Denson's Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Judge

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Odd, then, to hear folks complain about the Church not leaving this particular former member alone.  We're darned if we do, darned if we don't...

What allegations?  And how do you know they were "dismissed?"  By whom?  

A lot of assumptions going on here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know if she is a former member or when she may have become one.  And she was reaching out to them for help... so it clearly isn't an issue of her wanting to be left alone.

The allegations of misconduct by Bishop were dismissed by Leavitt (per his testimony).

No assumptions -- just going off what the participants reported regarding their own actions/decisions.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think the most likely scenario, if she had kept her mouth shut and kept the recording from going public, is that she would have received a monetary settlement that came with a non-disclosure agreement.  So, I don't think she would have been "making regular rounds on the talk show circuit as an activist".  But, she could have had the money.

She could be an "activist" without breaching an NDA.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

However, I don't see how she "forced the hand of the Church".  They still could have settled. 

I encourage you to give this some further thought and research.  This is not how settlement negotiations generally work.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They still could have disciplined Bishop.  

How is this relevant to McKenna Denson?

And doesn't this pre-suppose that the Church was aware of Ms. Denson's allegations prior to 2010.  There are substantial pieces of evidence indicating that the Church did not know about her allegations until 2010.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She could be an "activist" without breaching an NDA.

I encourage you to give this some further thought and research.  This is not how settlement negotiations generally work.

How is this relevant to McKenna Denson?

And doesn't this pre-suppose that the Church was aware of Ms. Denson's allegations prior to 2010.  There are substantial pieces of evidence indicating that the Church did not know about her allegations until 2010.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it is relevant to a victim to know that the person who harmed them faced some kind of punishment for their actions.

Leavitt knew the allegations prior to 2010.  Asay may have as well.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

 

You have a good heart and are compassionate for others.

Serious question - If this had been your ward and you were really trying to hear the Spirit or your grandchildren's ward would you really be ok with this?

 

 

 

 

I don't think anything truly felt scary until the bishopric member went up to her and put her in a hold that looked uncomfortable for her. That is when I thought it felt icky. But I also didn't like that she aired her disgust of one of their own members of the ward and maybe her tone would have alarmed youngsters. And you're right testimony time is supposed to be more a spiritual time but many members do way more than testify, but give travelmonies, or thankamonies, what was the other? It was in a talk about how to give the right kind of testimony. And most children aren't paying much attention if they are real young. And isn't that a time that the church allows anyone to get up to the podium. Now if McKenna had came up during someone's talk or the bishop talking, or whatever, it may have felt more threatening. But this was during the time that random people get up and people that don't belong to people's wards do this often. And she did mention the Saviour. But she failed when she spoke out in her tone, and in wording, I'll agree with that. But when the males went up and pretty much cornered her like an animal, is where it added to the drama of the situation. 

[Duncan]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think it is relevant to a victim to know that the person who harmed them faced some kind of punishment for their actions.

Leavitt knew the allegations prior to 2010.  Asay may have as well.

Asay died in 1999 so what he knew and whatever is too late now

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Asay died in 1999 so what he knew and whatever is too late now

Understood.  I was referring to information he may have received in the alleged interview with Denson and what he could have done with that information at the time.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Asay died in 1999 so what he knew and whatever is too late now

Well he could present himself as an angel bringing us or one of us some good tidings and speak words of truth to us.  But you have to faith in that kind of thing.  

“McKenna came to me and I didn’t believe her because well it just felt unbelievable.  I guess my discernment powers were acting a little faulty then.”

or 

“I never knew her, nor heard a word from her.  Bishop was a jerk though so I wouldn’t put anything past him”

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well he could present himself as an angel bringing us or one of us some good tidings and speak words of truth to us.  But you have to faith in that kind of thing.  

