Denson's Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Judge

[Rising_Darkness]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

On New Name Noah, Mike Norton. Again, I have grown to respect him and his openness about his motives and methods. 

Forgive me for chuckling at your comment of “respect him...and his motives and methods”.

Is the new normal for Fast and Testimony meetings now; and something you condone?  I mean pretending to be an active member (aka wolf in sheep’s clothing) and having the pretense of being sincere and genuine about how the “new essays” and how it is “disturbing” and openly telling a family congregation that they shouldn’t trust their bishops anymore?

Is that something you “respect”?

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of members, have not had the experience like some members have when it comes to inappropriate questions. And to those that have been taken advantage of, manipulated and lied, assasulted and even raped - most genuine people have compassion and heart.

 

On a random sidenote and since I brought up “manipulation”, does NewNameNoah and NewNameNephi and and many ex-Mormons use manipulation techniques to persuade others?  Almost hypocritical to think that former members say “don’t trust the church because they are manipulative”, yet, they themselves are manipulative in telling others to not join? 

...calling the kettle black and around and around it goes.  It’s nothing new, it’s alwyas been this way throughout time, I should point out.

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

But we have only her claims and a short statement from the Church.  Lots of details left out of both, imo..  

The other victim was provided with counseling according to the Church's report and we haven't heard her contradict that:

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

So the difference might be local leaders or it may be that Denson refused help.  She is reported as a former member, so if she refused to meet with the leaders, there would have been nothing they could have done.  Or the leaders may have decided her threat with the gun was enough to not engage with her.  Maybe they knew of her history of fraud (we don't know if other family lived in the area, her ex husband might have shared that info).  Or they might have been jerks and ignored her because she wasn't a member and they thought she would drop it after the police showed up.  Or they might have engaged with her as neighbours rather than leaders and she didn't realize the intent was pastoral care.

When I talk about how I think the Church should have cared for her, I'm referring to the actions that they should have taken when they learned of the alleged abuse.  For example, whether in 1987, 2010, 2016, or 2018, step one should have been for a member of the Q12 or FP to sit down and talk to her about it.  A mission president call is extended by an apostle so that is the appropriate level at which, IMO, this should have been handled.  From the beginning.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

How would anyone know that for the worldwide Church???

We wouldn't, because the information is not shared and the settlements are hidden behind NDA's.  If you are happy with our church settling sexual abuse cases and keeping them hidden, that's fine.  I am not.  I think these things need to be brought out into the light of day.

I'm glad your experience has been as positive as it has.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, provoman said:

Are you positive about that. 

Yes.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, mormondialoguethrowaway said:

That's quite a conspiracy you are inventing on-the-fly...  Not a sign of a good argument. 

I'm with Abulafia on this... Leavitt's statements do not add up.

 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

If we don't have an idea how often it happens, how do we know it is a significant problem?  (I do believe there should be a better reporting system for victims, .I don't believe there should be NDAs unless there is not enough evidence to prove abuse and thus it amounts solely to conflicting unsubstantiated claims or unless the victim asks for one).

We can't know if it is a significant problem if the information is never shared with us.  And, I'm with you on your other statements above.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Considering the Denson interview,

There are quite a few problems with this "interview."  Its value as evidence is, I think, quite limited.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

the police interview,

I think you are correct on this point.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

the second victim,

Who remains anonymous, and hence is probably not available to testify against Bishop as required by the Church's guidelines for discipline (CHI-1, section 6.10.4).

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

and other corroborating witnesses,

Other corroborating witnesses?  Which ones?  What do they corroborate?

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

there seems sufficient evidence to call a disciplinary council. 

I think the police interview is probative and relevant, but the other items you mention . . . not so much.

A few more thoughts:

A) In the end, I don't think the local leaders have a choice in the matter.  Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 provides that a disciplinary council is mandatory for "serious transgression{s} while holding a prominent church position."  The term "prominent Church positions" includes "Area Seventy; temple, mission, or stake president; patriarch; or bishop (but not branch president)."  I think president of the MTC is essentially identical to a mission president in terms of prominence.  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.  So an MTC president being accused of sexually assaulting a sister missionary in the MTC would fall squarely within the "mandatory disciplinary council" category.  Even the lesser (but still extremely serious) allegation that he showed her pornography would, I think, be "a deliberate and major offense against morality," which is the broad characterizational definition of "serious transgression" in Section 6.7.2.

