Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit (Hearing Schedule)

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

... I’ve lost some of my initial sympathy for her situation since seeing her support of the group that  is sure babies are being sacrificed on temple altars. 

 

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Link???

 

57 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Say what?

I'm relieved to know that I'm not the only one who's morbidly curious!   

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Duncan said:

😘

Well, allow me to go down my relationships checklist and see how you do:

1. Do you have a pulse?

2. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

3. Are you in line to inherit a lot of money? If so, what is the approximate timetable for said inheritance?

4. How do you feel about polygamy?

5. Did you like Episode I: The Phantom Menace?

6. Do you routinely enter into a state of homicidal rage?

7. Mike or Joel?

8. Qwerty or Dvorak?

9. Lemonade or the blood of your enemies?

10. Boxers or Briefs?

Please submit all responses in Klingon, Elvish, or another fictional language of your choice. Include a picture of your favorite moray eel.

Thank you for your application. A response will be issued whenever I feel like it. DON'T RUSH ME!

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well, allow me to go down my relationships checklist and see how you do:

1. Do you have a pulse?

2. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

3. Are you in line to inherit a lot of money? If so, what is the approximate timetable for said inheritance?

4. How do you feel about polygamy?

5. Did you like Episode I: The Phantom Menace?

6. Do you routinely enter into a state of homicidal rage?

7. Mike or Joel?

8. Qwerty or Dvorak?

9. Lemonade or the blood of your enemies?

10. Boxers or Briefs?

Please submit all responses in Klingon, Elvish, or another fictional language of your choice. Include a picture of your favorite moray eel.

Thank you for your application. A response will be issued whenever I feel like it. DON'T RUSH ME!

this isn't you is it?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Link???

 Her Facebook page has everything

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 Her Facebook page has everything

Hmm, OK. I never even thought to Facebook-stalk her...

Edited June 28, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

I don't hit Facebook very often, but someone told me so I went to see it for myself.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Well, allow me to go down my relationships checklist and see how you do:

1. Do you have a pulse?

2. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

3. Are you in line to inherit a lot of money? If so, what is the approximate timetable for said inheritance?

4. How do you feel about polygamy?

5. Did you like Episode I: The Phantom Menace?

6. Do you routinely enter into a state of homicidal rage?

7. Mike or Joel?

8. Qwerty or Dvorak?

9. Lemonade or the blood of your enemies?

10. Boxers or Briefs?

Please submit all responses in Klingon, Elvish, or another fictional language of your choice. Include a picture of your favorite moray eel.

Thank you for your application. A response will be issued whenever I feel like it. DON'T RUSH ME!

I'll bite:

1. Yes, 60 BPM resting. I'm told that's good.

2. Nope.

3. Nope, I'm an orphan. All I inherited from my parents was a legacy of goodness and faith.

4. Ambivalent.

5. Ew, no!

6. Never.

7. Who or who?

8. Qwerty.

9. Lemonade, but only if it's the American kind.

10. Boxers all the way! I like room to move.

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

this isn't you is it?

You may not realize what a valuable public service you've performed by posting this.  I'll admit, I have my issues: No one who's 48, single, and never married can say otherwise.  That said, I would like to thank you from the bottom of my bottom, er, heart.  Sorry.   While going on an actual date may be a whole 'nother deal, never again will I wonder whether I'm actually dateable material (or even, compared to that guy, marriageable material)!  Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

this isn't you is it?

You are aware this is a joke video right? Still funny.

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are aware this is a joke video right? Still funny.

I am yes!

[Thinking]

10 hours ago, Duncan said:

this isn't you is it?

😆

When I watched the video, a pop-up ad to date Filipino women was displayed across the bottom of the screen. Does this mean that YouTube thinks that the guy in the video likes Filipino women or that I like Filipino women?

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

😆

When I watched the video, a pop-up ad to date Filipino women was displayed across the bottom of the screen. Does this mean that YouTube thinks that the guy in the video likes Filipino women or that I like Filipino women?

you're lucky I got russian women and some teenager, "the struggle is real"desperate kid, super funny but not appropriate for here😂

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

😆

When I watched the video, a pop-up ad to date Filipino women was displayed across the bottom of the screen. Does this mean that YouTube thinks that the guy in the video likes Filipino women or that I like Filipino women?

adds are based on you

[bluebell]

23 hours ago, Rain said:

You two ought to look at any MTC pictures you might have and see if you can see the other one.

