Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit (Hearing Schedule)

[Exiled]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

Even in light of her bragging (and laughing )about being a good liar, and in light of her previous false accusations and scams? 

I think this whole thing is increasingly a mirror that simply shows how we are disposed towards the Church, rather than our own sober impartiality on the "merits." And I include myself and other TBMs in this, too. It's not just the critics. We're pretty polarized. 

I thought the laughing may have been a little too much.  I could have done without it and she came across to me as trying a little too hard in those moments.  However, those were very few and judging it on the whole, I think she came across as relaxed and believable for the most part.  Consig was lobbing softballs, hence, I wonder if her performance would change under some aggressive questioning.  But assuming that consig was acting as a lawyer would on direct examination, I think she did well and I think she would be believed as far as direct examination goes.  One has to remember that her lawyers can place her in the MTC with Bishop, can show that he took a highly unusual interest in her while in the MTC, that she was taken out of class numerous times at the request of Bishop while in the MTC, that there was a room in the basement as she describes and that Bishop didn't deny being alone with her in that room.  He also confessed to being inappropriate with others.  So, I think that if she can overcome the statute of limitations problem, she might be able to force this pretty far.

[rongo]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I find it interesting that he had the approval of Ms. Denson's attorney.

I think their case is such a mess now, it's kind of a desperation move --- like when hockey or soccer teams pull defenders up to try to score a goal. At this point, they can't really damage their case much more (well, maybe they can), but it's "high risk, high reward" like in the hockey or soccer scenario.

If mocking the church put one on the fast track to excommunication, I would have been exed many years ago, having spent a lot of time poking fun at the church over several years.

I would never have guessed that --- you're such an urbane, classy, and stand-up guy now!  Seriously. A lot of it has to do with "venue," and leader roulette. Some areas you probably would have been, others not. I had a member of a previous ward who left his wife and three kids for his 19 year-old cousin, and his stake president (when the wife tried to pursue church discipline) didn't believe in formal discipline of any kind --- no matter what. So, he wasn't even disfellowshipped. It all depends. 

Oddly enough, when my blog was discussed in a meeting at the COB, they decided I wasn't much of a threat at all and not worth pursuing. I was almost disappointed.

Your mockery stage was when you were working for the COB? Wow! You dodged a bullet, there! Depending on your perspective.  

Time has changed my perspective, and I look back on my cynical satire as being a pretty immature way of dealing with my emotions at the time. Now the emotions have pretty much gone, as has the mocking.

As I said, my limited interactions with you reveal you to be nothing if not classy. We all go through stages in our development, and many of us have been more mocking than we are now. Not all of us podcast and gain followings, either, though. 

Is criticizing the church apostasy? Is poking fun at the church? I don't know. I know an active, believing member who runs a satiric site that pokes fun at Mormon culture, teachings, and practice. It can be pretty biting at times, but I've never thought he was an apostate.

It can be, but it isn't always. It depends. And it is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I really don't think he is (or has) attacked the church.

He sure comes across as hostile to the Church, both in the podcast and in his statements posted here.

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

IIRC he is still a member in good standing.

And yet he hides behind a pseudonym, and appears to be going to some effort to obscure his identity. 

And his rhetoric seems pretty hostile to the Church.

2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

His bishop and SP are aware of his involvement in the podcast (he stated as much on the other board).

I'll leave such things to them, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

I think their case is such a mess now, it's kind of a desperation move --- like when hockey or soccer teams pull defenders up to try to score a goal. At this point, they can't really damage their case much more (well, maybe they can), but it's "high risk, high reward" like in the hockey or soccer scenario.

I would never have guessed that --- you're such an urbane, classy, and stand-up guy now!  Seriously. A lot of it has to do with "venue," and leader roulette. Some areas you probably would have been, others not. I had a member of a previous ward who left his wife and three kids for his 19 year-old cousin, and his stake president (when the wife tried to pursue church discipline) didn't believe in formal discipline of any kind --- no matter what. So, he wasn't even disfellowshipped. It all depends. 

Your mockery stage was when you were working for the COB? Wow! You dodged a bullet, there! Depending on your perspective.  

As I said, my limited interactions with you reveal you to be nothing if not classy. We all go through stages in our development, and many of us have been more mocking than we are now. Not all of us podcast and gain followings, either, though. 

It can be, but it isn't always. It depends. And it is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. 

No, I wasn't working for the church when it came up. My best friend (since we were 5 years old) works for the church, and probably 8 or 10 years ago he was in a meeting where they were putting various critical web sites and blogs up on a screen and discussing what actions, if any, to take to counter them. He called me right after the meeting and said, "John, you'll never guess what I just saw!" He told me he was shocked to see my blog up on that screen, but he said they all agreed I was pretty "harmless" (his word) and not worth pursuing. He has teased me mercilessly about it since then. We both thought it was kind of funny. 

I hope I am less of a jerk than I used to be. I think I needed to get the emotion out of my system, and I didn't always do that in healthy ways. I've said all my apologies, and all I can do is try to be better each day. 

