Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it would seem her lawyers are setting themselves up for failure, I mean are they that dumb to proceed to take this case and to take it to court? You can't just sue someone hoping to get money, if that were the case then everyone with deep pockets are a potential target for money grabbers, can't the courts do anything to ensure that she wouldn't get any money? if it did proceed past the church's objection. I could make up something and sue and hope to get some money for it

I don't think her attorney ever had any intention of filing a lawsuit. I think he was angling for a confidential settlement. That blew up when is client went off script and leaked her audio recording to the media and it was picked up by Mormon leaks. The attorneys have admitted that they were not prepared for this, that it forced their hand. They have had no choice but to proceed with the lawsuit, hope that they can survive a motion to dismiss, and then possibly extract some sort of settlement at that point.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  Evidence is not being evaluated at all, actually.  Instead, the court is looking at the factual statements in Denson's Complaint, and is assuming they are true, and is being asked to nevertheless dismiss the case (based on legal arguments, and not only any factual arguments).  Specifically, the Church is saying, in essence "Even if we assume that every claim Ms. Denson makes in her Complaint is true, she is still not entitled to proceed in this lawsuit because her claims are barred by the statute of limitations."

Thanks,

-Smac

So basically her immediate claim is she did not have a valid chance to hold the Church responsible for their part in placing her in a dangerous situation because she assumed based on what she was taught that church leadership would never put anyone at risk with a predator in authority; therefore the statue of limitations should only start fromwhen she learned that this was possible and happened (allegedly) in 2017 in spite of issues with evidence.

If the judge agreed, only then she has to prove leadership knew. 

Correct?

If so, this appears to have nothing to do with Bishop. Or can a predator be held responsible for putting themselves in triggering situations?

Edited June 13, 2018 by Calm

[rpn]

10 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Let's say the Church somehow knew about this man's alleged actions, how can she claim anything they said is fraud against her?

The fraud would be in telling her when she was still within the statute of limitations that she couldn't prove he was a predator,  because they knew he was a fine upstanding man who couldn't possibly have done what she claimed he'd done to her, when it knew that he had a history of predation and put him in that spot anyway.

It is probably in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.   The plaintiff lives outside of Utah and the events took place in Utah with Church headquarters in Utah.

Edited June 13, 2018 by rpn

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

So basically her immediate claim is she did not have a valid chance to hold the Church responsible for their part in placing her in a dangerous situation because she assumed based on what she was taught that church leadership would never put anyone at risk with a predator in authority; therefore the statue of limitations should only start fromwhen she learned that this was possible and happened (allegedly) in 2017 in spite of issues with evidence.

If the judge agreed, only then she has to prove leadership knew. 

Correct?

Almost.  I think she has to prove that that Bishop was a "sexual predator" (that he was not trustworthy) and that the Church knew this.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

If so, this appears to have nothing to do with Bishop.

Only to the extent that the Church knew he was a "sexual predator" and put him in as president of the MTC anyway.

Bishop has never been the target here.  It's the Church that has deep pockets.  

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Or can a predator be held responsible for putting themselves in triggering situations?

Denson's legal theories against Denson are, I think, dead in the water because of the statute of limitations issues.  Some of her claims against the Church are only potentially salvageable if she can prove that she didn't "discover" the Church's "fraudulent concealment" until 2017.  

Let's take a look at her actual legal claims:

• First Cause of Action: "Sexual Assault and Battery"
• Second Cause of Action: "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress"
• Third Cause of Action: "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress"
• Fourth Cause of Action: "Fraud"
• Fifth Cause of Action: "Fraudulent Concealment / Nondisclosure"
• Sixth Cause of Action: "Injunctive Relief"

The first cause of action is, I think, dead in the water.  I just don't see a way around the statute of limitations on this one.  

The fourth cause of action is also likely DOA.  Her response to the Church's Motion to Dismiss heavily emphasizes her theory that the Church did not disclose X to her ("X" being Bishop's purported sexual predation), and that she did not discover this until 2017.  This just doesn't work in an "affirmative" fraud context.

