. 

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I know of a few victims over the years who were counseled to let the church handle it internally because who would want to give the Lord's one true church a black eye?

Oh, get a grip.  She pressed criminal charges, only to have the prosecutor fail to prosecute.  "Letting it go" at this point means A) not filing a civil lawsuit, and B) not reporting it to the Church.

I don't think the Church gets a "black eye" when one of its members violates its teachings and commits a crime.

Personally, I think the Church would probably prefer that the woman not "let it go," at least to the extent of reporting it to the Church so that it (the Church) is aware of the allegations against the perp (rape triggers a mandatory disciplinary council).  The Church would be better off knowing about this issue, don't you think?

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Do you think the prosecutor dropped the ball due to undue influence from higher ups, maybe church officials?

Get a grip.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Why do you think the prosecutor dragged his feet and then dropped the charges?

It happens.  All the time.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

What went on there? Was the prosecutor afraid to give the church a black eye?

Get a grip.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I think your friend should have pursued this given the weakness displayed by the prosecutor.

And yet . . . she has chosen otherwise. 

-Smac

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, SJR3t2 said:

I ran into this statement by Jessica Lowder on FB the other day.

I was adopted as a baby through the Mormon church. Two years after placing me for adoption my birth mother decided to serve a mission. When she was at the MTC (mission training center) she was raped by Joseph Bishop, the MTC President. Joseph Bishop had had previously sexually assaulted women and the church knew this fact through his confessions. Not only did the church not discipline him, they continued to put him in high positions where he worked with young vulnerable women. My birth mother has tried to get justice for over 30 years and after the church refused to take action and accountability she took matters into her own hands. She posed as a reporter and sat down with her attacker and was able to obtain a recorded confession where he apologized and explained he was a sex addict who should have never held those positions in the church.
The church heard the tape and as an attempt to keep my birth mother quiet they compiled a dossier filled with any dirt they could gather. Not only did this include her private church records, they also dug into my confidential, closed adoption record and exposed my first and last name in the dossier. The church had this information because I was adopted through them. My name was then given to Joseph Bishop’s son Greg Bishop and leaked to the media which I believe was not only an intimidation tactic to scare my birth mother but also a warning to other victims to demonstrate what would happen if they decide to come forward as well. Not only was this a complete breach of privacy, they objectified me and used me as one of the skeletons in my birth mothers closet with complete disregard for my feelings and privacy. They didn’t even know if I was aware who my birth mother was or the circumstances of my birth. They didn’t care. I grew up in the church and never expected this. They have shown a dark and ruthless side that needs to be exposed. I will not be used and I will not allow them to get away with what they did. They have been digging this hole for the past 33 years and only seem to be making it worse. This is shameful. I can’t put into words how livid I am, how much anxiety this has caused and how hurtful the church has been by crushing others to keep up their facade. The church needs to take accountability now.

https://www.facebook.com/JessicaLowder/posts/10215462726657264

Thanks for posting this, SJR312 (and welcome to the forum!).

This gives some clarity regarding how the daughter feels and what she's experienced.  It's too bad that she's been hurt and it's not right what was done here, IMO.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SJR3t2 said:

I ran into this statement by Jessica Lowder on FB the other day.

I was adopted as a baby through the Mormon church. Two years after placing me for adoption my birth mother decided to serve a mission. When she was at the MTC (mission training center) she was raped by Joseph Bishop, the MTC President. Joseph Bishop had had previously sexually assaulted women and the church knew this fact through his confessions. Not only did the church not discipline him, they continued to put him in high positions where he worked with young vulnerable women. My birth mother has tried to get justice for over 30 years and after the church refused to take action and accountability she took matters into her own hands. She posed as a reporter and sat down with her attacker and was able to obtain a recorded confession where he apologized and explained he was a sex addict who should have never held those positions in the church.
The church heard the tape and as an attempt to keep my birth mother quiet they compiled a dossier filled with any dirt they could gather. Not only did this include her private church records, they also dug into my confidential, closed adoption record and exposed my first and last name in the dossier. The church had this information because I was adopted through them. My name was then given to Joseph Bishop’s son Greg Bishop and leaked to the media which I believe was not only an intimidation tactic to scare my birth mother but also a warning to other victims to demonstrate what would happen if they decide to come forward as well. Not only was this a complete breach of privacy, they objectified me and used me as one of the skeletons in my birth mothers closet with complete disregard for my feelings and privacy. They didn’t even know if I was aware who my birth mother was or the circumstances of my birth. They didn’t care. I grew up in the church and never expected this. They have shown a dark and ruthless side that needs to be exposed. I will not be used and I will not allow them to get away with what they did. They have been digging this hole for the past 33 years and only seem to be making it worse. This is shameful. I can’t put into words how livid I am, how much anxiety this has caused and how hurtful the church has been by crushing others to keep up their facade. The church needs to take accountability now.

https://www.facebook.com/JessicaLowder/posts/10215462726657264

There are some weaknesses with her statements of facts and her accusations, but given that this issue touches her personally and has caused her hurt, I don't blame her.  I think her emotions are valid.

[Exiled]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, get a grip.  It happens.  All the time.

Get a grip.

And yet . . . she has chosen otherwise. 

-Smac

So, do you think this woman is a good example of what should happen in these cases?   Would you say she was brave to not do anything?  It certainly was her choice to not do anything.  However, I don't think her weakness should not be held up as an example of what should happen in these cases.  Criminals ought to be punished and if this perp does something similarly criminal in the future, perhaps your friend's "brave" inaction will be partly responsible for it?  It's understandable that someone wouldn't want to step forward.  Lawsuits are time-consuming and reliving the experience through the process would be excruciating.  However, I think she and others similarly situated should think of other potential victims and do what they can to stop these actions from happening in the future.

"Metoo" needs to continue on and those who choose to not come forward are doing a disservice to other future victims.

[SJR3t2]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for posting this, SJR312 (and welcome to the forum!).

This gives some clarity regarding how the daughter feels and what she's experienced.  It's too bad that she's been hurt and it's not right what was done here, IMO.  

If you ask me what was done to the extent it was done, was illegal and the leaders high up knew what was going on.

[SJR3t2]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are some weaknesses with her statements of facts and her accusations, but given that this issue touches her personally and has caused her hurt, I don't blame her.  I think her emotions are valid.

what are her weaknesses with her statements and accusations?