Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

So it is a rumor.  

We should stop referring it to as a fact until we have other confirmation from at least a somewhat credible source

too much speculation as it is.

 

 

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

I heard it from a source I consider credible. He would be stupid not to, an excommunication would support the idea he did something very wrong.  

Ok Danzo....I see what is happening tbere are various sources. I was not aware of a source as credible as Juliann references.

[Classicslover]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sounds like you're speculating.  Moreover, I have some doubts that "she would have been satisfied."

McKenna Denson, 55, said she opted to take legal action after becoming fed up that local church leaders failed to take disciplinary action despite reporting the allegations several times over three decades. She said her experience illustrates systematic problems in the church with sexual abuse claims. - Reported by every news source The Trib, the New York Post, etc. on April 5th 2018.

I can give evidence of leaders failing to take disciplinary action despite reporting allegations several times over decades. It does happen.

Examples: 

 

"When we think of false prophets and false teachers, we tend to think of those who espouse an obviously false doctrine or presume to have authority to teach the true gospel of Christ according to their own interpretation."  Prophets and False Teachers M. Russell Ballard Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, October 1999

As Joseph Fielding Smith stated: "Should a man speak or write and what he says is in conflict with the standards which are accepted, with the revelations the Lord has given, then we may reject what he has said no matter who he is." (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:187)

Striving to grow spiritually in spite of my  lack of mission, I prayed for opportunities to use the priesthood.  Several times over the next few weeks I was specifically asked  to be the conduit for blessings of healing and comfort

A member of the bishopric told me that Satan had answered my prayer. I guess in his mind, Satan is all about helping people?  I told him that the Lord had answered my prayer.

The bishop held a special combined Young Single Adult and Young Adult Relief Society lesson AND a Sunday School lesson AND he crashed a combined YSA/YA Family Home Evening ALL to tell everybody that they shouldn't get blessings from "people like me".

How racist and abusive is that?

The bishop stated that there should be a Church disciplinary council for me for disagreeing with him.

I had found a talk by Elder Russel M. Nelson from that past April Conference: "Some aspects of of the priesthood are not related to position or title. Authority to administer a priesthood blessing, for example, is dependent only on ordination and worthiness. The Lord would not withhold blessings from any of His children for want of one with a particular calling. Every elder in the Church holds the same priesthood as the President of the Church."

This talk was entitled "HONORING THE PRIESTHOOD", and the subheading stated that "President Ezra Taft Benson has specifically asked us to follow proper priesthood protocol."

The bishop's reply? "Well...that's not how we do things around here."

D&C 64:40 "And even the bishop, who is a judge, and his counselors, if they are not faithful in their stewardships shall be condemned, and others shall be planted in their places."

Pretty simple and straight forward, right?

So I took the matter to the stake president.

The Stake President stated that since the bishop was the bishop he HAD to support him and he suggested that I do as well.

AND THEN HE THREATENED ME.

The Stake President told me that I was wresting the scriptures to my own destruction, and that it WASN'T IN MY BEST INTEREST to make an issue of this.

Brigham Young said: "How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the Spirit yourselves. That is your privilege." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pg. 368  

Elder L. Tom Perry stated: "Rest assured that when the so-called enlightened doctrines of men contradict the holy scriptures, they will only bring heartache, disappointment, and destruction to the souls of mankind." C.R. May 1993 pg.92
I stood my ground. I stated that I was in perfect harmony with what Elder Nelson had specified and with what President Benson had specifically asked, but they were not. I also stated that a person never has to support ANYBODY teaching false doctrine. In fact...

A stake president "carries the very heavy responsibility of seeing that the doctrine taught in the stake is kept pure and unsullied. It is his duty to see that there is no false doctrine that is taught nor false practice that occurs." The Stake President by President Gordon B. HInckley April 2000

Whoa! EPIC FAIL!

I sent all of this evidence to the Church office building. Several people. Registered mail. Email. Fax.

I have it on record that I sent this all in a fax letter to President Hinckley Monday April 11th, 1994.

His secretary, no doubt, passed it down the line to people who were deceived into the believing the lies of the racist bishop and stake president and nothing was done. And because of this, my life has gotten worse.

They slandered me by lying about me, indulged in backbiting and gossip and the hatred has continued for many years. Up to an including criminal acts, including counselling a crime a against me and obstruction of justice.

These were admitted to in email correspondence.

Sadly, the police around here are even more racist than the local Church leaders.

The abuse hotline is directly tied to bishops and stake presidents.

How is that even remotely helpful when they are the abusive problem? 

Plus, the abuse hotline stated that racist abuse wasn't REALLY abuse. According to local authorities who spoke with them.

The point being that abuse is still being practiced by local church leaders and it is still being ignored up the line in the Church.

What is abuse according to the Church?