The sixth cause of action is DOA.  "Injunctive relief" is a remedy, not a cause of action.  A "cause of action" is the legal theory that allows a party to obtain a remedy.  A "remedy" is something the court can give to the party for successfully proving her legal theory.  

So that potentially leaves the second, third and fifth causes of action.

To show a "negligent infliction of emotional distress" ("NIED") claim, Denson has to show the following:

1. The Church was negligent;
2. Denson was in the “zone of danger”;
3. Denson feared for her own safety and/or witnessed an injury to another; and
4. Denson suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the Church’s negligence.

As you can see, NIED claims are usually presented by, say, a bystander who witnesses a car accident and is traumatized by it.  NIED seems to fail here.  Denson's theory in her Complaint is that the Church negligently inflicted emotional distress on her because it "took no action against Bishop from 1987 to present."

In other words, the Church's failure to disfellowship or excommunicate Bishop has caused Denson "emotional distress."  Put another way, Denson is arguing that the court can punish the LDS Church for not meting out church discipline against Bishop.  There is no way the federal court is going to go along with that.  The courts are bound by the "Ecclesiastical Abstention" doctrine, which basically prohibits the courts from interfering with internal matters of church governance.  Whether or not Bishop should have been disciplined by the Church is purely an internal matter for the Church, and there is no way a federal court is going to say "Yes, a third party like Denson can sue the Church for money damages because it failed to discipline Joseph Bishop."

To show "intentional infliction of emtoional distress ("IIED"), Denson has to show the following:

1. Outrageous and intolerable conduct by the Church; and
2. The Church intended to cause emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; and
3. Denson suffered severe or extreme emotional distress that was caused by the Church’s conduct.

This one just might work in surviving a motion to dismiss.  Denson's legal theory would have to be that the Church put a known "sexual predator" in charge of the MTC ("outrageous and intolerable conduct"), that it "acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress," and that Denson suffered emotional distress as a result.

This one seems hugely speculative, and perhaps so much so that it does not meet the minimum pleading requirements of Twombly/Iqbal (I'll explain that later).

And that leaves the fifth cause of action ("Fraudulent Nondisclosure / Concealment").  More later.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, USU78 said:

Operative word: "She reported."

It isn't only what "she reported," but also what she was able to secretly garner on tape with Joseph Bishop.  Whether it was rape or something less is not really material.  Too many years have gone by to pick up the pieces in a coherent way.  Such claims have, however, influenced the LDS Church to give more attention to "due diligence."   Thus, criminal background checks should now be routine -- just as they are for all Boy Scout leaders

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Too many years have gone by to pick up the pieces in a coherent way. 

The very reason statutes of limitation and repose exist.

Quaere: would a criminal background check have made a bit of difference in the instant matter?

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, rpn said:

The fraud would be in telling her when she was still within the statute of limitations that she couldn't prove he was a predator,  because they knew he was a fine upstanding man who couldn't possibly have done what she claimed he'd done to her, when it knew that he had a history of predation and put him in that spot anyway. ...

Do we know she was told that, and, if so, by whom?

P.S.: These guys might've been practicing law for too long: "Comes now the Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys ..." Yada-yada.  It was my impression that such florid prose in complaints fell out of favor at about the same time the Yugo did. 

I'm not defending anything Bishop did, but, goodness, gracious!  The complaint makes him sound like Darth Vader: "... power and control ..." 

"... A key tenant [sic] of the Mormon faith is sharing the beliefs of the Church through religious missions. ..."  Just goes to show, I guess, that these guys have never practiced landlord-tenant law.  If they had, they would know the difference between a tenet and a tenant.

"Before ever serving as a mission president, BISHOP was the President at Weber
State University. While in that position there were public claims, known to Church leaders ..."  Even for "public claims," without definitive proof, I would be loathe to state with any degree of certainty what anyone else knows or doesn't know.  Usually, allegations such as this in complaints are couched in such terms as, "... on information and belief ..." or "... he knew or should have known ..."

