Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit

[Classicslover]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

Really? And what does "Believe the Victims" mean to you? Or to the Church who now espouses such an approach? And if one reads about the history of the tape, she asked for it not to be released. Someone else disclosed it on her behalf. After it was disclosed, she was glad it was. 

And so...she has even the sympathetic people saying...what? "It sucks to be you." Too bad. So sad. How is that even remotely protecting? Especially when the Church is all about ducking responsibility through technicality instead of taking responsibility and holding people accountable. Are you yourself pushing for that change? I got 300 plus communications to the Church that say that I am.

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

Wow! Did you just gloss over the other media reported examples I provided since Bishop's misconduct? Or all that goes unreported because of the aforementioned  fear to question Church leaders lest your own membership be put in peril? At BYU many ladies were sexually assaulted, reported it, and then were threatened or even charged with Honor Code violations. That in and of itself is a special kind of stupid.

The Lawyer Keetch before he was Elder  Keetch taught false doctrine.

"Within each Mormon congregation, every adult is assigned to other community members as a home teacher, as an adviser and confidante. None of them, however, are actual employees, so Keetch disputes that the church can be punished for their actions." Published in 2013 Mountain States Super Lawyers — July 2013 by Claudia Rowe

This statement published abroad by Elder Keetch is easily refuted as false doctrine.

 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)

In his April General Conference talk in 1993 entitled Honoring the Priesthood, Elder Russell M. Nelson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated:

"The one who extends and the one who receives a call are both under obligation of accountability. I quote from Elder James E. Talmage:

“Those through whom the call came to him … are as surely held answerable for their acts as is he for his; and of every one shall be demanded a strict and personal accounting for his stewardship, a report in full of service or of neglect, of use or abuse in the administration of the trust to him committed.” (Quoted from Messages of the First Presidency, 4:306.)

THAT is the revelation which the Lord has given on the matter which means that Elder Keetch is WRONG, has taught false doctrine, and is in need of repentance.

Since he made that statement the first time in 2010, many a LDS woman has been assaulted, many a child has been assaulted and the Church has not lived up to it's policy in a great many cases.

P.S. Church culpability is directly on point here.

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Quote

The you would be wrong. This is taught in congregations the world over and inferred in President Eyring's talk.

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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).

Jesus needed somebody weak and wimpy enough t"The one who extends and the one who receives a call are both under obligation of accountability. o betray Him. Plus, if you are truly going with the thinking that the Lord does not deny present blessings for future bad behavior, then you are saying it was our perfect Lord who paved the way for those priesthood leaders to sexually assault. I am more of the ..."It's the imperfect humans" who are at fault.

It is truly on topic to show examples where the Church itself is responsible for misery and abuse and not at all inspired. Failing to consult the Lord.

Again, I quote from President nelson: "The one who extends and the one who receives a call are both under obligation of accountability."

That's the Lord's way. And there is no statute of limitations on the Lord's way.

 

 

[Calm]

Maybe a better way to say it is there is more to the story than just the legal obligations even if that is what the lawsuit is about. 

[Duncan]

59 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.

I think that's why the Statute of limitations is there, in this case key people are dead (such as but not limited to Elder Carlos Asay, the entire First Presidency from 1983-84,actually every Apostle from that time frame are long dead now) evidence is gone or was never created. The truth of what happened only resides in the mind of these people but if they are dead then how can we discover the truth?

[Calm]

“And if one reads about the history of the tape, she asked for it not to be released. Someone else disclosed it on her behalf. After it was disclosed, she was glad it was.”

Did you watch the press conference?  Her lawyer said Denson was the one who gave it to several media people. You don’t give info to media and not expect it to be released. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Wow! Did you just gloss over the other media reported examples I provided since Bishop's misconduct?

Yes, I glossed over them.  You didn't provide any citations, just copied and pasted text.

2 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Or all that goes unreported because of the aforementioned  fear to question Church leaders lest your own membership be put in peril?

I don't know what you are referencing here.

2 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

At BYU many ladies were sexually assaulted, reported it, and then were threatened or even charged with Honor Code violations. That in and of itself is a special kind of stupid.

Again, I don't know what you are referencing here.

I deplore and condemn sexual assault. But you are making vague and broad allegations here.

2 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

The Lawyer Keetch before he was Elder  Keetch taught false doctrine.

"Within each Mormon congregation, every adult is assigned to other community members as a home teacher, as an adviser and confidante. None of them, however, are actual employees, so Keetch disputes that the church can be punished for their actions." Published in 2013 Mountain States Super Lawyers — July 2013 by Claudia Rowe

This statement published abroad by Elder Keetch is easily refuted as false doctrine.

