Denson's Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Judge

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

It's relevant because "the Church" is not really in a position to help a former member.  She probably isn't attending services, isn't meeting with a bishop or stake president, etc.

So if she has not been a member for an extended period, then a lack of pastoral care would be expected, would it not?  If she's not attending, not asking for such care, etc., then do you expect the Church to foist it upon her?

I have a friend who resigned her membership in the Church.  The last thing she wants in the world is for the Church to be in her life, offering "pastoral care."  She wants to be left alone.  That's a fairly common thing with former members.  So perhaps you can understand how local leaders may have been reluctant to offer pastoral care to someone who has resigned from the Church, who is not attending services (and presumably hasn't asked for "pastoral care"), who has threatened to murder a member of the Church, etc.

Quote

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. 

I think we have huge gaps in the information about Ms. Denson.

Quote

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 am curious as to why you think this, particularly given that this issue apparently came to light in 2010 when she contacted the Church and threatened to murder Joseph Bishop.

Quote

I was not suggesting that the apostles handle the discipline.  The discipline should be handled within his stake.

I guess I don't understand the fixation on "the Q12 or the FP."  If anything, in retrospect I am glad they didn't meet with her.  Would she have recorded the conversation?  Would she have used such an appointment to rail against the Church?  Would any of that have been helpful to the situation?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 5, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

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)?

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

"Addressed it quickly?"  What does that mean?  When?  Address it how?  

And why "in person," particularly given that Ms. Denson threatened to murder Joseph Bishop?  

And what is wrong with having local leaders address this issue? 

Quote

Handing it over to a legal team is the corporate action. 

She had her attorneys contact the Church.  Are you seriously suggesting that apostles, and not lawyers, should respond to legal claims against the Church?

Quote

Meeting with Denson and Bishop in person would be, in my opinion, the pastoral action of a church.

Again, how do you know that this has even been requested by Ms. Denson?  How do you know it was not offered?

Quote

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

You seem to be making this stuff up as you go along.  You seem fixated on optics and gestures, but the Church addresses such matters through doctrine and procedures derived therefrom.  Things like stewardship and jurisdiction over disciplinary matters are not a make-it-us-as-you-go-along kinds of things.

If anything, the Brethren appear to have been very wise to not get personally involved with Ms. Denson, whose behavior over the last several months has been neither rational nor reasonable.  Her behavior over this weekend confirms that.   Moreover, she is plainly untrustworthy.  I think she would have looked to exploit and abuse any offers of conciliatory meetings with the leaders of the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 5, 2018 by smac97

[provoman]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

You stated he confessed to sexual assualtung Denson....

CFR that Bishop confessed to sexually assualting Denson.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's relevant because "the Church" is not really in a position to help a former member.  She probably isn't attending services, isn't meeting with a bishop or stake president, etc.

So if she has not been a member for an extended period, then a lack of pastoral care would be expected, would it not?  If she's not attending, not asking for such care, etc., then do you expect the Church to foist it upon her?

I have a friend who resigned her membership in the Church.  The last thing she wants in the world is for the Church to be in her life, offering "pastoral care."  She wants to be left alone.  That's a fairly common thing with former members.  So perhaps you can understand how local leaders may have been reluctant to offer pastoral care to someone who has resigned from the Church, who is not attending services (and presumably hasn't asked for "pastoral care"), who has threatened to murder a member of the Church, etc.

I think we have huge gaps in the information about Ms. Denson.

I am curious as to why you think this, particularly given that this issue apparently came to light in 2010 when she contacted the Church and threatened to murder Joseph Bishop.

I guess I don't understand the fixation on "the Q12 or the FP."  If anything, in retrospect I am glad they didn't meet with her.  Would she have recorded the conversation?  Would she have used such an appointment to rail against the Church?  Would any of that have been helpful to the situation?

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, I'm referring to her attempts to reach out to the church to get "closure" (whatever that meant to her, the victim) on this matter.  At those times, it seems to me that the Church acted like a corporation protecting its interest rather than a church caring for one of God's children.  I could care less about her membership status - my focus is on how our church responds and reacts.

I have not idea what she would have done had she been able to meet with an apostle.

[provoman]

32 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

That's my understanding as well

So far, it is as I suspected, "fill in the gaps and assume what is not in the body of evidence"

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Addressed it quickly?"  What does that mean?  When?  Address it how?  

And why "in person," particularly given that Ms. Denson threatened to murder Joseph Bishop?  

And what is wrong with having local leaders address this issue? 