"Following this disclosure to Elder Wells [of Bishop's alleged misdeeds], there is no indication that the Church took any action to investigate these possible crimes ..."  It's not the province of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to investigate crimes.  I haven't followed the case closely enough to know how many of Bishop's alleged misdeeds (if any) took place in such places as Argentina or whether any of them involved native missionaries, and I'm not excusing anything Bishop or Elder Wells did or didn't do, but I wouldn't necessarily blame leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ for not wanting to create an international incident or to subject a member to the vagaries of a foreign court system which lacks provision for due process, may force an accused to incriminate himself, has different standards of proof and different procedures, and so on.

"In an epic betrayal of trust ..."  Jurors are perfectly capable of determining for themselves what constitutes an "epic betrayal of trust" without Plaintiff's attorneys having to tell them ... unless the case is rather weak.

"These sexual grooming incidents escalated over time ..."  Again, jurors are perfectly capable of determining for themselves what constitutes "grooming" without Plaintiff's attorneys having to tell them ... unless the case is rather weak.  Even the Rules of Civil Procedure state that in drafting Complaints, rather than drawing such conclusions, attorneys should confine themselves to "a short, plain statement of the facts" which entitle the complainant to relief.

"Plaintiff MCKENNA DENSON incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein."  This seems to be awkward realleging language.  Normally, in setting the first allegation/cause of action entitling a Plaintiff to relief and each allegation thereafter, Plaintiffs' attorneys write, "Paragraphs [#] through [#] are hereby realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein."  (I'm sure I'm wrong, but it does seem as though these guys said, "You know what?  I've had enough of the boring transactional work we've been doing for the last 50 years.  Hey, I know!  Let's go into litigation!  Yeah!  That's it!" )

"Indeed, while it was the policy for 'sister missionaries' to stay with a companion at all times, this requirement was excepted so that sister missionaries could meet one-on-one with BISHOP, a sexual predator ..."  Sigh!  Here we go again.  What's that old saying?  "If you're weak on the facts, plead the law.  If you're weak on the law, plead the facts.  If you're weak on both the facts and the law, plead for mercy," or something like that?  (I looked it up: Lawyers are supposed to pound -- "If you're weak on the law, pound the facts; if you're weak on the facts, pound the law; if you're weak on both the law and on the facts, pound the table!" )  It seems as though Denson's lawyers are doing an awful lot of table pounding.

It's as if Plaintiff's attorneys (who, remember, just started in litigation after long and distinguished careers in boring transactional work) said, "We can't simply have 'a short, plain statement of the facts' in the Complaint.  That'll never work!  We've got to seize every opportunity we can to tell everybody what a bad guy Bishop is!": "On information and belief, Plaintiff DENSON asserts that Bishop regularly kicks his dog."  Again, I'm not saying Bishop isn't a bad guy: I'm simply saying that this isn't the way good attorneys usually practice law ... unless they've just left long and distinguished careers in boring transactional work and decided to try their hands at litigation.

I've had enough of reading poorly-drafted complaints for the day ...  Maybe I'll pick this up again later.  But what the he!! do I know?  It's not as though I'll ever practice, or anything!  But, hey!  I do have an absolutely gorgeous diploma ...  Anybody know what gorgeous diplomas from third-tier law schools are going for on e-bay these days??? 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It isn't only what "she reported," but also what she was able to secretly garner on tape with Joseph Bishop.  Whether it was rape or something less is not really material. 

I'm not sure about that.  "He showed me porn" is not nearly as explosive and sensationalistic and worth as much as "He forcibly raped me."

So as far as the amount of damages, it matters a lot.  And since Denson scuttled her own attorneys' confidential negotiations with the Church, their only alternative are scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners, publish-neverending-horrible-accusations-against-the-Church-until-it-chooses-to-settle tactics.  

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Too many years have gone by to pick up the pieces in a coherent way.  Such claims have, however, influenced the LDS Church to give more attention to "due diligence."   Thus, criminal background checks should now be routine -- just as they are for all Boy Scout leaders

I think that would be a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

The very reason statutes of limitation and repose exist.

Quaere: would a criminal background check have made a bit of difference in the instant matter?

Yes, I'm absolutely certain that all of the places where Bishop's crimes are alleged to have taken place have accurate, complete, up-to-date, exhaustive databases, and all of the dusty files where such pre-database allegations were kept have been transferred into the database!  Absolutely!  