"None of the, however, are actual employees."

That is a statement of fact, not a point of doctrine.  And more to the point, it may well be an accurate statement of fact.

2 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Since he made that statement the first time in 2010, many a LDS woman has been assaulted, many a child has been assaulted and the Church has not lived up to it's policy in a great many cases.

Again, you are making vague and broad allegations here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Classicslover]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.  

Ask and ye shall receive: In a Feb 16, 2018 article in VOX by Tara Burton, quote:  

Last week, White House aide Rob Porter resigned from his position after it emerged that both of his ex-wives had accused him of domestic abuse. But his ex-wives’ accounts, shared in the media, don’t just tell the story of two abusive marriages. They also reveal the structural and institutional failure of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or, the Mormon Church) to protect women from toxic and abusive relationships.

Both Colbie Holderness and Jennifer Willoughby told CNN this week about how they’d shared their experiences with Mormon bishops, who only downplayed the severity of their accusations or encouraged them to be mindful of the consequences to Porter’s career if they came forward.

Willoughby said one bishop discouraged her from filing a protective order in order to preserve Porter’s reputation. Likewise, Holderness recalled being consistently turned away by the Mormon bishops she sought guidance from. “For years I would go to Mormon bishops and I would try to find the words to explain what was going on, but I was at a loss. … It wasn’t until I went to a secular counselor … [that somebody] told me that what was happening was not okay,” Holderness told CNN.

Holderness and Willoughby’s stories have prompted a number of Mormon and ex-Mormon women to share stories of their own to BuzzFeed, Jezebel, and other news outlets. Judy Dushku, writing for New York magazine’s the Cut, estimated that she’d heard at least 40 similar stories directly from Mormon victims of domestic abuse, as well as countless others from concerned third parties. In many cases, victims report that bishops have treated domestic abuse as the woman’s fault, or else a problem to be solved with prayer and faith, and have discouraged divorce or separation as options, even in cases of physical abuse.

[Calm]

Domestic abuse is more than punching. Please demonstrate they reported physical abuse to church leaders

I don’t doubt some leaders made mistakes. For example, Leavitt really screwed up imo choosing not to report what Denson told him (if one assumes he is telling the truth). 

Exaggerating details though is not helpful in convincing people actions need to be taken. 

Holderness is the only one claiming she was punched. Willoughby described it as emotional and verbal abuse, not physical. 

https://www.today.com/news/rob-porter-s-ex-wife-jennifer-willoughby-recounts-abusive-marriage-t122749

Edited June 13, 2018 by Calm

[Classicslover]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I don't know what you are referencing here.

Daily Herald - May 15, 2018 Braley Dodson

BYU came under fire two years ago for how it handled sexual assault cases after students reported they were investigated for possible honor code violations after reporting their assaults.

BYU students agree to live by the university’s honor code in order to attend. The code bans premarital sex, the consumption of alcohol and being in the bedroom of someone of the opposite sex.

“The university recognizes that victims or witnesses of Sexual Misconduct might be hesitant to report an incident to university officials if they fear the discover of honor code violations such as alcohol use, drug use, or consensual sexual activity outside of marriage,” the updated sexual misconduct policy reads. “To help address this concern and to encourage the reporting of Sexual Misconduct, the Title IX Office will not share the identity of a victim or witness with the Honor Code Office unless requested by such a person or a person’s health or safety is at risk.”

Brigham Young University’s amnesty clause for sexual assault survivors has officially been included in the university’s written sexual misconduct policy, the university announced Monday.

The amnesty clause, which states anyone reporting sexual misconduct will not be disciplined for honor code violations that happened at or near the time of sexual misconduct, was approved by the university a year and a half ago as part of 23 recommendations made by the university’s Advisory Council on Campus Response to Sexual Assault.

“This significant accomplishment is the result of many individuals at the university working together,” Janet Scharman, the Student Life vice president, said in the announcement. “Our goal from the beginning has been to create an environment where sexual assault is eliminated on our campus.”

But hey...nothing has happened since Bishop's misconduct 30 years ago right?

Because LDS women are always so very protected?

 

[Calm]

You need to provide links to online material and not just copy (board rules). You probably should just quote the most relevant parts to avoid violating Fair Use laws also. 

[Classicslover]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"None of the, however, are actual employees."

That is a statement of fact, not a point of doctrine.  And more to the point, it may well be an accurate statement of fact.

Lawyers...Tsk.

Let me explain this in lawyer speak: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is literally the Church of Jesus Christ. It's His Church. The prophet and apostles only have power of attorney to act in His name. To do His will. To maintain His standards.