“McKenna came to me and I didn’t believe her because well it just felt unbelievable.  I guess my discernment powers were acting a little faulty then.”

or 

“I never knew her, nor heard a word from her.  Bishop was a jerk though so I wouldn’t put anything past him”

that would be cool but I somehow doubt what an angel tells you would be inadmissable in court👻

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think anything truly felt scary until the bishopric member went up to her and put her in a hold that looked uncomfortable for her. That is when I thought it felt icky. But I also didn't like that she aired her disgust of one of their own members of the ward and maybe her tone would have alarmed youngsters. And you're right testimony time is supposed to be more a spiritual time but many members do way more than testify, but give travelmonies, or thankamonies, what was the other? It was in a talk about how to give the right kind of testimony. And most children aren't paying much attention if they are real young. And isn't that a time that the church allows anyone to get up to the podium. Now if McKenna had came up during someone's talk or the bishop talking, or whatever, it may have felt more threatening. But this was during the time that random people get up and people that don't belong to people's wards do this often. And she did mention the Saviour. But she failed when she spoke out in her tone, and in wording, I'll agree with that. But when the males went up and pretty much cornered her like an animal, is where it added to the drama of the situation. 

They were trying to get her to stop disrupting the meeting, yet she wouldn’t.  That’s how it appeared to me. No “holds,” no “manhandling.” No "corner[ing] her like an animal." That may be how her sympathizers want to portray it, but it ain’t so. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Indeed on all counts, I'd say.

She's already gotten her share of enemies from this (I mean before this little stunt).  I don't know how many members, even posters here, who seem as pissed at her as she is at Bishop himself.  I really dont' think she cares a great deal what others think--she kind of likes doing what she wants to do.  It's pretty impulsive--that seems to be her style.  I kind of like that trait, even though largely I'm quite the opposite.  Perhaps envious a bit.  Considering how long Bishop himself has gotten away with this, how long it was the Church leaders heard and did nothing, I'm not sure this indiscretion raises to the level perpetrated otherwise.  Well, I am sure and there's no comparison.  People are weird, though.  They put up with some things in society and wait and hope for good results, but in other ways, they simply won't stand for indiscretion.  We often let the process proceed when it comes to certain crimes committed, offensive to all, but as soon as someone disrupts a religious meeting, or steps outside certain unspoken boundaries to speak out...well, that person is awful--full of him/herself and all sorts of things.   I get why people are upset by this, but again, it feels like a small tiny little incident that amounts to nothing--compared to the wrongs put on her.  and in comparison it was absolutely nothing.  

You are right! I feel the same, too bad we can't go back in time and tell McKenna, that no matter who attempts to rape or rapes, that it needs to be yelled about right away to stop the perp from doing it to someone else. But McKenna was raped before apparently, and these victims aren't as vocal about the abuse, maybe even think they are to blame. 

I think the more McKenna matures she sees more and more that it was not her fault, one iota. I wish people understood that she was traumatized as a youth and probably as an infant. Trauma victims while infants or even in the womb, will react much differently than the person who hasn't been. Their actions will be far different, even appear to be completely crazy. I'm learning all of this with the new job I've attained and am suppose to self train with books and tapes to read and listen to. 

[Jeanne]

This whole thing brings to light that evil is good and good is evil.  The whole thing is all backwards and sad. 

[Calm]

Quote

I wish people understood that she was traumatized as a youth and probably as an infant. Trauma victims while infants or even in the womb, will react much differently than the person who hasn't been.

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.

[Duncan]

I wonder what's next for Denson? she can't keep doing this stuff, she'll end up in jail or banned from church property or something drastic and  then that's it for her time in the spotlight. Right now it's Denson Vs. Young, to see who can garner more fame and in 3 weeks, it'll shift to something new

Edited September 5, 2018 by Duncan

[USU78]

2 minutes 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.

Well said: those who are abused can either continue to be victims, victimize others, or overcome victimhood.

And everyone has been victimized to one degree or another by somebody.

[Thinking]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do you suggest we stop the cycle?

For starters, treat victims with respect. This includes finding out the truth no matter the consequences (I believe there's a hymn about that.) Help them secure appropriate professional services to help them figure out how to move forward.

What McKenna Denson is doing is not appropriate, but it is understandable when you consider all that has happened. I would like to think that things would be much different if the original conflict had been handled appropriately.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Thinking said:

For starters, treat victims with respect. This includes finding out the truth no matter the consequences (I believe there's a hymn about that.) Help them secure appropriate professional services to help them figure out how to move forward.

What McKenna Denson is doing is not appropriate, but it is understandable when you consider all that has happened. I would like to think that things would be much different if the original conflict had been handled appropriately.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think it is relevant to a victim to know that the person who harmed them faced some kind of punishment for their actions.

Leavitt knew the allegations prior to 2010.  Asay may have as well.