So a disciplinary council appears to be mandatory, at least at first glance.  However...

B) There are some logistical challenges to conducting a disciplinary council.  First, Joseph Bishop may be non compos mentis, or else so advanced in years that his memory has been substantially affected, such that he may lack the capacity to meaningfully address the allegations against him.  Moreover, the alleged misconduct took place 34 years ago.  

Second, 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."  Given Ms. Denson's behavior, I think there may be some serious reservations about asking her to participate in a disciplinary council.  She appears to lack self-control and respect and decorum.  And given her farcical behavior over this last weekend, I would think any proposal to ask her to participate in a solemn disciplinary council is simply out of the question.  She would turn it into a media circus.  She is simply not trustworthy in this regard.

Third, the Handbook provides that if a witness (like Ms. Denson) is "unable" to attend, the presiding officer (the stake president) should invite 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, or if the witness is as volatile and disruptive and disrespectful and likely as McKenna Denson.  On balance, I think the Bishop's local leaders could contact her and invite her to provide a written statement.  That would probably be the best course of action.  However, given the ongoing public antics of McKenna Denson, I could understand a decision to postpone discipline for a period.  Let things things calm down a bit.  A disciplinary council is not supposed to be a public spectacle, but I think it's fair to say that McKenna Denson would probably do everything within her power to make it into one.  

C) We don't know if a council has already been held.  The Church doesn't publicize such things.  And the local leaders may not feel is appropriate to include McKenna Denson in such proceedings given her unseemly behavior (particularly this last weekend, sheesh).  Section 6.10.3 of the Handbook provides that

Quote

When there is an aggrieved victim[], the presiding officer of the upcoming disciplinary council contacts the victim’s current bishop or stake president. If the victim’s current bishop or stake president already knows about the situation, the two leaders determine whether it would be helpful and appropriate for the victim to be given an opportunity to provide a written or oral statement about the known or alleged misconduct and how it has affected the victim and his or her family.

In this case, I could see local leaders determining that asking McKenna Denson to participate would be neither helpful nor appropriate.  She is not behaving rationally or reasonably.  And her behavior this last weekend pretty much eliminates the possibility of trusting her to participate in a solemn and serious disciplinary proceeding administered by the Church.  So the local leaders may have proceeded on the available "evidence," including Ms. Denson's published allegations, Joseph Bishop's statement to the BYU police, the remarks from Ron Leavitt, and so on.

If a council has already been held, there is a good chance that we simply would not know about it.  

D) There is no particular deadline for the Church to convene a council.  The Church doesn't really have a "statute of limitations" on when it convenes a disciplinary council.  Moreover, given the ongoing lawsuit against the Church, it could very well be a prudent step to wait until the lawsuit is over before convening a council.  The outcome of Church discipline should not affect civil proceedings.  It is my understanding, when a member of the Church is going through civil/criminal proceedings for alleged misconduct, that the Church may wait until the conclusion of such proceedings before convening a council.

E) Ultimately, justice will be done.  This is a very comforting thought for me.  I have been practicing as an attorney for 15 years.  I have first-hand experience with our legal system and its limitations.  It can provide some measure of compensation, some form of "justice," but it often cannot.  Just look at Ms. Denson's lawsuit against Joseph Bishop, which was dismissed in its entirety because of the statute of limitations.  

In the end, we must trust that God will see that justice - and mercy - will be meted out.

• "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works." (Jacob 4:10)
• "Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."  (Mosiah 2:38)
• "And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good."  (Alma 41:3)
• "And when ye shall see these sayings coming forth among you, then ye need not any longer spurn at the doings of the Lord, for the sword of his justice is in his right hand."  (3 Nephi 39:4)
• "Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness."  (D&C 107:84)
• "And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen."  (Moroni 10:34)

We none of us "get away with it."  We either repent, or else we are held to account for our actions.  

Again, I have much sympathy for McKenna Denson.  I am saddened by her unseemly behavior, and I hope she gains some measure of self-control and composure and restraint.  Most of all, I hope she finds peace.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Abulafia said:

2) The singles ward bishop is not giving the whole facts,

How do you know this?

8 hours ago, Abulafia said:

and he would have been warned against making the church liable.

Speculation.