Abuse is the mistreatment or neglect of others...in a way that causes physical, emotional, or sexual harm. Abuse causes confusion, doubt, mistrust, and fear in the victims and sometimes inflicts physical injury. Most, but not all, allegations of abuse are true, and should be taken seriously and handled with great care. Abuse tends to become more severe over time. The Lord condemns abusive behavior in any form—

Church leaders and members should follow these guidelines when responding to abuse: 

• When abuse occurs, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse. Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe. 

• Church leaders and members should be caring, compassionate, and sensitive when working with victims and perpetrators and their families. 

• Church leaders should never disregard a report of abuse or counsel a member not to report criminal activity to law enforcement personnel. 

So how DOES one get past the blind support of local Church leaders by general authorities?

I already know that the court cannot force change within a church.

So what will bring about change?

One thing is that everybody can stop being in lockstep in blind obedience, and stand up for truth.

 

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

 

Ok Danzo....I see what is happening tbere are various sources. I was not aware of a source as credible as Juliann references.

What is the source?

I just can't go around saying it happened because someone named juliann (who as far as I know doesn't associate with Bishop)  says so.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I heard it from a source I consider credible. He would be stupid not to, an excommunication would support the idea he did something very wrong.  

can you share your source?

I don't necessarily disbelieve you (certainly wouldn't surprise me if it happened), I don't like repeating things (or even accepting they are true) without some verification.

 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

McKenna Denson, 55, said she opted to take legal action after becoming fed up that local church leaders failed to take disciplinary action despite reporting the allegations several times over three decades.

So she says.  I'm not sure that's altogether accurate.

27 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

She said her experience illustrates systematic problems in the church with sexual abuse claims. - Reported by every news source The Trib, the New York Post, etc. on April 5th 2018.

Again, so she says.

27 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

I can give evidence of leaders failing to take disciplinary action despite reporting allegations several times over decades. It does happen.

I know there are times when this happens.  I question, however, if there is a "systematic" problem in the Church, as Denson alleges.

For example, consider this recent story:

Quote

An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.

...

The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . the Church's policies and procedures.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

So the Church already has some pretty good safeguards in place.  The Law of Chastity.  Clear policies for when priesthood leaders are meeting with youth or women (they are to be chaperoned).  A published-to-the-world "zero tolerance" policy for abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.  A helpline staffed with lawyers to help local leaders navigate legal complexities that can arise.

Sadly, there are still bad people in the world who will work to circumvest these safeguards.  

27 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Examples: 

SNIP

Such copy-and-paste posts, particularly where you fail to provide citations/links, are not appropriate for this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Classicslover]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Such copy-and-paste posts, particularly where you fail to provide citations/links, are not appropriate for this board.

Thanks,

 -Smac

I actually wrote it elsewhere so I wouldn't have to edit as I go, here. hence the copy and paste. So it is appropriate, as  this is MY history. My experience.

Straight from the source.

Now, you seem sensitive to speculation...calling out people for it...and yet...

You stated that "Moreover, I have some doubts that "she would have been satisfied."

TOTAL speculation on your part!

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So she says.  I'm not sure that's altogether accurate.

MORE speculation. And BIAS.

You KNOW Bishop is sketchy. You've admitted that. But you continually paint this McKenna Denson as dishonest and  greedy with not but speculation on your part.

Until you have evidence that she is lying then the stated church policy is to believe her.

Remember? The policy states that Church leaders AND MEMBERS should be caring, compassionate and sensitive...

Please explain your obvious bias.

  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

I actually wrote it elsewhere so I wouldn't have to edit as I go, here. hence the copy and paste. So it is appropriate, as  this is MY history. My experience.

Straight from the source.

Now, you seem sensitive to speculation...calling out people for it...and yet...

You stated that "Moreover, I have some doubts that "she would have been satisfied."

TOTAL speculation on your part!

A bit, I suppose.  

3 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

You KNOW Bishop is sketchy. You've admitted that. But you continually paint this McKenna Denson as dishonest and  greedy with not but speculation on your part.

I've stated that both have substantial credibility problems.

3 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Until you have evidence that she is lying then the stated church policy is to believe her.

At the moment, I'm tending toward believing Ron Leavitt.  I think she reported what Leavitt recounts (Bishop took Denson and another sister missionary to the basement room and showed them pornography), that he (Leavitt) did not find her claims credible and therefore did not report them to the Church or to law enforcement, and also that he did not arrange for a meeting between Denson and Elder Asay.

In other words, at present I am inclined to conclude that Denson was molested or otherwise subjected to serious misconduct by Joseph Bishop, but not to the extent that it was rape or attempted rape.  If we go by what Leavitt states she disclosed, then that goes a long way for me in terms of reconciling Denson's claims with my reservations about those claims.  What Leavitt states she disclosed to him about Bishop was something profoundly sinful and wrong, but not rape or attempted rape.  The rape claim, then, became an embellishment on the (still very wrong) misconduct that did occur.  It grew over time.  