[sunstoned]

51 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think part of the reason that consig is being attacked is that he didn't press her on her story, as if she were a hostile witness. In all, given that this was consig's first attempt ever at an interview, he did pretty well. I would imagine he's learned a few things from the experience.

Agreed.  Also, she was telling her story and not on the witness chair.  I think he did okay as a host. I wish it was possible to have Bishop as a guest on RFM.

Edited July 17, 2018 by sunstoned

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed.  Also, she was telling her story and not on the witness chair.  I think he did okay as a host. I wish it was possible to have Bishop as a guest on RFM.

Exactly. I'm not sure why anyone expected him to grill her and try to poke holes in her story. I thought he did a good job of just letting her tell her story, which is what the best interviewers do. 

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, I wasn't working for the church when it came up. My best friend (since we were 5 years old) works for the church, and probably 8 or 10 years ago he was in a meeting where they were putting various critical web sites and blogs up on a screen and discussing what actions, if any, to take to counter them. He called me right after the meeting and said, "John, you'll never guess what I just saw!" He told me he was shocked to see my blog up on that screen, but he said they all agreed I was pretty "harmless" (his word) and not worth pursuing. He has teased me mercilessly about it since then. We both thought it was kind of funny. 

I hope I am less of a jerk than I used to be. I think I needed to get the emotion out of my system, and I didn't always do that in healthy ways. I've said all my apologies, and all I can do is try to be better each day. 

I can't imagine you as a hostile critic. The church should be so lucky to have reasonable critics like you.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I can't imagine you as a hostile critic. The church should be so lucky to have reasonable critics like you.

You didn't know me back then when Tal Bachman and I had sort of a running contest to see who could come up with the best satire. I admit that some of the stuff I wrote still strikes me as funny (the one about the buttoned collars is my favorite), but it mostly reflects me being in a bad place emotionally and in my family relationships. It's easy to lash out when you're hurting. 

ETA: To stay on topic, I don't think consig has done anything particularly hostile to the church, at least nothing meriting church discipline. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by jkwilliams

[sunstoned]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He sure comes across as hostile to the Church, both in the podcast and in his statements posted here.

And yet he hides behind a pseudonym, and appears to be going to some effort to obscure his identity. 

And his rhetoric seems pretty hostile to the Church.

I'll leave such things to them, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed that is recent podcasts could be seen as less than supportive to the church, but criticism doesn't necessarily mean hostility. I criticize the POTUS but still love the US.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Agreed that is recent podcasts could be seen as less than supportive to the church, but criticism doesn't necessarily mean hostility. I criticize the POTUS but still love the US.

I wasn't going by just his podcast.  He seemed very antagonistic toward the Church when he was on this board.  For years.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You didn't know me back then when Tal Bachman and I had sort of a running contest to see who could come up with the best satire. I admit that some of the stuff I wrote still strikes me as funny (the one about the buttoned collars is my favorite), but it mostly reflects me being in a bad place emotionally and in my family relationships. It's easy to lash out when you're hurting. 

ETA: To stay on topic, I don't think consig has done anything particularly hostile to the church, at least nothing meriting church discipline. 

I don't think he has done anything either, but questioning openly seemed to eventually get Dehlin and Runnells in trouble.  Once RFM's popularity reaches a certain point, however, (whatever that is) he will be disciplined for boundary maintenance reasons.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Exiled said:

I don't think he has done anything either, but questioning openly seemed to eventually get Dehlin and Runnells in trouble.  Once RFM's popularity reaches a certain point, however, (whatever that is) he will be disciplined for boundary maintenance reasons.

Possibly. I think that's probably the reason my blog was considered "harmless": it didn't have a large readership. I suspect I would have gotten in trouble if it had. But then I never wrote to be popular. I don't think consig is, either. He seems to be sorting out his relationship to the church, which is natural when you no longer see it the way you once did. It's a painful process, and it's easy to make stupid mistakes (I'm the poster child for that). 

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think he has done anything either, but questioning openly seemed to eventually get Dehlin and Runnells in trouble.  Once RFM's popularity reaches a certain point, however, (whatever that is) he will be disciplined for boundary maintenance reasons.

You may well be right.  Boundary maintenance is very important.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Someone asked for links to police documents.  Mormon leaks have some, RFM posted his documents requesting documents from BYU police as well as a "draft letter" to police by McKenna Denson.  

I am not linking to the last because I believe he did the redaction inappropriately (except when it came to his own name); it is not that hard to find though.  Iirc, the board rule is not to link to Leaks when the material is confidential, but it is easy enough to find without links so not doing the extra work even though the Mormonleaks stuff does not share confidential material unless someone tells me they tried on their own for at least 5 minutes.

Edited July 17, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Nor do I. I'm just kind of shocked that people around here don't know his name. It wasn't hard for "Mr. Itchy" to dox a number of posters several years ago, so why not the host of RFM? I figured if I knew who he is, pretty much everyone else around here did, too. Maybe I was wrong.

I’ve never heard of “Mr. Itchy,” unless you’re referring to Dr. Scratch. And he only “doxxed” people he didn’t like, such as defenders of Mormonism. 