[smac97]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

The very reason statutes of limitation and repose exist.

Quaere: would a criminal background check have made a bit of difference in the instant matter?

Probably not.  But they could make a difference now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Do we know she was told that, and, if so, by whom?

P.S.: These guys might've been practicing law for too long: "Comes now the Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys ..." Yada-yada.  It was my impression that such florid prose in complaints fell out of favor at about the same time the Yugo did. 

I'm not defending anything Bishop did, but, goodness, gracious!  The complaint makes him sound like Darth Vader: "... power and control ..." 

"... A key tenant [sic] of the Mormon faith is sharing the beliefs of the Church through religious missions. ..."  Just goes to show, I guess, that these guys have never practiced landlord-tenant law.  If they had, they would know the difference between a tenet and a tenant.

"Before ever serving as a mission president, BISHOP was the President at Weber
State University. While in that position there were public claims, known to Church leaders ..."  Even for "public claims," without definitive proof, I would be loathe to state with any degree of certainty what anyone else knows or doesn't know.  Usually, allegations such as this in complaints are couched in such terms as, "... on information and belief ..." or "... he knew or should have known ..."

"Following this disclosure to Elder Wells [of Bishop's alleged misdeeds], there is no indication that the Church took any action to investigate these possible crimes ..."  It's not the province of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to investigate crimes.  I haven't followed the case closely enough to know how many of Bishop's alleged misdeeds (if any) took place in such places as Argentina or whether any of them involved native missionaries, and I'm not excusing anything Bishop or Elder Wells did or didn't do, but I wouldn't necessarily blame leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ for not wanting to create an international incident or to subject a member to the vagaries of a foreign court system which lacks provision for due process, may force an accused to incriminate himself, has different standards of proof and different procedures, and so on.

"In an epic betrayal of trust ..."  Jurors are perfectly capable of determining for themselves what constitutes an "epic betrayal of trust" without Plaintiff's attorneys having to tell them ... unless the case is rather weak.

"These sexual grooming incidents escalated over time ..."  Again, jurors are perfectly capable of determining for themselves what constitutes "grooming" without Plaintiff's attorneys having to tell them ... unless the case is rather weak.  Even the Rules of Civil Procedure state that in drafting Complaints, rather than drawing such conclusions, attorneys should confine themselves to "a short, plain statement of the facts" which entitle the complainant to relief.

"Plaintiff MCKENNA DENSON incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein."  This seems to be awkward realleging language.  Normally, in setting the first allegation/cause of action entitling a Plaintiff to relief and each allegation thereafter, Plaintiffs' attorneys write, "Paragraphs [#] through [#] are hereby realleged and incorporated as if fully set forth herein."  (I'm sure I'm wrong, but it does seem as though these guys said, "You know what?  I've had enough of the boring transactional work we've been doing for the last 50 years.  Hey, I know!  Let's go into litigation!  Yeah!  That's it!" )

"Indeed, while it was the policy for 'sister missionaries' to stay with a companion at all times, this requirement was excepted so that sister missionaries could meet one-on-one with BISHOP, a sexual predator ..."  Sigh!  Here we go again.  What's that old saying?  "If you're weak on the facts, plead the law.  If you're weak on the law, plead the facts.  If you're weak on both the facts and the law, plead for mercy," or something like that?  (I looked it up: Lawyers are supposed to pound -- "If you're weak on the law, pound the facts; if you're weak on the facts, pound the law; if you're weak on both the law and on the facts, pound the table!" )  It seems as though Denson's lawyers are doing an awful lot of table pounding.

It's as if Plaintiff's attorneys (who, remember, just started in litigation after long and distinguished careers in boring transactional work) said, "We can't simply have 'a short, plain statement of the facts' in the Complaint.  That'll never work!  We've got to seize every opportunity we can to tell everybody what a bad guy Bishop is!": "On information and belief, Plaintiff DENSON asserts that Bishop regularly kicks his dog."  Again, I'm not saying Bishop isn't a bad guy: I'm simply saying that this isn't the way good attorneys usually practice law ... unless they've just left long and distinguished careers in boring transactional work and decided to try their hands at litigation.