But I'm not wedded to that conclusion.  We'll see what happens.

This is, in my view, the best assessment of the evidence at hand.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Classicslover]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At the moment, I'm tending toward believing Ron Leavitt

I can see why you would think that...at one time I would have too.

But with my own experience of dismissive and lying local leaders geared to protect other leaders, I am far less certain. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think Joseph L. Bishop is in denial. He expressed that it was not in the basement but near the cafeteria? And doesn't remember the rape happening. He only remembers the less damaging parts. . 

Except he is not talking about the alleged rape, but him asking a woman to expose herself which Denson states happened to another victim.  There is nothing that requires him to have taken both women to the same room.  He could have taken Denson to the basement and the second victim to the cafeteria prep room.  (I am trying to remember if Denson was definite in her knowledge about what happened to the other known victim or if I have put a stronger link on it than there is and this episode could be evidence of a third victim instead of explaining what happened to the second one...if the former, it might explain why apparently no further investigation was done in 2010 if what the second victim shared was the private inappropriate counseling session, him taking her into his home after the apparent suicide attempt and the 'frisky' backrub...all inappropriate, but nowhere near a rape claim oreven sexual assault if the backrub was consensual).

As far as only remembering less damaging parts...I would like to hear from an expert if that is at all likely.  More likely imo if he is a rapist, he is lucid enough to know that acknowledging rape will get him ostracized from society and family even if nothing criminal or civil can be done due to statue of limitations while admitting to sexual coercion is more likely to be blown off as no big deal if consensual or it is a confused memory with the story of the woman in the hot tub/spring who took off her top.  His son's description of him just being a confused old man who was too uptight about purity when he was just "male" shows how easily such an admission can be blown off.  And his instant rejection as soon as "rape" was mentioned in the recording while going along with "molestation" is either indicative imo of not being a rapist or knowing that is not a line society will allow to be crossed (that he was comfortable with "molest" and "sexual addiction" raises a red flag for me, most would not be).

And if he is not a rapist, then there is good reason for him to deny it and only admit to the sexual coercion. I assume is not a confusion or creation as he was quite coherent in the recording when it was him talking about his experiences.  Confusion was there when he was trying to follow her conversation similar to someone hard of hearing who is only catching some of the words; those with mild dementia---as was reported for him by anonymous sources and imo is shown in the recording--need time for the words to be absorbed, but once absorbed have full understanding in my experience...though of course there will be much variation; when that time is not given, they will jump to odd conclusions and thus make odd statements to fill in the gaps rather than admitting they aren't following in order to hide their disability).

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Classicslover said:

McKenna Denson, 55, said she opted to take legal action after becoming fed up that local church leaders failed to take disciplinary action despite reporting the allegations several times over three decades. She said her experience illustrates systematic problems in the church with sexual abuse claims. - Reported by every news source The Trib, the New York Post, etc. on April 5th 2018.

You need to use quotes and links when referencing. Otherwise it comes off as plagiarism to those of us trained that way.   For example:

Quote

McKenna Denson, 55, said she opted to take legal action after becoming fed up that local church leaders failed to take disciplinary action despite reporting the allegations several times over three decades. She said her experience illustrates systematic problems in the church with sexual abuse claims

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/05/woman-sues-mormon-church-alleging-rape-by-leader-in-1980s.html

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Quote

At the moment, I'm tending toward believing Ron Leavitt

I can see why you would think that...at one time I would have too.

I'm not sure you understand my position.  It's not based on a reflexive or defensive assessment.  It's based on a number of factors, including:

• Bishop's admissions to the BYU Police (which bolster, to an extent, Denson's allegation of misconduct);
• Bishop's errors in his admissions to the BYU Police (which raise concerns about his mental competency/lucidity, and hence concerns about the probative value of his confessions);
• Some portions of Bishop's admissions during Denson's recording of him (which bolster, to an extent, Denson's allegations misconduct);
• Various portions of Denson's recording of Bishop where his lucidity is in doubt (which raise concerns about the probative value of his confessions);
• Ron Leavitt's public statements;
• The absence of any forensic or corroborating evidence (as to the rape claim);
• Bishop's lack of criminal history or of other accusations of violent sexual assault;
• Denson's prior history of false rape claim(s) (at least one she has admitted to, and more than that as alleged by her ex-husband and another family member);
• Denson's history of using false claims for financial gain (her claims against the restaurant, which give rise to concerns about her credibility/honesty); and
• Denson's various instances of serious misconduct and dishonesty (her threat to murder Joseph Bishop, her identity fraud charges, etc., which give rise to concerns about her credibility/honesty).

There are a few other factors for me as well.  