That would be cool!  But like Nehor, I'm pretty sure I only have pictures of my district.  He might be one of the kids in the background I guess....

[Tacenda]

https://www.good4utah.com/news/local-news/woman-claims-lds-church-leaders-harbored-her-abusive-father-from-law-enforcement/1272079320

The chickens are coming home to roost. 

ETA: Oops, one more.. pretty sure there will be an avalanche. http://interfaithradio.org/Story_Details/Forced_to_forgive_her_abuser__a_Mormon_woman_loses_her_faith

My anger might get the best of me, but I'm so sick of this.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

you're lucky I got russian women and some teenager, "the struggle is real"desperate kid, super funny but not appropriate for here😂

A few years ago, I got a spam e-mail from a dating site.  It said, "Hi, Kenny!  I am hot Russian voman who know how to shoot AK-47.  You like hot Russian voman who know how to shoot AK-47, yes?"  It set my heart all a pitter-patter, and I was all aquiver, on the edge of my seat, with 'bated breath.  I thought it was true love!   Alas, she disagreed.   I don't know what happened.  

[Thinking]

On 6/27/2018 at 1:04 PM, The Nehor said:

Yeah, learning that helped me understand how a friend who was very happy in the Church and faithful and is now inactive now talks about how miserable he always was back in Church.

Or when he was pretending to be happy.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.good4utah.com/news/local-news/woman-claims-lds-church-leaders-harbored-her-abusive-father-from-law-enforcement/1272079320

The chickens are coming home to roost. 

ETA: Oops, one more.. pretty sure there will be an avalanche. http://interfaithradio.org/Story_Details/Forced_to_forgive_her_abuser__a_Mormon_woman_loses_her_faith

My anger might get the best of me, but I'm so sick of this.

Oi.

Mr. Vernon's credibility is really circling the drain here.  He's putting his client - a purported victim of incestuous sexual abuse as a child - on public display.  And he makes public statements that his clients sisters were also victimes of incestuous abuse (did he have their consent?  He doesn't say). 

He says that the purpose of the lawsuit is two-fold, to get "justice" against her father, and also "policy change," presumably the Church's policies.  He doesn't address the changes that the Church has made in addressing allegations of sexual abuse.  He acts like the Church has not changed at all since the 1960s.

This is a little disconcerting, as Mr. Vernon is essentially admitting that he is misusing the courts.  If he wants to file a lawsuit for his client about a cognizable legal claim against a defendant, he can do that.  No problem.  But when he uses the legal system as a soapbox rail against a private religious group (that is not a party to the case), that becomes a bit more ethically questionable.  His lawsuit starts to come across as frivolous because the objective is mostly about notoriety for himself, the objective is to disparage the LDS Church.

Mr. Vernon also fails to address those portions of the Church's policies that pertain to priest/penitent privilege.  This demonstrates, I think, his animus.  It's an obvious and important legal consideration, but he never addresses it.

Mr. Vernon's lawsuit is a joke.  Part of what he is asking the Court to do is to compel his client's father to become an activist.  That won't happen in a million years.  Mr. Vernon's request on this point is just grandstanding, not lawyering.

Regarding his client, Kristy Johnson, I feel differently.  The above link has a video.  Watch it if you can.  She starts speaking at about about 11 minutes in.  Heartbreaking.  However, she too fails to acknowledge the Church's efforts regarding addressing allegations of sexual abuse.  She also starts out by expressing respect for our beliefs, but then publicly accuses the Church (as did her attorney) of "protecting sexual predators."  This is a calumny.

Eventually, however, she goes off the rails a bit.  Despite her claimed respect for the Latter-day Saints, she then turns around and publicly accuses us of having "a culture that is in the Church that does protect sexual predators."   Actually no, there isn't.  Actually, that's an offensive and false accusation.

She cites two anecdotes.  The first relates to her father, who was excommunicated, and then re-baptized back into the Church.  She says that her bishop participated in the disciplinary council which was convened to determine if her father should be re-baptized into the Church.  She says that a member of the council asked her father why he had molested his children, that her father responded by saying that his wife (Ms. Johnson's mother) did not satisfy his sexual needs, so he needed to gratify those needs by using his children.  Ms. Johnson says she was shocked at this, and expected her bishop to follow up with something like "Can you believe this guy?  Using your mom as an excuse [for his sexual abuse of his children]?"  Instead, she claims, her bishop said that "We understood.  We understood how someone of your dad's stature could molest children.  It made sense to us now.  And there wasn't a dry eye in that room, and we knew and felt that he had repented, so we chose to let him get re-baptized into the Church."