She had her attorneys contact the Church.  Are you seriously suggesting that apostles, and not lawyers, should respond to legal claims against the Church?

Again, how do you know that this has even been requested by Ms. Denson?  How do you know it was not offered?

You seem to be making this stuff up as you go along.  You seem fixated on optics and gestures, but the Church addresses such matters through doctrine and procedures derived therefrom.  Things like stewardship and jurisdiction over disciplinary matters are not a make-it-us-as-you-go-along kinds of things.

If anything, the Brethren appear to have been very wise to not get personally involved with Ms. Denson, whose behavior over the last several months has been neither rational nor reasonable.  Her behavior over this weekend confirms that.   Moreover, she is plainly untrustworthy.  I think she would have looked to exploit and abuse any offers of conciliatory meetings with the leaders of the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You want me to put a timeframe on "quickly"?  Does it matter?  2 weeks... a month... two months.  Give me a break.

Because "in person" is meaningful.

Local leaders didn't call Joseph Bishop.  Local leaders can't make significant changes church-wide.  Local leaders don't oversee the MTC.

Having her attorneys contact the church was her final step after she had been ignored.  And it is fine for the church to have its legal team respond to her attorney.  An apostle also could have responded to her personally.

I believe that in her interview with Radio  Free Mormon she would have mentioned if an apostle had offered to meet with her.

Having an apostle meet with her isn't simply an optic or gesture.  It shows care and concern for the individual and a desire to address the situation.

And, yes, her behavior this weekend was not rational or reasonable.  It was the behavior of an individual who feels she has been cast aside and has no real avenue to justice -- I believe the church could have prevented her from ever getting to that point. Quite easily.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, provoman said:

You stated he confessed to sexual assualtung Denson....

CFR that Bishop confessed to sexually assualting Denson.

You asked if I was positive that he had confessed to sexually assaulting her. I am - for the reasons I have stated (based on the audio recording).  I realize and accept that others feel differently.

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Again, I'm referring to her attempts to reach out to the church to get "closure" (whatever that meant to her, the victim) on this matter. 

What are these "attempts?"  We have a 23-year gap between the disclosure to Ron Leavitt in 1987, and the events in 2010.  Whom did she contact?  When?  How?

And what does "closure" mean?  

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

At those times, it seems to me that the Church acted like a corporation protecting its interest rather than a church caring for one of God's children. 

"At those times?"  What times are those?

And how do you know what the Church did or did not do?

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I could care less about her membership status - my focus is on how our church responds and reacts.

But you don't have information about what the Church did or did not do.  So it seems premature to fault the Church when your criticisms stem from a position of substantial ignorance.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have not idea what she would have done had she been able to meet with an apostle.

Nor do I, but she's left plenty of evidence for us to make reasonable inferences.

She threatened to murder Joseph Bishop.  She used lies and deceit, repeatedly, to secure a meeting with Joseph Bishop, and then secretly recorded that "interview," then made a big public to-do about it.  And then there's the stunt she pulled over this last weekend.

Again: If she has not been a member for an extended period, then a lack of pastoral care would be expected, would it not?  If she's not attending, not asking for such care, etc., then do you expect the Church to foist it upon her?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

What are these "attempts?"  We have a 23-year gap between the disclosure to Ron Leavitt in 1987, and the events in 2010.  Whom did she contact?  When?  How?

And what does "closure" mean?  

"At those times?"  What times are those?

And how do you know what the Church did or did not do?

But you don't have information about what the Church did or did not do.  So it seems premature to fault the Church when your criticisms stem from a position of substantial ignorance.

Nor do I, but she's left plenty of evidence for us to make reasonable inferences.

She threatened to murder Joseph Bishop.  She used lies and deceit, repeatedly, to secure a meeting with Joseph Bishop, and then secretly recorded that "interview," then made a big public to-do about it.  And then there's the stunt she pulled over this last weekend.

Again: If she has not been a member for an extended period, then a lack of pastoral care would be expected, would it not?  If she's not attending, not asking for such care, etc., then do you expect the Church to foist it upon her?

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm working from what she has stated in her audio recording and her RFM interview.  Beyond that, I am not going to keep rehashing this.  I've explained what I felt the church should have done, how it should have acted.

And I don't believe for a moment that she ever had the real intent to murder Bishop... it was, like the ridiculous stunt last Sunday, a terrible outcry from a neglected victim.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I think you are correct on this point.

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).

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

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

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

i agree. Often what we have to do is trust God for justice and remember He is an Avenging God.