5 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

But with my own experience of dismissive and lying local leaders geared to protect other leaders, I am far less certain. 

Such prejudices are, sadly, something we need to work on.

Imagine if someone came along and said something corollary to what you say above, but about McKenna Denson.  "She's made a rape claim.  But with my own experience with women, they are all liars, so I am far less certain."  How would that play out, do you think?  Is that a reasoned or reasonable assessment?

I am sorry that you have had a bad experience with some Mormon leaders.  That does not mean they are all "dismissive and lying," though.  I hope you reconsider that conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Classicslover]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The Stake President stated that since the bishop was the bishop he HAD to support him and he suggested that I do as well.

Excellent council

No.

Not "excellent council".

Curious...did you somehow miss the many admonitions the Lord Himself made in the scriptures regarding "wolves among the flock" or His declaration about "unrighteous dominion"?

If so, let me summarize for you: Those things are bad. IN fact, they are excommunication offenses.

So that would mean that the gospel according to cdowis is wrong. And cdowis is also teaching false doctrine.

Clearly according to the scriptures and the standards given by general authorities,  is this...

1 hour ago, Classicslover said:

A stake president "carries the very heavy responsibility of seeing that the doctrine taught in the stake is kept pure and unsullied. It is his duty to see that there is no false doctrine that is taught nor false practice that occurs." The Stake President by President Gordon B. HInckley April 2000

 Now, what the bishop stated was false doctrine and NOT supporting what Elder Nelson stated:

1 hour ago, Classicslover said:

"Some aspects of of the priesthood are not related to position or title. Authority to administer a priesthood blessing, for example, is dependent only on ordination and worthiness. The Lord would not withhold blessings from any of His children for want of one with a particular calling. Every elder in the Church holds the same priesthood as the President of the Church."

So clearly the stake president's duty was to support WHAT ELDER NELSON STATED.

I was supporting the apostle's higher authority.

The stake president was not.

Therefore, I was not at fault.

19 minutes ago, cdowis said:

AND THEN HE THREATENED ME.

A knife, a gun, excommunication, tell your mommy?

If he had threatened me with a gun or a knife, I simply would have beaten the stuffings out of him and then had him arrested.

If he had "told my Mommy" she would have tossed the idiot out of the house.

He was offended because I, a mere Native American had dared suggest he was wrong. So he threatened me with excommunication. Which was an empty threat, as he would have had to explain his rational to higher authorities and he didn't want them to look to closely into his personal little "unrighteous dominion". 

No humility on his part at all.  

And for the record: racist.

And bullying too...the only way the little wimp could.

26 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The Stake President told me that I was wresting the scriptures to my own destruction, and that it WASN'T IN MY BEST INTEREST to make an issue of this.

Basically he was telling you, "Leave this up to me.  Trust me to handle it."

Curious as to how your reading comprehension came to THAT conclusion?

I read to the bishop AND to the stake president the will of the Lord through Elder Nelson. The bishop was speaking in OPPOSITION to Elder Nelson. Teaching false doctrine.

And the stake president said he was doing nothing, as he chose to support the false doctrine.

(Psst! Just a reminder, that's SATAN'S way!)

37 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I stood my ground. I stated that I was in perfect harmony with what Elder Nelson had specified and with what President Benson had specifically asked, but they were not. I also stated that a person never has to support ANYBODY teaching false doctrine. In fact...

Did God tell you and give you the authority to reprimand the leaders of the church?  Or is it your duty to report it and to leave it to them.

 Brigham Young, here in part: "Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." Brigham Young, “Eternal Punishment,” Journal of Discourses, "

Brigham Young on this topic was also quoted by Harold B. Lee. He added: "To me, there is a tremendous truth. It is not alone sufficient for us as Latter-day Saints to follow our leaders and to accept their counsel, but we have the greater obligation to gain for ourselves the unshakable testimony of [1] the divine appointment of these men and [2] the witness that what they have told us is the will of our Heavenly Father." Brigham Young Blind Obedience Is Not What the Prophets Want Quoted by Elder Harold B. Lee of the Quorum of the Twelve in Teachings of the Living Prophets, p. 47; Conference Report, Oct. 1950, pp. 129-130.

36 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You should have taken the SP's advice.  You are in self destruct mode. 

Those who follow Satan are in self-destruct mode. Even when they are bishops and stake presidents. Actually, ESPECIALLY if they are bishops and stake presidents and other church leaders.

I refuse to follow those who follow Satan.

You, cdowis, are saying I should  ignore my own agency and follow those who follow Satan.

Denial of agency was Satan's plan.

[Classicslover]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

You need to use quotes and links when referencing. Otherwise it comes off as plagiarism to those of us trained that way.   For example:

I actually tried with both the Trib and the New York Post...but I had already exceeded my "free" articles for the month in both cases.