The rules of #MeToo notwithstanding, I am fairly skeptical of her claims here.  A disciplinary council at the stake level includes 12 high councilors (or replacements if any of them cannot attend), all high priests, plus the stake presidency.  All of these men are in good standing in the Church, all are married, likely all or most have children (some would probably have grandchildren too).  That fifteen such men would tear up and express solidarity ("We understood how someone of your dad's stature could molest children.  It made sense to us now.") with a person rationalizing his sexual abuse of his own children by blaming his wife just comes across as hard to believe.

Her second anecdote seems a bit more plausible.  She says that her parents divorced, that her father re-married "one of his students," and was re-baptized into the Church and moved to a different town.  She says the Church annotated his membership record, but that she once called her father at his home and overheard children in the background.  She said her father explained that his second wife, Marlene, is a primary teacher, and she brings her class to their homes sometimes.  She said she then spoke with her father's stake president, who she says was aware of her father's past.  The video gets garbled on this point, so it's hard to figure out the rest of this anecdote.  If this anecdote is correct, then the bishop of her father's ward, and the primary president, need to take immediate corrective action.

Again, it is frustrating to see both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Vernon utterly ignore the Church's current policies and training for local leaders.  They are acting as if nothing has changed since Ms. Johnon was abused.  Worse, they are openly discouraging members of the Church from talking to their bishop.  Bishops are, in many (most?) obligated by law to report allegations of abuse from pretty much anyone other than the perpetrator (confessions from whom are entitled to constitutional protections).  Bishops actually are reporting such allegations to law enforcement.  All the time.  And yet Mr. Vernon and Ms. Johnson and their ilk are painting a scare picture, that bishops are not to be trusted, that the Church is not to be trusted, that the Church is a horrible group of people "protecting sexual predators" at the expense of children. 

They are instilling fear and distrust in the minds of sexual abuse victims.  That's just not good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He says that the purpose of the lawsuit is two-fold, to get "justice" against her father, and also "policy change," presumably the Church's policies.  He doesn't address the changes that the Church has made in addressing allegations of sexual abuse.  He acts like the Church has not changed at all since the 1960s.

Yeah, this is something that has been bothering me as well: Holding up the church's current statements about intolerance for abuse and pretending that events which occurred half a century ago are evidence that the church is insincere about protecting victims when, in reality, it is the critic who is making an insincere argument. I'm not saying that there haven't been tragic cases which have occurred in the past (there have been), but it is precisely because of those cases that the church has changed it's policies and procedures over the years. 

[Jeanne]

59 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Yeah, this is something that has been bothering me as well: Holding up the church's current statements about intolerance for abuse and pretending that events which occurred half a century ago are evidence that the church is insincere about protecting victims when, in reality, it is the critic who is making an insincere argument. I'm not saying that there haven't been tragic cases which have occurred in the past (there have been), but it is precisely because of those cases that the church has changed it's policies and procedures over the years. 

??????????Where was any common sense and divine help when these mistakes were made???  The law has always been there..and unfortunate a church culture who has changed after many lives have been in turmoil .  They need to not only make those changes..(for which I am grateful)..but acknowledge...make amends..and apologize with or without statutes because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO!

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

??????????Where was any common sense and divine help when these mistakes were made??? 

I'm not sure how to answer that.  

Quote

The law has always been there..and unfortunate a church culture who has changed after many lives have been in turmoil . 

Why is it "unfortunate" that the Church has changed its policies (and "church culture") to better address allegations of sexual abuse?  I'm not being obtuse here.  I just don't understand your complaint.

Quote

They need to not only make those changes..(for which I am grateful)..but acknowledge...make amends..and apologize with or without statutes because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO!

"They" being . . . who?

In the case of Kristy Johnson, it looks like the local leaders did not report her father's misconduct to the police.  Unfortunately, that was a common thing 50 or so years ago.  By way of evidence, I point you to . . . Kristy Johnson's Complaint, in which she state that her mother, on at least two separate occasions, talked to their "local bishop" about Mr. Johnson's misconduct, but not the police (paragraphs 10-11).  Moreover, it appears that Kristy Johnson's mother was aware of some of the misconduct, yet still kept her children in the same home as Mr. Johnson.  For many, many years.  So do you likewise condemn Kristy Johnson's mother for not taking this matter to the police?  For keeping her children around her husband?  Are you going to publicly demand that she "acknowledge...make amends..and apologize with or without statutes because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO!"?  If not, why not?  I know that may come across as a little . . . judgmental.  But it's about as judgmental as you are being of the bishops in question, so I guess we're on equal footing on that point.