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You asked if I was positive that he had confessed to sexually assaulting her. I am - for the reasons I have stated (based on the audio recording).  I realize and accept that others feel differently.

 

You made an affirmative statement, 

Please adhere to the CFR requirements.

[Calm]

1 hour 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.  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.

Good point.  This should have happened in 1987.  It is unfortunate that for whatever reason, Denson did not share any details when she did meet with an apostle though in 1985/6.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

You left out one key element:  Bishop confessed to sexually assaulting Denson. 

CFR

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

"Addressed it quickly?"  What does that mean?  When?  Address it how?  

And why "in person," particularly given that Ms. Denson threatened to murder Joseph Bishop?  

And what is wrong with having local leaders address this issue? 

She had her attorneys contact the Church.  Are you seriously suggesting that apostles, and not lawyers, should respond to legal claims against the Church?

Again, how do you know that this has even been requested by Ms. Denson?  How do you know it was not offered?

You seem to be making this stuff up as you go along.  You seem fixated on optics and gestures, but the Church addresses such matters through doctrine and procedures derived therefrom.  Things like stewardship and jurisdiction over disciplinary matters are not a make-it-us-as-you-go-along kinds of things.

If anything, the Brethren appear to have been very wise to not get personally involved with Ms. Denson, whose behavior over the last several months has been neither rational nor reasonable.  Her behavior over this weekend confirms that.   Moreover, she is plainly untrustworthy.  I think she would have looked to exploit and abuse any offers of conciliatory meetings with the leaders of the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You want me to put a timeframe on "quickly"?  Does it matter?  2 weeks... a month... two months.  Give me a break.

Given the arbitrary, because-I-say-so nature of your expectations, yes, a timeframe would be helpful.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Because "in person" is meaningful.

Okay.  But an "in person" meeting would also require some semblance of good faith, would it not?

And Ms. Denson has demonstrated her proclivity for publicity, and her animosity toward the Church.  A meeting between her and an apostle would have been a debacle.

Moreover, she threatened to murder Joseph Bishop.  

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Local leaders didn't call Joseph Bishop.  Local leaders can't make significant changes church-wide.  Local leaders don't oversee the MTC.

But local leaders do have jurisdiction over Joseph Bishop.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Having her attorneys contact the church was her final step after she had been ignored. 

How do you know?  

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And it is fine for the church to have its legal team respond to her attorney.  An apostle also could have responded to her personally.

And it would have been a debacle.  And it would have been necessary to record the meeting, since Ms. Denson is not trustworthy and would certainly publicize the meeting with her own spin.  And knowing ahead of time that she would be publicizing it, she would have every incentive to sensationalize the meeting.  And her behavior during the meeting would be about as decorous and civil as her behavior over this weekend when she disrupted a ward in Chandler, Arizona and misappropriated a sacred religious service so she could make public accusations of sexual assault to a room full of people, including young children, who had nothing to do with what happened to her.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe that in her interview with Radio  Free Mormon she would have mentioned if an apostle had offered to meet with her.

Given her behavior, and the ongoing litigation, your proposal makes no sense.  At all.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Having an apostle meet with her isn't simply an optic or gesture.  It shows care and concern for the individual and a desire to address the situation.

So would a meeting with local leaders.

And again, Ms. Denson is not trustworthy.  She would have turned any such meeting into a sensationalized media event.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And, yes, her behavior this weekend was not rational or reasonable. 

Then it is pretty strange that you are suggesting that she should have met with an apostle, in which meeting she would also have not been "rational or reasonable."

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It was the behavior of an individual who feels she has been cast aside and has no real avenue to justice -- I believe the church could have prevented her from ever getting to that point. Quite easily.

Well, maybe.  Hard to say what effect a disciplinary action against Joseph Bishop would have had on her life.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

Honestly, Smac. You say you have sympathy with McKenna's plight but can't help mention again, and again, and again that she threatened to *murder* Jo Bishop.

 

Come on.  At least it shows that the poor woman has been *harping on* about this man for years with no restitution.  Heck, even before this got into the public domain how many times did she cry out for help and validation? 

 

Most victims, as I understand it, want validation and maybe even an apology wouldn't go amiss.   

 

It's incredibly said that the only people who are validating her are ex, post or very liberal members.  

 

To me, it seems the church legal department is so intent on avoiding liability that the human milk of kindness is lost.  

 

Kelly Clark was an attorney who spent years fighting abuse in religious settings.

 

What he said in 2009 is as relevant today.