[Classicslover]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Such prejudices are, sadly, something we need to work on.

Imagine if someone came along and said something corollary to what you say above, but about McKenna Denson.  "She's made a rape claim.  But with my own experience with women, they are all liars, so I am far less certain."  How would that play out, do you think?  Is that a reasoned or reasonable assessment?

I am sorry that you have had a bad experience with some Mormon leaders.  That does not mean they are all "dismissive and lying," though.  I hope you reconsider that conclusion

Actually, since the eighties there have been several false sexual abuse/rape allegations particularly noted in California in regards to child custody hearings. "He did..." whatever the accusation is "so I should get full custody as well as more money." It was known as the nuclear option, as it did great damage and had a lot of fallout.

So I hear you. it is possible she is lying.

I hear you on the prejudices issue as well.

I recognize that most of what I experienced was fueled by racism...so others would not have the identical experience with the identical leaders.

But I also know of a white family locally where a missionary sexually abused the teenage daughter, and the  missionary got protected,  and the family was harassed to remain silent.

They eventually left the Church.

Thus I am more open to the possibility that Leavitt may have covered things up.

Especially considering it was Bishop he was talking about.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Classicslover said:

I actually tried with both the Trib and the New York Post...but I had already exceeded my "free" articles for the month in both cases.

You can provide links to articles without having access to them (I do that with familiar articles from the Trib when google takes me there, but I am blocked).  Even if you don't provide a link, you must put words others write in quotes.  Otherwise it appears you are paraphrasing instead of quoting and that violates board rules (see guidelines:  "Posting copyrighted material or passing off other’s materials as your own")

Quoting is easily done by clicking the quote option in the reply box  and then just pasting into the box that shows up or just typing " ".

It is helpful to know what are referenced words vs paraphrases.  Paraphrases often get things wrong, so I almost always check.  If I know it is a quote, I don't have to, though I may want to check context.  The board has developed policies over time to help posters who are serious about research, it can be seen as demanding by newbies, but it is a useful benefit for educational purposes (and I believe we should all be continually trying to expand knowledge and understanding and helping others to do so as well).

PS:  I would be providing links and quotes for all my referenced, except I have done it in multiple threads already and it would crowd things up.  I am assuming people know what .I am talking about, will post references if less well known.  As I said before, ask for any references you want

Speaking of references, Danzo, will look for claim of resignation instead of excommunication of Bishop later, got a birthday party I want to attend.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Classicslover]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

You can provide links to articles without having access to them (I do that with the Trib when google takes me there).  Even if you don't provide a link, you must put words others write in quotes.  Otherwise it appears you are paraphrasing instead of quoting and that violates board rules (see guidelines:  "Posting copyrighted material or passing off other’s materials as your own")

Quoting is easily done by clicking the quote option in the reply box  and then just pasting into the box that shows up or just typing " ".

It is helpful to know what are referenced words vs paraphrases.  Paraphrases often get things wrong, so I almost always check.  If I know it is a quote, I don't have to, though I may want to check context.  The board has developed policies over time to help posters who are serious about research, it can be seen as demanding by newbies, but it is a useful benefit for educational purposes (and I believe we should all be continually trying to expand knowledge and understanding and helping others to do so as well).

Ah! I see! Thank-you so very much! I feel more educated already!

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Actually, since the eighties there have been several false sexual abuse/rape allegations particularly noted in California in regards to child custody hearings. "He did..." whatever the accusation is "so I should get full custody as well as more money." It was known as the nuclear option, as it did great damage and had a lot of fallout.

So I hear you. it is possible she is lying.

Or embellishing.

35 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

I hear you on the prejudices issue as well.

I recognize that most of what I experienced was fueled by racism...so others would not have the identical experience with the identical leaders.

But I also know of a white family locally where a missionary sexually abused the teenage daughter, and the  missionary got protected,  and the family was harassed to remain silent.

They eventually left the Church.

Thus I am more open to the possibility that Leavitt may have covered things up.

Especially considering it was Bishop he was talking about.

Leavitt should have reported the allegation of abuse.  Full stop.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Classicslover]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

You will find this helpful.

By their fruits ye shall know them. Judging the teachings by their fruits. The Lord's house of a house of order. Means that one should not follow bishops or stake presidents who run a muck. Who are out of order.

No one can be appointed to a church office without the vote of the church.

Satan had deceived the bishop and stake president to go against Elder Nelson.

Principles of order. Which means both the bishop and the stake president were supposed to support Elder Nelson. Like I did.  

Many spirits which are false spirits. Satan has sought to deceive. And it worked on the bishop and stake president.

Members (including bishops and stake presidents) are not to teach from their own unauthorized doctrine, they are to teach from the scriptures.

Opposing the prophet is what the bishop was doing and what the stake president supported. IN this case, literally...because Elder Nelson became THE prophet.