I've had enough of reading poorly-drafted complaints for the day ...  Maybe I'll pick this up again later.  But what the he!! do I know?  It's not as though I'll ever practice, or anything!  But, hey!  I do have an absolutely gorgeous diploma ...  Anybody know what gorgeous diplomas from third-tier law schools are going for on e-bay these days??? 

 

 

Good grief! I’ve never practiced law, but I know the difference between “tenet” and “tenant.”  Confusing the two is, in fact, a pet peeve of mine. 

I have some tolerance with those who don’t occupationally rely on written communication skills for their livelihood, but to be a lawyer, don’t you have to be a pretty good writer?

Also, I didn’t know that “comes now the plaintiff” had fallen out of favor. I thought it was essential legalese. I suppose it’s a matter of changing fashion, just like journalists who refer to themselves in copy these days generally go ahead and write in first person as opposed to using the stilted “this writer.”

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

The very reason statutes of limitation and repose exist.

Quaere: would a criminal background check have made a bit of difference in the instant matter?

I understood that Joseph Bishop had previous problems, and was merely suggesting that the former LDS practice of not keeping background information on members was a mistake.  The foolish idea was that since God forgives sins when confessed and repented of, so keeping a record was not necessary.  The Roman Catholics made the same mistake, thus allowing generations of youth to be molested by the same clergymen.

So not just a criminal background check, but also carefully kept records of even private offenses would be of great value.  That comes under the heading of "due diligence," and is an excellent defense in court.

[Calm]

Quote

I understood that Joseph Bishop had previous problems...

Not demonstrated, just claimed.  His "problems" that were detailed were two women who initiated behaviour he just observed as far as info was given (woman removing top in public place, woman flirting with him and a friend).  Undetailed experience as a young missionary which iirc he said he stopped before anything really happened.

He apparently had issues as a boss in terms of equality and may have had hangups about older single women thinking they were lesbians, but hardly anything close to criminal was reported by Jan Taylor (I think that was her name).

Edited June 13, 2018 by Calm

[Thinking]

The thing that saddens me is that there are some who are more concerned with the statute of limitations than finding out the truth of what happened.

[Classicslover]

 

smac97...I think the point being missed here is if females can actually feel safe in any Church setting. There are assumptions made that we should not question our leaders, as well as directives made which tell us to not question our leaders.

Example: Oct. 2017 General Conference Priesthood session, President Eyring's talk entitled The Lord Leads His Church.

Quote: "For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls."

Interesting that since that talk was given the Lord has provided numerous examples where His servants have fallen short in listening to Him in regards to calls.

The West Virginia lawsuit which the Church settled out of court, where local leaders covered up the years long sexual predatory behavior of priesthood holder AND called him on a mission. He got sent home early as I recall.

He should never have been called in the first place.

Rob Porter, resigned from his White House posting in February due to allegations of spousal abuse WHICH had been repeatedly reported to Church leaders who recommended that his wives remain his personal punching bag.

Rob Porter had callings too that he never should have been called to.

The Lamanite Placement Program which resulted in court action for sexual abuse.which the Church failed to get tossed or jurisdiction changed.

If true, the people involved should never have been approved for participation in the program.

And also Joseph Bishop a self-admitted sexual predator.  Should not have been called to a vriety on callings including MTC President.

And Denson's former Bishop Levitt who CLAIMS that all Denson and another woman ever told him about was Bishop making them watch pornography. THAT is not even the story that Bishop told the Police. he told the police that he asked her to show him her breasts.

Which makes  Bishop Leavitt the guy who covers up scandal and should never have been called. 

 

We have seen evidence of a former Mission President in South America using his position of authority to interact in a sexually immoral way with sister missionaries under his care. In that instance he was excommunicated...BUT he had planned ahead, isolated the sister missionaries on island communities and then had his private plane shipped to him so he could visit these isolated young females by himself.

This shows he had a plan in place to sexually assault sister missionaries as soon as he got the calling to serve in that capacity.

The Lord would not enable that. Thus the leaders did NOT listen to the Lord. 