His standard is  that the one who extends and the one who receives a call are both under obligation of accountability.  His standard is" Agree with thine adversary quickly when thou art in the way with him." His standard is: When someone sues thee at law for thy coat, give him thy cloak also."

 

His standard is to take responsibility and pay restitution as part of repentance.

THAT is what the "client" wants.

[Classicslover]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

You need to provide links to online material and not just copy (board rules). You probably should just quote the most relevant parts to avoid violating Fair Use laws also. 

Here you go!

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/2/16/17012876/rob-porter-mormon-church-fail-abused-women-colbie-holderness-jennifer-willoughby-lds

 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Daily Herald - May 15, 2018 Braley Dodson

BYU came under fire two years ago for how it handled sexual assault cases after students reported they were investigated for possible honor code violations after reporting their assaults.

ANd BYU has changed how it handles sexual assault cases.

16 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

But hey...nothing has happened since Bishop's misconduct 30 years ago right?

Because LDS women are always so very protected?

I'm trying to figure out what sort of discussion you want to have.  If you are just here to rant and gripe, then no thanks. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Quote

"None of them, however, are actual employees."

That is a statement of fact, not a point of doctrine.  And more to the point, it may well be an accurate statement of fact.

Lawyers...Tsk.

Let me explain this in lawyer speak: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is literally the Church of Jesus Christ. It's His Church. The prophet and apostles only have power of attorney to act in His name. To do His will. To maintain His standards.

I'll go along with that.

5 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

His standard is  that the one who extends and the one who receives a call are both under obligation of accountability.  

Ah.  So Jesus Christ is, by your reckoning, "accountable" for Judas' betrayal of Him?

5 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

His standard is "Agree with thine adversary quickly when thou art in the way with him."

I don't think "Agree with thine adversary" was meant to be an instruction for the Church to fork over mountains of cash to every "adversary" who comes along and demands it.

We are a nation of laws.  There is nothing wrong with the Church defending itself against mercenary lawsuits.

5 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

His standard is: When someone sues thee at law for thy coat, give him thy cloak also."

His standard is to take responsibility and pay restitution as part of repentance.

THAT is what the "client" wants.

You speak for the "client?"

Also, I am curious as to precisely what it is you want the Church to do in this instance.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Probably not.  But they could make a difference now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Color me sceptical. Why should a church undertake such a duty when it would be the basis for liability if a mistake were made in the background-checking process?

[Classicslover]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

ANd BYU has changed how it handles sexual assault cases.

Excellent! Now you are understanding what I am saying! And how did that change come about?

The uninspired way caused public outrage when it was reported to the media. The Church was embarrassed because priesthood holders in charge were not protecting the victims. So then they got around to doing it all the right way.

There's a lot of that going around in the last few months. The best thing would not to be hiding behind parsing legalese. That blinds people to what really matters.

That's what perhaps the Book of the Month Club would do. That's what the Church of Scientology does.

We're supposed to be the Lord's Church. 

One of the Lord's daughters has suffered and the Church is not supposed to add to the suffering. It's that simple.

And until women can actually COUNT on that...then they are not protected.

That change comes about by speaking out.

I'm advising you to take the time to understand how this forum works before you go ballistic. We discuss we do not lob bombs. If you want to discuss something other than the topic, start another thread. Off topic posts are removed if the poster won't cooperate. - Moderator

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Excellent! Now you are understanding what I am saying! And how did that change come about?

The uninspired way caused public outrage when it was reported to the media. The Church was embarrassed because priesthood holders in charge were not protecting the victims. So then they got around to doing it all the right way.

There's a lot of that going around in the last few months. The best thing would not to be hiding behind parsing legalese. That blinds people to what really matters.

That's what perhaps the Book of the Month Club would do. That's what the Church of Scientology does.

We're supposed to be the Lord's Church. 

One of the Lord's daughters has suffered and the Church is not supposed to add to the suffering. It's that simple.

And until women can actually COUNT on that...then they are not protected.

That change comes about by speaking out.

Again, I am curious as to precisely what it is you want the Church to do in this instance.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Classicslover]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think "Agree with thine adversary" was meant to be an instruction for the Church to fork over mountains of cash to every "adversary" who comes along and demands it.

We are a nation of laws.  There is nothing wrong with the Church defending itself against mercenary lawsuits.

Are you saying that a woman who was sexually assaulted is mercenary? Really? Because that is the kind of attitude which perpetuates the horror of abuse. 

And there's a history of behavior and more than one victim.  Instead of re victimizing the Church needs to suck it up and move on.

They settled in West Virginia...the facts were the same as when they started. The could have saved money by not paying lawyers and just pay the victims.