Unlike you, I don’t take up residence at the Mormon Discussions board, and I only look in on it once in a great while to see if I have been maligned lately. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve never heard of “Mr. Itchy,” unless you’re referring to Dr. Scratch. And he only “doxxed” people he didn’t like, such as defenders of Mormonism. 

Unlike you, I don’t take up residence at the Mormon Discussions board, and I only look in on it once in a great while to see if I have been maligned lately. 

I'm not suggesting you should hang out there, and I haven't seen a lot of maligning of you going on, certainly not from me. I was speaking of someone who went by "Mr. Itchy" who doxxed as many posters on that board (and this one, too, IIRC) as he/she could, and wrote a mocking description of each person. I got off pretty easy, being labeled simply a "boring writer," which I can handle. 

[Duncan]

Remind me again when a verdict in all this is supposed to given ?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Exactly. I'm not sure why anyone expected him to grill her and try to poke holes in her story. I thought he did a good job of just letting her tell her story, which is what the best interviewers do. 

Good interviewers do more than that. When necessary, they probe to elicit information they think readers/viewers/listeners might find useful. I’m not talking here about an adversarial, attack-dog approach, but a good interviewer is actively engaged. 

Rudyard Kipling’s “six honest serving men”** are at their service in conducting the interview. 

** I keep six honest serving men. 

They taught me all I knew. 

Their names are What and When and Where

And Why and How and Who. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Remind me again when a verdict in all this is supposed to given ?

We are in the initial stage of the case.  Ms. Denson filed a complaint and the defendants filed an answer.  Then the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, basically saying that even if Ms. Denson's allegations were true, her case should fail due to the passing of the statute of limitations.  Ms. Denson countered that she discovered the facts of the case within the statute of limitations.  Tomorrow, the Judge will hear argument on the motion to dismiss.  The judge may rule tomorrow on the motion to dismiss, but will probably take it under advisement and send out a ruling in a few weeks, or more.

[Unaffiliated]

Any update on when they'll be back in court?

[smac97]

Just now, Unaffiliated said:

Any update on when they'll be back in court?

Tomorrow, I believe.  There's a hearing on the Motions to Dismiss.  I think there's a general consensus amongst the attorneys here (on both sides) that the Motions will probably be granted.  That means that the case is over.  Ms. Denson may file an appeal, but that would probably just be delaying the inevitable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Unaffiliated]

Keep us updated smac!

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good interviewers do more than that. When necessary, they probe to elicit information they think readers/viewers/listeners might find useful. I’m not talking here about an adversarial, attack-dog approach, but a good interviewer is actively engaged. 

Rudyard Kipling’s “six honest serving men”** are at their service in conducting the interview. 

** I keep six honest serving men. 

They taught me all I knew. 

Their names are What and When and Where

And Why and How and Who. 

It was his first interview, so I’d cut him some slack. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not suggesting you should hang out there, and I haven't seen a lot of maligning of you going on, certainly not from me. I was speaking of someone who went by "Mr. Itchy" who doxxed as many posters on that board (and this one, too, IIRC) as he/she could, and wrote a mocking description of each person. I got off pretty easy, being labeled simply a "boring writer," which I can handle. 

If you mean the character that was created back eons ago when ZLMB (Itchy was on two boards, iirc, ZLMB and the FM board, but it might only have been ZLMB) was still alive in response to Shades' board using people's real names and possibly going after them through contacting former professors and such (can't remember if that and Scratch's "dossiers" were before or after this), I was a mod on ZLMB when Shades' legal complaint to our provider almost shut us down (I think it was the same case, ZLMB is no more so I can't check my files).  It was really strange to me that Shades was complaining to ezboard or whatever it was at the time about stuff that was allowed on his board.  He wanted no censorship for his board, but went over our heads even before he asked us ZLMB moderators to censor stuff he was sensitive about (at least that I saw).  Itchy took on people who were stalking or harassing others in their view, iirc.  My memory is that there was no actual doxxing by Itchy, just made it explicit that it could be done if the harassment on Shades' board of people who weren't posting there wasn't stopped.  Shades changed his rules, I believe.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you mean the character that was created back eons ago when ZLMB (Itchy was on two boards, iirc, ZLMB and the FM board, but it might only have been ZLMB) was still alive in response to Shades' board using people's real names and possibly going after them through contacting former professors and such (can't remember if that and Scratch's "dossiers" were before or after this), I was a mod on ZLMB when Shades' legal complaint to our provider almost shut us down (I think it was the same case, ZLMB is no more so I can't check my files).  It was really strange to me that Shades was complaining to ezboard or whatever it was at the time about stuff that was allowed on his board.  He wanted no censorship for his board, but went over our heads even before he asked us ZLMB moderators to censor stuff he was sensitive about (at least that I saw).  Itchy took on people who were stalking or harassing others in their view, iirc.  My memory is that there was no actual doxxing by Itchy, just made it explicit that it could be done if the harassment on Shades' board of people who weren't posting there wasn't stopped.  Shades changed his rules, I believe.

I wasn’t aware of the inter-board stuff, just that he posted IRL information about people I know on a web site. I’ve certainly never outed anyone or supported any “dossiers” but for whatever reason, I landed on this guy’s radar.