Leavitt knew, yes.  But he says he didn't tell anyone.  

Which has some rather important ramifications for people who want to fault "the Church" for failing to respond to Ms. Denson's allegations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

For starters, treat victims with respect.

I'm not sure Ms. Denson has been treated with disrespect.

Skepticism arising from her demonstrably awful personal credibility is not disrespect.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

This includes finding out the truth no matter the consequences (I believe there's a hymn about that.) Help them secure appropriate professional services to help them figure out how to move forward.

This happens.  All the time.

It apparently did not happen with Ms. Denson 30+ years ago.  That is very unfortunate, but it's just not a legitimate indictment of today's Church.  The Church is not being given any credit for its extensive efforts to properly address allegations of abuse.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

What McKenna Denson is doing is not appropriate, but it is understandable when you consider all that has happened.

Understandable, maybe.  But still inappropriate.  Wrong.  Improper.  Unacceptable.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I would like to think that things would be much different if the original conflict had been handled appropriately.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think anything truly felt scary until the bishopric member went up to her and put her in a hold that looked uncomfortable for her. That is when I thought it felt icky. But I also didn't like that she aired her disgust of one of their own members of the ward and maybe her tone would have alarmed youngsters. And you're right testimony time is supposed to be more a spiritual time but many members do way more than testify, but give travelmonies, or thankamonies, what was the other? It was in a talk about how to give the right kind of testimony. And most children aren't paying much attention if they are real young. And isn't that a time that the church allows anyone to get up to the podium. Now if McKenna had came up during someone's talk or the bishop talking, or whatever, it may have felt more threatening. But this was during the time that random people get up and people that don't belong to people's wards do this often. And she did mention the Saviour. But she failed when she spoke out in her tone, and in wording, I'll agree with that. But when the males went up and pretty much cornered her like an animal, is where it added to the drama of the situation. 

But this isn't what I asked and I didn't say anything about what testimony time is supposed to be or what people do that they shouldn't be doing.  I asked: If this had been your ward and you were really trying to hear the Spirit or your grandchildren's ward would you really be ok with this?

I'm not trying to say anything. I'm just wanting to know if you would really be ok with it in those circumstances. Feel free to PM if you don't want to say here. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Rain

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Leavitt knew, yes.  But he says he didn't tell anyone.  

Which has some rather important ramifications for people who want to fault "the Church" for failing to respond to Ms. Denson's allegations.

Thanks,

-Smac

Leavitt was the Church’s representative to Denson.  The institutional church doesn’t get to divorce itself from the actions of its local leaders. 

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, Rain said:

But this isn't what I asked and I didn't say anything about what testimony time is supposed to be or what people do that they shouldn't be doing.  I asked: If this had been your ward and you were really trying to hear the Spirit or your grandchildren's ward would you really be ok with this?

I'm not trying to say anything. I'm just wanting to know if you would really be ok with it in those circumstances. Feel free to PM if you don't want to say here. 

I was not okay with the men who stood on both sides of her, and the one man who had his arm around her and hand on her arm as if to haul her off somewhere. That is where it got bad. My grandsons are 13 and 8. The 13 year old probably has an idea what the words rape and pedophile mean but not much. And my 3 yr. old grandson definitely not. And they rarely go to church, my daughter and son-in-law are inactive. My grandsons have been to church with my husband and I and I'm usually on pins and needles at what they say that might offend someone outloud. The one time during prayer my oldest who never goes to church was very noisy throughout but he was only 3 at the time. They would have totally immersed themselves in a video game on their phone if I'd let them, or something for them to do, because they are not use to sitting for so long and told to be quiet or reverent. 

Maybe that's why I didn't answer how you wanted in the first place. My only two grandchildren wouldn't be good test candidates for this at all. They'd probably love the drama. But IMO, the drama heightened when those two men surrounded her.

Scott Lloyd doesn't seem to think they did anything inappropriate, but if it were me, I'd have not liked a man putting his arm around me and taking my arm like that. For one thing this is what some adults do to little children who are being escorted out of somewhere when they misbehave or something, which some on here would say that she deserved to be treated like a child. 

But these men didn't use their words well, instead of their hands. Something I have to tell children all the time, in my line of work in the school district, or I have to tell children to keep their hands to themselves. 