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You speak for the "client?"

That's what the client told all of us. Weren't you listening?

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I am curious what you think those obligations involve.

Quote

20. During his tenure as Mission President in Argentina, BISHOP counseled one of his sister missionaries who was “besieged with evil spirits." According to BISHOP, those evil spirits then attacked him. Frightened, and in an effort to “save his soul,” he decided to confess or disclose all of his previous sins. BISHOP met with Elder Wells and disclosed to Elder Wells every indiscretion, sin, or other misdeed that had occurred up to that point in his life, including his sexual addiction and previous instances of sexual predation against women. Elder Wells gave BISHOP a blessing. BISHOP believes he was forgiven after fully confessing all his past red flag sexual improprieties to Elder Wells. As evidence of this, BISHOP claims that the baptisms in the Argentina mission, over which he presided, went from 70 to over 400 per month, following this disclosure.

21. Following this disclosure to Elder Wells, there is no indication that the Church took any action to investigate these possible crimes or investigate whether, under its own internal policies, BISHOP would be subject to Church discipline. Any of these actions could have alerted DENSON and other vulnerable women to BISHOP’S dangerous propensities.

22. In an epic institutional betrayal of trust, just the opposite occurred; BISHOP was called to be the President of the MTC in Provo, Utah. There, instead of having access to hundreds of young missionaries, the Church elevated him to a position of power over thousands of young women who were training to be missionaries. Link

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide a link?

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-former-mission-president-alleged-abuse-joseph-l-bishop-march-2018

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I don't know, but it shouldn't be able to hide behind man's statutes.

Poster removed: personal insults. 

[Calm]

Quote

BISHOP met with Elder Wells and disclosed to Elder Wells every indiscretion, sin, or other misdeed that had occurred up to that point in his life, including his sexual addiction and previous instances of sexual predation against women

Except that is not what Bishop described, but rather Denson and/or her lawyers' restatement of what Bishop said.

What does he describe as his sexual addiction prior to the MTC?  What were the details of sexual predation incidents prior to the MTC?

(not debating he admitted he sexually molested sister missionaries at the MTC)

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Are you saying that a woman who was sexually assaulted is mercenary?

I'm saying that her lawyers are, yes.

As for her, I have some reservations about the nature of her claims, given her overall credibility problems.  I think Bishop showed her porn.  If so, that was inexcusable and evil and wrong.  

20 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Really? Because that is the kind of attitude which perpetuates the horror of abuse. 

Meh.  Denson's say-so is fairly suspect.  I reject the #MeToo guilty-until-proven-innocent-and-probably-not-even-then mindset.

This is a legal dispute.  Denson has to prove up her claims.  I don't think she can.  I have some real reservations about her credibility.

20 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

And there's a history of behavior

Not really.

And there isn't any history of rape.

20 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

and more than one victim.  

Victim of what, though?

20 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

Instead of re victimizing the Church needs to suck it up and move on.

What does this mean?  Again, I am curious as to precisely what it is you want the Church to do in this instance.  

20 minutes ago, Classicslover said:

They settled in West Virginia...the facts were the same as when they started. The could have saved money by not paying lawyers and just pay the victims.

I think your assessment of what the Church should do is facile.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Classicslover]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So Jesus Christ is, by your reckoning, "accountable" for Judas' betrayal of Him?

Since you asked...
“according to the law of Moses, thirty shekels of silver would compensate an owner for the death of a slave (see Exodus 21:32). … The betrayal price reflects the low regard Judas and the chief priests had for the Savior” (New Testament Student Manual[Church Educational System manual, 2014], 81). It also fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy of Judas’s betrayal of the Savior (see Zechariah 11:12).

Judas’s betrayal of the Savior was also a direct fulfillment of Psalm 41: 9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

Sooo...that was all about fulfilling of prophecy. Pretty much essential to the whole dying on the cross part.

None of the callings in question...that I mentioned...are comparable. Including Bishop's.

All I am saying is that mistakes ARE made and people should be held accountable. Like the Lord expressed.

Which is why I feel the whole  statute of limitations argument is not what the Lord would want. According to scripture. And He is the client.

Anything else is just making decisions based on the "praise of men" or based on fear. (The Lord won't let the Church run out of money.)

She should not have to go to court to get justice from the Lord's Church.

[Classicslover]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm saying that her lawyers are, yes.

THAT may be true.

But I also think that beggars can't be choosers comes into play. When after years of trying to be heard, often it is the mercenary who will only take up the cause. Sad.