8 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Despite his media report where he said he didn't believe her, he continued to trust McKenna with his kids and they remained friends. 

Not crediting her story about being abused while in the MTC doesn't preclude him from otherwise maintaining a friendship with her.

Moreover, the fact that he "remained friends" with her could just as easily be construed as lending credence to his statements.

8 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Believe me, he is not giving the whole story.

Why should we believe you about this?  What information do you have that the rest of us do not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  Once a person has threatened to commit murder, most assumptions about her reasonableness, her mental health, and her willingness to resort to physical violence are off the table.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm a little unclear why we are reasonably believing this abuse happened. Have any other witnesses that I am unaware of?

it may have happened, it may not, I'm not sure we can reach any reasonable conclusions she has just based on her erratic history

[juliann]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's amazing to me that there has never been a disciplinary court called for him.  Do we know what his membership status is?

All I remember are the reports he had resigned his membership. IIR, there was a credible report of that (to me anyway) beyond the reddit chatter. 

I hope that is the case because it is troubling that there has been no disciplinary council. Although to be fair, it might have been kept quiet and without a leaker we might not ever know. 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When I talk about how I think the Church should have cared for her, I'm referring to the actions that they should have taken when they learned of the alleged abuse.  For example, whether in 1987, 2010, 2016, or 2018, step one should have been for a member of the Q12 or FP to sit down and talk to her about it. 

First, when did she resign her membership?  We don't know that, so the "whether in 1987..." remark seems inapt.

Second, how do you know that she wasn't offered assistance?  She spoke with a stake president in Pueblo, CO.  How do you know he did not offer her assistance?

Third, pretty much the only thing the Church could do for her is help her get mental health counseling.  So what do you mean by "the Church should have cared for her?"  What is it that you think the Church "should have" done?

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

A mission president call is extended by an apostle so that is the appropriate level at which, IMO, this should have been handled.  From the beginning.

I don't think that's how church discipline works, particularly decades after the fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.

will you provide the reference? If it is in the audio transcript page number would be sufficient. 

[Rising_Darkness]

Btw, I think it would be great if someone who knows all of these details and timeline could put a post which explains all of that.

To be honest, I’m getting lost on all of the hearsay, speculation and facts intermixed.

 

And not in a way that portrays her in a bad light (as she is doing that herself), but rather things she has purportedly done, what asay and others have said and their timeline, when she said she wants to murder, when she went to bishops homeward in Arizona, etc.

im sure it would be an arduous endeavor otherwise this speculation of he said she said will continue...

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I'm a little unclear why we are reasonably believing this abuse happened. Have any other witnesses that I am unaware of?

Another victim, anonymous to date, has come forward.

Moreover, Joseph Bishop has confessed to some misconduct, though not rape.  His remarks to the BYU Police bear that out, plus his remarks during Ms. Denson's "interview" indicate some measure of culpability (though, again, not rape).

Moreover, Ms. Denson knew details about Joseph Bishop's life, including "inappropriate" details, that seem to have originated with him.  She also knew about the basement room.

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

it may have happened, it may not, I'm not sure we can reach any reasonable conclusions she has just based on her erratic history

I think it's reasonable to conclude that something bad happened to her.  We just don't know if it was "he showed her pornography" or forcible sexual assault, or something else.

There could have been some interesting things come out of the litigation.  For example, whether Ms. Denson spoke with Elder Carlos Asay is very much in dispute.  She claims that her then-fiancé-now-ex-husband accompanied her when she met with Elder Asay.  Her ex-husband has been very skeptical of her claims against Bishop, stating that she has previously made at least two other false rape claims (one of which Ms. Denson admits to herself).  It would have been interesting to hear from him about whether he really did accompany her to meet with Elder Asay.

Also, Ron Leavitt has stated that Ms. Denson reported to him that Joseph Bishop took her and another sister missionary to the basement room "and showed them pornography.”  Did she ever make a similar disclosure to her then-fiancé-now-ex-husband?

Also, in her "rough draft" letter, Denson states:

Quote

I reported the incidents of President Bishop to my Bishop in about 1988. His name was Ron Leavitt. He reported to the Stake President’ who called and reported to church headquarters in Salt Lake.

Elder Carlos Asay visited me in Provo or Orem and interviewed me. I reported everything except the rape. I didn’t think of it as rape as he didn’t have a full erection.