 

Other examples from the past:

 

The Priesthood Ban was NOT revelation. 

 

Brigham Young had no problem with baptizing black people or black men having the priesthood UNTIL he discovered that white women were marrying black men.

 

Brigham Young personally opposed interracial marriage, and he felt the solution to stop white women from marrying black men was to ban the black men from the priesthood, so the white women would know that a black man could not take her to the temple. And he banned black people in general from the temple. That way a white man would also not marry a black woman because he could not take her to the temple. 

 

Anybody who says they are not racist and against interracial marriage is an idiot.

 

And not following the Lord on that point.

 

Another example would be calling male missionaries from the ranks of "social clubs" (pseudo fraternities - in the worst sense) at BYU in the eighties.

My freshman roommates at the time came home from rushing these clubs, bruised and bleeding. They informed me that the members of these clubs were beating them.

I said: "Let me get this straight...they beat you up AND you paid a few hundred dollars in "dues" for them to do this? You should have told me. I would beat you up for half that price."

They complained that I was making it sound stupid.

I informed them that it was indeed stupid.

The Dean of Student Life, charged with attending to school standards violations, had the tires on her car slashed to dissuade her from investigating. She said that parents were calling her from all over wondering why their sons were getting beaten up at the Lord's university. She also informed me that no one would let their name stand as a witness against these  social clubs because they were afraid.

I told that I would happily let my name stand as witness, and I told her what my roommates had told me: party's with drinking and rugs and strippers. Theft. Violations of the law of chastity including sexual assault.

These boys would be dong all of these things one semester, and the leave to serve on their missions for the Church the next semester.

Worthiness interviews are conducted by local leaders BEFORE recommendations for missionary service are forwarded on their behalf to Salt lake City.

So the local bishops and stake presidents FAILED to do due their due diligence. And called the wrong people to serve.

These pseudo frat boys didn't even have a desire to serve the Lord. They wanted to serve a mission because it looked good on their resumes.

How many of them now hold jobs in the Church office building?

The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles don't question the work of local leaders, or the presidency of the seventies or the seventies. They just throw their support behind them. CREATING the perfect atmosphere for abuse and racism.

This, in spite of scriptures which warn about unrighteous dominion.

In the Doctrine and Covenants Section 121, we read: 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

That whole "almost all men" part proclaims it as the rule rather than the exception.

The problem is that authorities up the line in the Church act like such things are a rare exception. When loyalty to local Church leadership allows evil to continue then it is an evil loyalty.

And thus evil flourishes.

 

They ALSO ignore the Lord's warning about wolves among the flock.

 

The Lord saw all of this coming...and our leaders stick their heads in the sand.

 

And then advise US to stick our heads in the sand as well.

In his talk, President Eyring goes on to quote President James E. Faust:

I try not to judge servants of the Lord or to speak of their apparent weaknesses. And I try to teach that by example to my children. President James E. Faust shared a credo that I am trying to make my own. I commend it to you:

“We … need to support and sustain our local leaders, because they … have been ‘called and chosen.’ Every member of this Church may receive counsel from a bishop or a branch president, a stake or a mission president, and the President of the Church and his associates. None of these brethren asked for his calling. None is perfect. Yet they are the servants of the Lord, called by Him through those entitled to inspiration. Those called, sustained, and set apart are entitled to our sustaining support.

“… Disrespect for ecclesiastical leaders has caused many to suffer spiritual weakening and downfall. We should look past any perceived imperfections, warts, or spots of the men called to preside over us, and uphold the office which they hold” (“Called and Chosen,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2005, 54–55).

 

I wonder...

 

Was it an "imperfection" or a "wart" or a "spot" which caused Bishop Allred to counsel the murder and participate in the murder of 30 some Native Americans in the Circleville Massacre?

 

Suspend disbelief for a moment and consider: "what if" a member of the Paoute Koosharem Band in April 1851, being peaceful and friendly, had email access to a random member of the Quorum of the 70 and said that local leadership in the form of Bishop William Jackson Allred was exercising unrighteous dominion and wanted that 70 to intercede on his behalf before Bishop Allred destroyed lives?