What exactly is your point? If I may ask?

[juliann]

12 hours ago, Danzo said:

Do you have a reference to him resigning? Not that I disbelieve you, just want to make sure I can back it up if I repeat it.

I don't even remember, just people on FB that were closer to it than some Reddit rumormonger. That won't give you any solid information, but it convinced me. 

[juliann]

On 6/13/2018 at 8:15 PM, Classicslover said:

Yep. Good rule.  And yes, personal experience is huge. As a mixed race visible minority, my experience is not like that of my entirely white ward members. Okay...actually...the sisters in the Church can relate quite a bit. Because often their concerns and opinions are treated dismissively as well.

But I have also experienced having my membership records sent out of the ward...having more than one racist bishop and stake president deliberately mess up my romantic relationships with white women. Including wreaking my marriage.

Over the years all of my letters faxes emails and phone calls to Church headquarters fell on deaf ears. Or blind eyes.

The local leaders even refused to send in mission papers for me because they knew the "Only marry a returned missionary" mantra that LDS females learn in the womb.

I'm one of those who is in the Church because I REALLY know it's true.

In spite of the idiots.

I'm sorry that happened to you. I've heard many credible stories that are heartbreaking. I hold out hope that we are all becoming more enlightened. Having been in the situation of having to sue, I had to learn about courts the hard way. It isn't about justice, it is about who can work the rules to their advantage. And after seeing the legal analysis here, I don't think Denson has a strong legal position even though I believe Bishop was a predator and she was a victim. I'm not too concerned about whether it was rape or not, it was still reprehensible. Once it is in a lawsuit though, it does matter. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

I don't even remember, just people on FB that were closer to it than some Reddit rumormonger. That won't give you any solid information, but it convinced me. 

I am remembering one of them said he was his brother-in-law, but that might have been Reddit and thus no way to check identity claim.

Found my source, it is someone different from .juliann's, but same rules apply.  Private group, knew some of us were discussing that.  Very trusty individual with nothing to gain by sharing the info but trying to help some friends.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Calm

[Classicslover]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

I'm sorry that happened to you. I've heard many credible stories that are heartbreaking. I hold out hope that we are all becoming more enlightened. Having been in the situation of having to sue, I had to learn about courts the hard way. It isn't about justice, it is about who can work the rules to their advantage. And after seeing the legal analysis here, I don't think Denson has a strong legal position even though I believe Bishop was a predator and she was a victim. I'm not too concerned about whether it was rape or not, it was still reprehensible. Once it is in a lawsuit though, it does matter. 

You are right, of course. In my mind and heart she shouldn't have to sue to get justice and closure. Really puts a damper on missionary efforts too. "So, your Church did what again now? Tried to get the judge to dismiss? Really? Whatever happened to all of that compassion and talk about helping victims to heal? And aren't they sexist and racist as well?"

And I have to say..."Well...yeah. But not all of them!"

I also tend to add something like..."King David was an adulterous murderer. People weren't jumping up and down saying the church wasn't true because of that."

I am so sorry to hear that you were put into a lawsuit position whatever the circumstance.

I am of the opinion, in regards to dealing with the Church, there has to be  better way to accomplish having them take responsibility and hold people accountable and make reparations and restitution.

It's almost like people up the line are keeping things from the apostles, because the instinct is to believe that they would not allow a great many of things being done in the Lord's name. 

[Calm]

When the second victim came forward in 2010, she was given professional counseling as well as emotional support from her leaders.  If she is the one who attempted suicide and moved into his home, nothing criminal occurred that could be turned over to the police.  Not even sure if at the time a woman being asked to remove her top who did would have been seen as sexual coercion.  Bishop denied whatever allegations were made.  No details on what they were are given.

When Denson first report being disturbed (the false rape claim on her mission), she was brought into a supportive home and a therapist was provided her to provide counsel.  She refused to say anything meaningful by her own account, she was given another opportunity to speak up to Monson and while she gave no details, she was sent out to Wisconsin.  She said nothing in complaining they didn't listen to her.

----

In both cases the very first responses to the sisters appear to have been emotional support and counseling.  In one case, the second victim accepted it; in Denson's case she refuse for whatever reason...and she gave them no reason to assume her issues had anything to do with a church leader.  

What else could they have done in Denson case from the beginning that they did not do?

Once she finally decided to share and went to her YA bishop...he appears to have blown it if he isn't lying...perhaps he was told by her that she had a chance to tell Elder Monson and didn't take it, which weakened the story for him.  If he didn't blow it and is for some misguided reason lying now and instead he did treat her story seriously, then she got everything she asked for at that time from Church leaders, which was an interview with Elder Asay...at which times she states she did not tell him about the rape and so they did not respond to deal with an alleged rape since they had no knowledge of it.