Elder Asay said he would investigate the incident and let me know the outcome.

"I reported everything except the rape."  The one thing she is suing about she says she didn't report to Elder Asay.

And from her statements in the podcast:

Quote

Denson: You know, I don't really remember a whole lot about it, but I do remember explaining to Elder Asay the grooming process.  How there were four sister missionaries, including myself, and then there were two, including myself, and then it became one-on-one.  And I remember sharing the inappropriate sexual stories that Elder, excuse me, President Bishop shared with me about his wife, and about the hot tub or hot springs.  I don't remember a whole lot more.  I just remember telling him what happened.

Interviewer: What was Elder Asay's reaction?

Denson: He was rather stoic.  He didn't seem to have a lot of emotion.  He seemed very rigid, like he was just taking the information in.  But it didn't move him at all.  

She "[doesn't remember a whole lot about" her purported discussion with Elder Asay.  The details she does remember do not include a violent, forcible rape.  She remembers telling him about a "grooming process" and "inappropriate sexual stories," but "[not] a whole lot more."

So did she meet with Elder Asay, or not?  And if she did, did she report a sexual assault, or not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, Leavitt erred at the time he was told by Denson (possibly Elder Asay - we only have conflicting testimony).  

Yep.  Nobody seems to be disputing this.

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

And other church leaders failed to provide pastoral care later on (post 2010).  

But you don't know this.  That's my point.

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

This is my point - she should have been cared for by church leaders better than she was. 

I'm afraid I still do not understand your grievance here.  What does "should have been cared for by church leaders" mean?  What is it that you think the Church should have done?  And how do you know the Church did not do it (or attempt to do it)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Another victim, anonymous to date, has come forward.

I thought one came forward and gave her name.  Am I remembering wrong?

[Abulafia]

Smack, imho you are being a little disingenuous when you argue she didn't mention rape to Asay. 

 

Again, rape is a word with ambiguous connotations and varies state by state,  surely ? He didn't achieve full penetration.  Under the current guidelines even partial penetration would be rape?

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

(bold mine)

I know I sure had troubles didn't I!?!

I deleted the majority of my response. And by doing that it came off badly. I cut out the part that in my mindset now, with the knowledge of abuse in the church, I have some different feelings, a feeling that we need to be loud and clear if we've been abused.

Are you sure about that?  What about people who do not want to be publicly identified and defined in this way?

We need to address allegations of sexual assault, yes.  But not in the crazy, tumultuous, frenzied way that McKenna Denson has utilized.

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And I know that as a TBM I had no idea the amount of abuse in the church.

But that is still the case, is it not?  Most of what is presented as "evidence" are stories are almost entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and from anonymous sources.  We aren't in a court of law, but unfetterd and credulous acceptance of these narratives is not really the best way to go.  

Moreover, some people seem to rely almost completely on these narratives, to the exclusion of any competent evidence, reasoned analysis, etc., with the apparent objective of whipping people up into a frenzy of alarm, anger, resentments, and high emotion.  Creating a mob mentality.  An hysteria.  About a topic that is extremely important.

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And how could I, the church lawyers usually pay off these victims before it hits the news.

What if "these victims" don't want to be publicly identified?  What if they want to keep these things confidential?  Who are you to insist that such damaging and disturbing information about their private lives be trotted out for public consumption?

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And the church for years has told the bishops not to report it to the police, even those that have been abused, of course this has been in the past, and maybe individual cases where a bishop made an executive decision, per se. 

You are profoundly wrong here.

Profoundly.

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I've heard that from the lawyer that represented the victims because he said that the helpline for the bishops is a phone number directly to a church lawyer. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/421854/LDS-HOTLINE-TO-HELP-LEADERS-DEAL-WITH-ABUSE.html.

Yes.  That is not a secret at all.

Again, you are very wrong here.

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You could say my level of trust in the church has hit an all time low. So that is where I'm at.

I encourage you to give this some further thought and study and investigation.  You are assuming the worst about the Church.  You are factually incorrect on some substantial issues.

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And for Joseph Bishop to be able to proceed to be a mission president even after confessing to Elder Wells?

We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells.