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As for her, I have some reservations about the nature of her claims, given her overall credibility problems.  I think Bishop showed her porn.  If so, that was inexcusable and evil and wrong.  

Bishop also admitted to the police that he asked to see her breasts. Where is that written as an approved activity in the missionary handbook? So who REALLY has the credibility problem here?

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  Denson's say-so is fairly suspect.  I reject the #MeToo guilty-until-proven-innocent-and-probably-not-even-then mindset.

This is a legal dispute.  Denson has to prove up her claims.  I don't think she can.  I have some real reservations about her credibility.

I also reject the guilty until proven innocent and probably not even then mindset. But they DID receive a complaint from another woman. The transcript of the recording mentioned inappropriate things in both Florida and while a mission president. You believe he may have shown her porn and he told the cops he asked to see her breasts. He was in a position of authority over her. Between the two of them...he's the least credible.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Victim of what, though?

There goes that lawyer thinking again...Any of it is bad. Period. What Bishop admitted to the police was more than what Denson's bishop claimed about showing her porn and what Denson said was more than what Bishop admitted to. Did you really expect he would lay claim to rape? Or try to get away with admitting as little a possible?

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think your assessment of what the Church should do is facile.

Lawyers want everything to NOT be facile. They get paid less with facile. And facile is the enemy of courtroom drama.

[Calm]

Quote

She should not have to go to court to get justice from the Lord's Church.

We don't know what the Church lawyers offered Denson, if anything, prior to her releasing the tape.

It might have been a fair offer for what was admitted by Bishop and Leavitt, but refused because Denson was including the charge of rape and demanded more (which she may or may not deserve depending on in part if the rape accusation is true) .  Denson denied she was the one Bishop asked to expose herself and that was the only criminal physical sexual abuse that Bishop admitted to (the other sexual abuse was the "frisky" backrub which Bishop claims was requested by the second victim...I am assuming it doesn't qualify as criminal, though definitely is wrong morally and against church standards).  She unfortunately interrupted him on the tape just as he was going to tell her what he remember of the basement room, so the only admission on his part was about the exposure to the police...and according to Denson, he didn't even get that right, confusing his two known victims.  All there was in agreement in any description with details between Bishop and Denson was that he shared some inappropriate stories during private counseling sessions.

If rape is a false accusation by Denson, how much would be a fair and compassionate settlement based on what has been established as agreed upon facts?  What if she refused and insisted on more money?  Should the Church automatically pay her in your view no matter how much she asks?

The second victim is the one who has the established physical abuse of two occasions, one asking her to expose herself and the other giving her a backrub (inappropriate whether or not she requested it, so qualifies imo as abuse).  If rape cannot be established for Denson and enough evidence is there that establishes that Denson has engaged in fraud multiple times (identity theft in February, accusation of assault due to poor security of a past employer), why should there be an assumption of guilt for the rape (serious question, not rhetorical)?  Should someone likely perpetuating a fraud be given money in your view rewarding that fraud?

 

[Calm]

Quote

Bishop also admitted to the police that he asked to see her breasts.

And she denied this happened.

I think you need to watch the press conference.

Quote

The transcript of the recording mentioned inappropriate things in both Florida and while a mission presiden

That happened to him, not that he did (one a woman taking off her top in a hot spring or tub with several men in it, another the woman flirted with him and a friend...he says nothing about what he did and there was no implication he requested it, it was the reverse...him being shocked by it imo).  The hot tub/spring incident wasn't likely as a mission president as it was in Utah according to him and iirc Denson remembered it as being in Wyoming.

There is no reason to suppose that Denson would know about the exposure incident until at least 2010 when she might have been in contact with the second victim, who according to Denson was the one asked, and possibly not until Bishop confessed it to police (iirc, Denson only asked Bishop what he had done to the other sister missionary he appeared to be grooming through personal sessions, she appeared not to know any details). We have never heard from the second victim and only have the report she was a victim in the mormonnewsroom article and Bishop's story about the backrub, so we don't know what she would claim for herself.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[Classicslover]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

We don't know what the Church lawyers offered Denson, if anything, prior to her releasing the tape

You do realize that years ago, she would have been satisfied with a Church disciplinary council for Bishop? It was only after years of nothing happening that she decided to take the case to court.

So the Church's "ignore it and it will go away plan" was an epic fail.

Which is why they asked for the Church to change the way it does things.

And the Church said that there were no negotiations while Denson's lawyer said he submitted whatever paperwork to the Church's lawyers to open negotiations. First step kind-of-thing. Anyway. there supposedly was no offer.

And people who are abused often turn to drink or drugs or promiscuity or even crime as a way to dull the pain or forget.

They begin to heal when they get justice.