In 2010 her approach to the Church is to tell them she has a gun and is going to kill Bishop.  She finally tells them Bishop raped her.  The leaders question Bishop, he denies all.  The police are told, but as far as leaders can tell have no interest.  If police have no interest to even contact/question Church leaders, leaders may decide it means that it was most likely a woman having some sort of breakdown or surely the police would be contacting them to ask questions about how to find Bishop, what his role was, verify she was a missionary at the time, etc..  It is also quite possible counseling was offered as it was the other woman, but perhaps after the death threat , they felt it best not to antagonize her by contact.

If you accept her claims, unless there is information she shared then that she did not share now...which would be strange, I am not sure what the Church should have done that it did not do.  It offered counseling she refused.  She describes having two chances to tell about the rape to two different GAs, one she had asked to see iirc...and yet she said nothing about the rape.

it is not rational to expect the Church to,act back in 1987 or whenever it was to act on knowledge it receives 23 years later.  People appear to me to not be paying attention to how she tells it and instead just assuming she has been saying the same things all along when by her own descriptions that is just what she has not done.  Whatever she told them it wasn't rape.  Was it only the inappropriate counseling sessions or something else?

In no way does this mean she was not rape, it can take a long time for victims to be open about it,

[USU78]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

When the second victim came forward in 2010, she was given professional counseling as well as emotional support from her leaders.  If she is the one who attempted suicide and moved into his home, nothing criminal occurred that could be turned over to the police.  Not even sure if at the time a woman being asked to remove her top who did would have been seen as sexual coercion.  Bishop denied whatever allegations were made.  No details on what they were are given.

When Denson first report being disturbed (the false rape claim on her mission), she was brought into a supportive home and a therapist was provided her to provide counsel.  She refused to say anything meaningful by her own account, she was given another opportunity to speak up to Monson and while she gave no details, she was sent out to Wisconsin.  She said nothing in complaining they didn't listen to her.

----

In both cases the very first responses to the sisters appear to have been emotional support and counseling.  In one case, the second victim accepted it; in Denson's case she refuse for whatever reason...and she gave them no reason to assume her issues had anything to do with a church leader.  

What else could they have done in Denson case from the beginning that they did not do?

Once she finally decided to share and went to her YA bishop...he appears to have blown it if he isn't lying...perhaps he was told by her that she had a chance to tell Elder Monson and didn't take it, which weakened the story for him.  If he didn't blow it and is for some misguided reason lying now and instead he did treat her story seriously, then she got everything she asked for at that time from Church leaders, which was an interview with Elder Asay...at which times she states she did not tell him about the rape and so they did not respond to deal with an alleged rape since they had no knowledge of it.

In 2010 her approach to the Church is to tell them she has a gun and is going to kill Bishop.  She finally tells them Bishop raped her.  The leaders question Bishop, he denies all.  The police are told, but as far as leaders can tell have no interest.  If police have no interest to even contact/question Church leaders, leaders may decide it means that it was most likely a woman having some sort of breakdown or surely the police would be contacting them to ask questions about how to find Bishop, what his role was, verify she was a missionary at the time, etc..  It is also quite possible counseling was offered as it was the other woman, but perhaps after the death threat , they felt it best not to antagonize her by contact.

If you accept her claims, unless there is information she shared then that she did not share now...which would be strange, I am not sure what the Church should have done that it did not do.  It offered counseling she refused.  She describes having two chances to tell about the rape to two different GAs, one she had asked to see iirc...and yet she said nothing about the rape.

it is not rational to expect the Church to,act back in 1987 or whenever it was to act on knowledge it receives 23 years later.  People appear to me to not be paying attention to how she tells it and instead just assuming she has been saying the same things all along when by her own descriptions that is just what she has not done.  Whatever she told them it wasn't rape.  Was it only the inappropriate counseling sessions or something else?

In no way does this mean she was not rape, it can take a long time for victims to be open about it,

I don't know how you go about solving the delayed reporting problem. Inevitably it is fatal to successful prosecution in cases that are difficult at the best of times absent confessions.

How is that the Church's fault? What could the Church do, consistent with its mission goals, to sort through the mess that is this case?

If the professionals couldn't sort it out as presented, how are untrained volunteers supposed to?

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

What else could they have done in Denson case from the beginning that they did not do?

Once she finally decided to share and went to her YA bishop...he appears to have blown it if he isn't lying...perhaps he was told by her that she had a chance to tell Elder Monson and didn't take it, which weakened the story for him.  If he didn't blow it and is for some misguided reason lying now and instead he did treat her story seriously, then she got everything she asked for at that time from Church leaders, which was an interview with Elder Asay...at which times she states she did not tell him about the rape and so they did not respond to deal with an alleged rape since they had no knowledge of it.