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

He admitted that he confessed to McKenna when she interviewed him under false pretenses, it's on the tape and here in the timeline. 

https://medium.com/@davidscoville/timeline-of-the-joseph-bishop-sexual-abuse-scandal-77f39be1ef3a

Again, we don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Avatar4321]

9 hours ago, provoman said:

Are you positive about that. Yes he apoligized - he didn't specify as to what, and after she accused him he stated he didn't remember it that way, he also repeatedlynsaid he was worried about what he has forgotten, but I do not recall him confessing to sexually assaulting Denson.

That's my understanding as well

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Understanding this does not mean we have to accept that trauma victims therefore have the right to traumatized others.  

People who were abused often become abusers.  How do you suggest we stop the cycle?  I don't believe making excuses for trauma victims or being dismissive of the harm they may cause others is healthy.

I remain confused by what you are accusing her of doing.  Did she say the word rape and that can cause trauma to the kids?  If so we're in a world of trouble, or our kids are. That's not to say rape is a word that doesn't cause negative feelings and is a word not to be used in front of kids, but I can't imagine kids int he audience suffering from trauma due to that couple minute interruption. 

It's feels weird to equate the trauma she claims came from Bishop's assault, rape and all that to her using the word rape in front of kids, at least to me.  I don't know that trauma is caused by that.  It feels like a pretty sketchy accusation to be throwing out there.  

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smack, imho you are being a little disingenuous when you argue she didn't mention rape to Asay. 

I am not "arguing" that.  I am quoting McKenna Denson: "Elder Carlos Asay visited me in Provo or Orem and interviewed me. I reported everything except the rape."

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Again, rape is a word with ambiguous connotations and varies state by state,  surely? 

Again: "I reported everything except the rape."

And in her podcast interview, she states that she "[doesn't] remember a whole lot about" her purported discussion with Elder Asay.  The details she does remember do not include a violent, forcible rape.  She remembers telling him about a "grooming process" and "inappropriate sexual stories," but "[not] a whole lot more."

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

He didn't achieve full penetration.  Under the current guidelines even partial penetration would be rape?

I'm not speaking of legal complexities.  I'm speaking of what McKenna Denson herself has reported disclosing (and not disclosing) to Elder Asay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, mormondialoguethrowaway said:

Yes, but the rape claim is new. 

I don't think that's new, is it?  She claimed he penetrated her but pulled out and didn't finish (and she ran and got away).  I'd call that rape (although she didn't seem to know it was actual rape at the time).

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, when did she resign her membership?  We don't know that, so the "whether in 1987..." remark seems inapt.

Second, how do you know that she wasn't offered assistance?  She spoke with a stake president in Pueblo, CO.  How do you know he did not offer her assistance?

Third, pretty much the only thing the Church could do for her is help her get mental health counseling.  So what do you mean by "the Church should have cared for her?"  What is it that you think the Church "should have" done?

I don't think that's how church discipline works, particularly decades after the fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know when she resigned her membership.  I haven't made a specific claim that she did resign her membership.  But the Mormon Newsroom article (linked by Calm) identifies her as a former member.  I'm still not sure how that is relevant to my comments... just answering your question.

I am making my suggestions for how I believe the church should have handled this issue out of its sense of doing what is right and to avoid it having escalated to where it has.  And, as I mentioned, my belief is that a member of the Q12 or the FP should have met with her as soon as they heard of the abuse (whether that was anywhere in the 1987 to 2018 timeframe).  I was not suggesting that the apostles handle the discipline.  The discipline should be handled within his stake.

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, provoman said:

will you provide the reference? If it is in the audio transcript page number would be sufficient. 

You asked if I was positive that he had confessed to sexually abusing her.  I am, based on what I heard in the audio.  You may not be, you'll have to listen to it and read the BYU PD police report and make your own determination.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  Nobody seems to be disputing this.

But you don't know this.  That's my point.

I'm afraid I still do not understand your grievance here.  What does "should have been cared for by church leaders" mean?  What is it that you think the Church should have done?  And how do you know the Church did not do it (or attempt to do it)?

Thanks,

-Smac

The body that is responsible for mission presidents (Q12/FP) should have addressed it quickly and directly (in person) with Denson and Bishop.  IMO.

Handing it over to a legal team is the corporate action.  Meeting with Denson and Bishop in person would be, in my opinion, the pastoral action of a church.

And then, when appropriate, that same body (Q12/FP) should have addressed it with the church.

Edited September 5, 2018 by rockpond