Those men behaved badly, that's all I got to say. Can I have an opinion? Oh, and McKenna did too. She probably went too far. But it escalated when those men came up. The drama of it all. Again, my opinion. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Tacenda

[Rain]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was not okay with the men who stood on both sides of her, and the one man who had his arm around her and hand on her arm as if to haul her off somewhere. That is where it got bad. My grandsons are 13 and 8. The 13 year old probably has an idea what the words rape and pedophile mean but not much. And my 3 yr. old grandson definitely not. And they rarely go to church, my daughter and son-in-law are inactive. My grandsons have been to church with my husband and I and I'm usually on pins and needles at what they say that might offend someone outloud. The one time during prayer my oldest who never goes to church was very noisy throughout but he was only 3 at the time. They would have totally immersed themselves in a video game on their phone if I'd let them, or something for them to do, because they are not use to sitting for so long and told to be quiet or reverent. 

Maybe that's why I didn't answer how you wanted in the first place. My only two grandchildren wouldn't be good test candidates for this at all. They'd probably love the drama. But IMO, the drama heightened when those two men surrounded her.

Scott Lloyd doesn't seem to think they did anything inappropriate, but if it were me, I'd have not liked a man putting his arm around me and taking my arm like that. For one thing this is what some adults do to little children who are being escorted out of somewhere when they misbehave or something. IOW, they didn't use their words, instead of their hands. Something I have to tell children all the time, in my line of work in the school district, or I have to tell them to keep their hands to theirselves. 

Those men behave badly. That's all I got to say. Can I have an opinion? Oh, and McKenna did too. She probably went to far. But it escalated when those men came up. The drama of it all. Again, my opinion. 

I'm sorry, I'm still not clear, but perhaps my question wasn't clear.  I'm not talking about the men or what ultimately happened nor how you think your grandkids would act. I'm just trying to understand you better.

I'm asking if you, personally, would feel ok that McKenna went up there to say what she said if you were there for spiritual reasons? And you are saying you would feel ok if your grandchildren were there? 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Rain

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Leavitt was the Church’s representative to Denson.  

Yes.  And he has stated that he did not tell anyone about Ms. Denson's claims.

I do not excuse that.  It was a serious error on his part.  But again, this has some rather important ramifications for people who want to fault "the Church" for failing to respond to Ms. Denson's allegations.  If Leavitt didn't tell anyone, then that is some fairly important context for why the Church did not do anything to help Ms. Denson.  

Don't get me wrong.  Ms. Denson clearly should have received pastoral care and attention.  But the failure of "the Church" to provide becomes less attributable to generalized neglect and disregard of her claims because the Church, other than her bishop, was not aware of them.

Quote

The institutional church doesn’t get to divorce itself from the actions of its local leaders. 

Well, yes and no. 

As a technical matter, the Church should have provided her with pastoral care.  But as a practical matter, it apparently was not aware of such a need until 2010.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 5, 2018 by smac97

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They were trying to get her to stop disrupting the meeting, yet she wouldn’t.  That’s how it appeared to me. No “holds,” no “manhandling.” No "corner[ing] her like an animal." That may be how her sympathizers want to portray it, but it ain’t so. 

Scott, how would you feel if someone did that to you? How would it feel to have someone put their arms around you and their body tightly touching yours with their hand on your arm as if to take you against your will? I know she deserved to be told to leave the premises. And if she didn't then tell her they will have to call the police. I wouldn't say they assaulted her, they just made a terrible choice to put their hands on her. It appeared at the 1:17 mark in the video link below. That is when it got out of hand or crossed the line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOIxoEB0jBs

 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm sorry, I'm still not clear, but perhaps my question wasn't clear.  I'm not talking about the men or what ultimately happened nor how you think your grandkids would act. I'm just trying to understand you better.

I'm asking if you, personally, would feel ok that McKenna went up there to say what she said if you were there for spiritual reasons? And you are saying you would feel ok if your grandchildren were there? 

In my TBM days, no, I wouldn't have liked her doing that, but I also wouldn't have liked the men doing what they did. McKenna has repeatedly been put last in the church's eyes. All those years they couldn't give her a straight answer. Maybe if Bishop had been disciplined right at the beginning. But apparently some men in the church protected him. It's a pattern that has lasted far too long, the abused get the shaft, IMO.