There is no rehabilitating Leavitt's failure to report.  But I still can't buy into Denson's I'm-on-a-crusade-to-force-the-Church-to-better-address-sexual-assault-allegations narrative.  Her plan wasn't to publicize this issue, but to make money off it via confidential negotiations.  That's not bad in and of itself (I can't begrudge an aggrieved party utilizing the tools our society offers to seek redress), except to the extent it undermines the above narrative.

Moreover, neither she nor her attorneys have acknowledged the Church's efforts in recent years and their effectiveness.  This glaring omission exposes, in my view, a lack of earnestness on their part.  They've ginned up the we're-on-a-crusade narrative not because they really are, and not because they really believe that there is some sort of systemic neglect by local leaders in reporting abuse allegations.  They've ginned up this narrative to foment ill will against the Church, and to make money.

Quote

In 2010 her approach to the Church is to tell them she has a gun and is going to kill Bishop.  She finally tells them Bishop raped her.  The leaders question Bishop, he denies all.  

26 years after the allegations, there's not much the Church could have done re: civil authorities (apart from notify them about Denson's allegations, which the Church did).

As far as church discipline, though, I wonder if the Church should have convened a disciplinary council.  The allegations came to light because Denson disclosed the allegation to her local church leaders in Pleasant Grove and also threatened to kill him.  The local leaders reported both matters to the police.  As to the allegation against Bishop, the police declined to prosecute (not in their jurisdiction, outside the statute of limitations).  As to the threat to kill Bishop, Denson admitted to saying she was going to kill him, but that it "had been a joke."  Thereafter nothing more was reported to the Church.  The Church then "referred these allegations to Bishop’s local ecclesiastical leaders. They met with him and he denied the allegations," so the Church, stating that it was "{u}nable to verify the allegations ... did not impose any formal Church discipline on Mr. Bishop at that time."  Denson again reported the allegation to church leaders in in Pueblo, Colorado in 2016.  Again, no disciplinay council was apparently convened.

Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 provides that a council is mandatory for "serious transgression while holding a prominent church position."  The term "serious transgression" includes, among other things, forcible rape, sexual abuse, and adultery (see Section 6.7.2), any or all of which were implicated in Denson's allegations.  Significantly, section 6.10.4 of Handbook 1 provides that the accused member (Bishop) "must must be given an opportunity to question any witnesses who give evidence against him."  If a witness (like Denson) is "unable" to attend, the presiding officer (the stake president) should have invited her to provide a written statement, which "may be considered in evidence."  There is no provision in the handbook for what to do if a witness is unwilling to attend.

So was a council considered but not convened?  We don't know, but I suspect not.  I could see a few reasons why.  The allegations were decades old by 2010 and 2016.  When they first surfaced, they were accompanied by a threat by Denson to murder Bishop.  And the allegations were both serious and lurid.  And the allegations were against a prominent member of the Church who had held a prominent position at the time Holding a position of prominence shouldn't excuse a person from suspicion, but it might be reason to think that the prominent person is being targeted because of that prominence.  Denson's contemporaneous threat to murder him perhaps damaged her credibility.  These factors may have come together, such that Bishop's local leaders (who knew about the allegations in 2010 - see above) felt her claims were too fantastic to be credible, and so declined to convene a council (despite the mandate in Section 6.7.3).  Or perhaps they considered a council and invited Denson to testify against Bishop and she declined to either appear and testify or provide a written statement.  The same or a similar process could have happened again in 2016 when Denson reported the allegations to her stake president in Colorado.

Lots of "coulds" and "perhapses" here.

Quote

The police are told, but as far as leaders can tell have no interest.  If police have no interest to even contact/question Church leaders, leaders may decide it means that it was most likely a woman having some sort of breakdown or surely the police would be contacting them to ask questions about how to find Bishop, what his role was, verify she was a missionary at the time, etc..  It is also quite possible counseling was offered as it was the other woman, but perhaps after the death threat , they felt it best not to antagonize her by contact.

Yes, the death threat may have derailed things.  It may well have made Denson appear unbalanced, perhaps even dangerous.  Moreover, Bishop's local leaders (was in living in Arizona in 2010?  2016?) may well have been a bit disconcerted at receiving a report that a lady in Pleasant Grove is accusing Joseph Bishop of rape 26 years prior, and has also threatened to murder him.  Bishop's prominence is, I think, not an excuse for failing to convene a council (hence the mandate for a council where there are claims of "serious transgression while holding a prominent church position."  However, Denson's threat to murder Bishop may well have been enough to make the local leaders think the accuser is mentally unbalanced, which in turn tainted the accompanying rape charge.

At the end of the day, though, the Church's policy mandates a disciplinary council for claims of "serious transgression while holding a prominent church position," and yet no council was held.  We don't know why Bishop's local leaders failed to convene a council.  I suspect this omission is getting some attention by those with stewardship over such matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 15, 2018 by smac97