 

Then that 70 has his secretary respond: "He has asked me to tell you that he is not in a position to address your concerns. The proper priesthood line of authority is your Bishop, Stake President, Area Seventy, etc.. Please call the main phone line in the Church and they will give you the name of your Bishop, and will be able to put you in touch with him. Ask that he place you in contact with the Stake President. who should be able to put you in touch with the member of the presidency of the 70 over your area. Warmest Regards."

 

Elder Faust's original talk that President Eyring quoted from contains a qualifier in order to be both called and chosen: "We are called when hands are laid upon our heads and we are given the priesthood, but we are not chosen until we have demonstrated to God our righteousness, our faithfulness, and our commitment."

 

President Eyring left that part out, setting a dangerous precedent which invites silence in victims afraid to question local authority.

 

So how does a woman actually feel safe in the Church?

 

No one at Church protects them

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The thing that saddens me is that there are some who are more concerned with the statute of limitations than finding out the truth of what happened.

You don't have to like it, but statutes of limitations exist for very good reason: If you were accused of wrongdoing, you wouldn't want that accusation to hang over your head like the Sword of Damocles until many years after the alleged occurrence, when someone finally decides its a good time to cut the thread and allow the sword to fall on you.  And another reason why statutes of limitations exist is because the more time passes, the more difficult it is to find "the truth of what happened": Memories fade, evidence degrades, witnesses sometimes perish.  So you can say, "Eh, statute, schmatute!  All I want is 'the truth'!"  But the very reason for the statute is because ascertaining "the truth" becomes much more difficult under those circumstances.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Classicslover,

You seem to be confused about the subject of this thread, which is the allegations by McKenna Denson against Joseph Bishop.  Happy to set you straight.  No problem.  You're welcome.

-Kenngo1969

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

smac97...I think the point being missed here is if females can actually feel safe in any Church setting.

I think it is fairly unreasonable to suggest that women are unsafe because Joseph Bishop engaged in misconduct 30+ years ago.

The Church has strong policies in place to mitigate risks of misconduct.  Two-deep leadership presence at activities, bishops being chaperoned, zero tolerance policy for abuse, etc.

4 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

There are assumptions made that we should not question our leaders, as well as directives made which tell us to not question our leaders.

I don't think anyone is saying "we should not question our leaders."

4 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

We have seen evidence of a former Mission President in South America using his position of authority to interact in a sexually immoral way with sister missionaries under his care. In that instance he was excommunicated...BUT he had planned ahead, isolated the sister missionaries on island communities and then had his private plane shipped to him so he could visit these isolated young females by himself.

This shows he had a plan in place to sexually assault sister missionaries as soon as he got the calling to serve in that capacity.

The Lord would not enable that. Thus the leaders did NOT listen to the Lord. 

 

With respect, I don't think we can say that definitively (I would be curious how you account for Jesus calling Judas to be an apostle).

Quote

Other examples from the past:

The Priesthood Ban was NOT revelation. 

Brigham Young had no problem with baptizing black people or black men having the priesthood UNTIL he discovered that white women were marrying black men.

Brigham Young personally opposed interracial marriage, and he felt the solution to stop white women from marrying black men was to ban the black men from the priesthood, so the white women would know that a black man could not take her to the temple. And he banned black people in general from the temple. That way a white man would also not marry a black woman because he could not take her to the temple. 

Anybody who says they are not racist and against interracial marriage is an idiot.

And not following the Lord on that point.

Not particularly on-topic.

Quote

Another example would be calling male missionaries from the ranks of "social clubs" (pseudo fraternities - in the worst sense) at BYU in the eighties.
SNIP

Again, not particularly on-topic.

Quote

Was it an "imperfection" or a "wart" or a "spot" which caused Bishop Allred to counsel the murder and participate in the murder of 30 some Native Americans in the Circleville Massacre?

SNIP

Not particularly on-topic.

Quote

So how does a woman actually feel safe in the Church?

 

No one at Church protects them

I don't think you are accurately summarizing things here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

25 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

 

So how does a woman actually feel safe in the Church?