Moreover, Ms. Johnson states in her Complaint that she reported her father to the police after she returned home from her LDS mission.  And the result of this was . . . "[that] Johnson was not arrested," and instead he moved out of the home (paragraph 18).  So do you likewise condemn the police for not prosecuting Mr. Johnson?  If not, why not?

I am greatly saddened to hear about these sorts of stories.  But demonizing the LDS Church and its bishops for not properly addressing sexual assault allegations in decades past doesn't seem particularly helpful.  Society in general has in the past not been very good at handling misconduct of this sort.  We're all getting better.

For me, I don't condemn past errors.  By the LDS bishops described in Ms. Johnson's Complaint, or by Ms. Johnson's mother, or by the police (all of whom essentially did the same thing: they neglected to properly address allegations of sexual assault).  I am glad that we as a society have improved on this point.  We can and ought to look to our past to see what mistakes have been made.  But we shouldn't do this so much as to condemn and harangue, but to learn and to grow.  I am reminded here of Mormon 9:31:

Quote

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 29, 2018 by smac97

[provoman]

 

I have a difficult time holding a 3rd party responsible, when a 1st party should have gone to the police. Basically what I am reading from others is that EVERYONE can know about the abuse AND NO ONE contacts the police, but the instant anyone learns that a Bishop knew, rally the mob....the Bishop should have called the police.

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

I have a difficult time holding a 3rd party responsible, when a 1st party should have gone to the police. Basically what I am reading from others is that EVERYONE can know about the abuse AND NO ONE contacts the police, but the instant anyone learns that a Bishop knew, rally the mob....the Bishop should have called the police.

Are you saying they shouldn’t have?

Just because others didn’t call the police who were involved, does that let the bishops involved here off the hook?

Would you say the same if it had been a teacher, or a coach or another adult the abuse victim went to for help and they didn’t contact the police?

[smac97]

From an interview with Elders Soares and Gong:

Quote

Q: In recent months the way the LDS Church approaches cases of sexual abuse has come under scrutiny. What would you say to Mormons who worry about how church leaders have handled these situations?

Soares: Abuse is something that we don’t tolerate. When it comes to light, the Church acts and tries to support the one who has been abused and the one who abused. Sometimes discipline means helping a person who falls into this type of abusive behavior to repent and to change. We are as interested in helping him as we are interested in helping the ones who have been abused.

Gong: Most of our bishops — most of our church leaders — are very concerned for youth, for women, for anyone who is vulnerable. I think a general sense of trying to watch out for each other is why we can say with great confidence that parents can be confident that their children are safe. Because we take care of each other and when there are mistakes we catch them when we can and immediately take action.

I think this is a more correct, and helpful, characterization of what LDS bishops are trying to do.

I contrast Elder Gon's remarks ("Most of our bishops...are very concerned for youth, for women, for anyone who is vulnerable...") with the fearmongering and dishonesty coming from people like Craig Vernon.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 6/29/2018 at 12:45 PM, JulieM said:

Are you saying they shouldn’t have?  Just because others didn’t call the police who were involved, does that let the bishops involved here off the hook?

I think he's saying that society in general was failing here.  The bishop should have called the police, yes.  And the mother.  And the police should have arrested the guy.  And the prosecutors should have tried him (if possible).  None of that happened.  But the retrospective focuses solely on the bishops' failure.  Why is that?

Meanwhile, the Church has taken substantial and effective steps to give bishops training and resources so that they can handle these sorts of matters more effectively than has happened in the past.  But Craig Vernon isn't acknowledging that one whit.  Nor is his client.  And they are vilifying the bishops for not reporting the abuse while totally ignoring Ms. Johnson's mother, who also did not report the abuse, and instead kept her kids around their abuser for years.  This sort of selective outrage kinda makes it seem like there is a special sort of prejudice going on.

What are your thoughts about Ms. Johnson's mother?  Just because their bishops didn't call the police, does that let her "off the hook?"  If you are going to condemn the bishops' omissions, are you likewise going to condemn the mother's?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 1, 2018 by smac97