 

No one at Church protects them

NO one? Do you expect anyone to take what you have to say seriously now?  I have been on Denson's side, although I think this dispassionate analysis is demonstrating that she doesn't have much to go on when it comes to legal remedies. The more time that passes, emotion has less impact. And I don't know that I put aside her leaking her own tape after initially denying it. 

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The thing that saddens me is that there are some who are more concerned with the statute of limitations than finding out the truth of what happened.

They are two separate issues, imo. There is the legal discussion and the historical one as in what he can be held accountable for legally and what he really did. 

I would love be for there to be more evidence that could establish truth, but that doesn’t change the limits of what we have. 

I think there is a high chance he was a predator prior to the MTC,I also think there is currently no way to prove this without more evidence appearing. The tape does not provide details of predation and Denson would have no personal knowledge of it nor would the second victim. 

[Thinking]

19 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You don't have to like it, but statutes of limitations exist for very good reason: If you were accused of wrongdoing, you wouldn't want that accusation to hang over your head like the Sword of Damocles until many years after the alleged occurrence, when someone finally decides its a good time to cut the thread and allow the sword to fall on you.  And another reason why statutes of limitations exist is because the more time passes, the more difficult it is to find "the truth of what happened": Memories fade, evidence degrades, witnesses sometimes perish.  So you can say, "Eh, statute, schmatute!  All I want is 'the truth'!"  But the very reason for the statute is because ascertaining "the truth" becomes much more difficult under those circumstances.

You don't have to like it, but this case is about more than just what the LDS Church is legally obligated to do. However, it seems that some posters are only concerned with the legal obligations but not the moral ones. Do you think the Church has any obligations besides the legal ones?

I hope the Church is true to its word in its March 23, 2018 news release.

Quote

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.

One more question: Do the laws of God have statutes of limitations?

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

You don't have to like it, but this case is about more than just what the LDS Church is legally obligated to do. However, it seems that some posters are only concerned with the legal obligations but not the moral ones. Do you think the Church has any obligations besides the legal ones?

I hope the Church is true to its word in its March 23, 2018 news release.

One more question: Do the laws of God have statutes of limitations?

Those are all excellent questions, probably better explored in another thread.  (And I note with keen interest that you conveniently sidestepped the issue of how you would feel if an old allegation were allowed to hang over your head by a thread (hey, that rhymes! ) indefinitely.  (You're not required to comment, of course, but I do think your silence is telling.)  Cheers!  

Edited June 13, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

Classics lover, you have some facts wrong in your claims.  It weakens the credibility of your claims, so if you are interested in being persuasive I would suggest greater care to show greater familiarity with the cases. 

Puerto Rico is not South America. Also the excuse the MP gave for sending for his private plane was the delay in service to smaller islands. He might not have been aware of this beforehand. If not, it is unlikely he would have had such a plausible excuse for using his own plane. 

Denson was the only one who told Leavitt anything. He reported she told him about her and another sister, not that the other sister also reported Bishop showing her porn. 

In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Rob Porter’s second wife stated she didn’t have the language to explain the abuse to her bishop and he was the one who suggested or helped her with a restraining order. So I would like to see documentation where she stated she was told to stay with him after telling her bishop she was punched.  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

You don't have to like it, but this case is about more than just what the LDS Church is legally obligated to do.

With respect, I disagree.  It's only about what the LDS Church is legally obligated to do.

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

However, it seems that some posters are only concerned with the legal obligations but not the moral ones.

I don't think that the Church's moral obligations are part of the lawsuit.

I am curious what you think those obligations involve.

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Do you think the Church has any obligations besides the legal ones?

Certainly.

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I hope the Church is true to its word in its March 23, 2018 news release.

Could you provide a link?

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

One more question: Do the laws of God have statutes of limitations?

I don't think so.  What "laws of God" do you think the Church has breached here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

... I think there is a high chance he was a predator prior to the MTC,I also think there is currently no way to prove this without more evidence appearing. The tape does not provide details of predation and Denson would have no personal knowledge of it nor would the second victim. 

And even if the tape did provide such details, it's hearsay, and the manner in which it was procured raises other evidentiary problems.