 

https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1328&context=wmlr

 

 

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

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:

"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:

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

I'm not reasonably persuaded by anonymous victims. And from what I understand about his "confession" he has some issues with his memory..

not exactly a smoking gun.

I'm not convinced

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

 

He made one statement I am aware of.  What are the contradictions?  If you mean his latter behaviour doesn't match because he was a friend to her, wouldn't you want a person to be a friend to someone they thought was disturbed at that time?  And not hold it against them for years, but judge them on current behaviour (which was at the very least married in the temple, child iirc)?

Edited September 5, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And I don't believe for a moment that she ever had the real intent to murder Bishop...

That's good for you, but you could understand why other people might think that a person who has threatened to commit murder, and whose past behavior also includes identity theft, false rape claims, insurance scams, and using lies and deceit to secretly record a private discussion, and who sensationalizes and publicizes her private life (even when doing so is irrational and unreasonable), etc., is probably not in a good state of mind to meet with an apostle.  There would be no good faith on her part.  None.  Just grist for her to further her animosity toward the Church.

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

it was, like the ridiculous stunt last Sunday, a terrible outcry from a neglected victim.

It's more than that, though.  It is one of many indications that she is a deeply disturbed person.  

In the absence of good faith, and reasonableness and civility, no meeting would be appropriate.  Her behavior last Sunday demonstrates that she presently lacks these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

You made an affirmative statement, 

Please adhere to the CFR requirements.

The audio recording of Denson's meeting with Bishop, as I've stated already.  That's the response to your CFR.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you know?  

 

As I've said, I'm working from Denson's statements.

[Abulafia]

Kelly Clark argued..

"The  Very  Real  Power  of  Non-monetary  Gestures

While  we  primarily  measure  civil  justice  in  this  society  through monetary  awards  and  verdicts,  it  is  also  true  that  non-monetary elements  of  settlements  can  have  an  extraordinarily  healing  impact on  child sexual  abuse  survivors.    Here  are  just  a  few  of the  nonmonetary  terms  we  have  negotiated,  or  attempted  to  negotiate,  for our  clients:

 

1.  An Apology

Believe  it  or  not,  I  have  never  gotten  an  unequivocal  apology for  any  of my  clients  from  the  Archdiocese  of Portland  (or  from any  Archdiocese  for  that matter),  from  the  Latter-Day  Saints Church,  from  the  Seventh Day  Adventist  Church,  or  from  the  Boy Scouts  of  America.    

Oh,  they  will  agree  to  letters  of  regret,  they  will agree to  letters  acknowledging  the  victim’s  pain  and suffering,  or the  wrongness  of  the  abuse.   But  I  have  not  yet  been  able  to  get  an institutional  official to  say:  “As  a representative  of  this  institution,  I apologize  profoundly  to  you for  what  our  man  did to  you.   It  was wrong,  he  betrayed  you  and betrayed  your  trust.   And,  because  he represented  us,  we  betrayed  you and violated  your  trust.   I apologize  and  am  so  sorry.”   Why  is  that  so  difficult?   Governments get  it—governments are  issuing  apologies  all  the  time,  to individuals  or  peoples  wronged  throughout  history, why can't spiritual and  moral  leaders  get  it? "

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

He made one statement I am aware of.  What are the contradictions?  If you mean his latter behaviour doesn't match because he was a friend to her, wouldn't you want a person to be a friend to someone they thought was disturbed at that time?  And not hold it against them for years, but judge them on current behaviour (which was at the very least married in the temple, child iirc)?

I should have said statements and actions.

Believing her to not be reliable and trustworthy but then sending his daughter to live with her.

And I question why he had several calls with church headquarters if all he had done was heard her allegations and dismissed them.

But I admit, this is supposition.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Honestly, Smac. You say you have sympathy with McKenna's plight but can't help mention again, and again, and again that she threatened to *murder* Jo Bishop.

How is having sympathy for her incompatible with pointing out salient facts about her?

3 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Come on.  At least it shows that the poor woman has been *harping on* about this man for years with no restitution.  Heck, even before this got into the public domain how many times did she cry out for help and validation? 

We don't know.  She disclosed abuse to her bishop in 1987, but the nature of that disclosure is disputed.

She claims she met with Elder Asay, but the existence of that meeting is disputed.

She claims that she made further efforts between 1987 and 2010 to contact the Church, but there is no evidence of such efforts except her say-so.  And the credibility of her say-so is very poor.

3 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Most victims, as I understand it, want validation and maybe even an apology wouldn't go amiss.   

I can understand that.  But I'm not big into the "collective guilt" thing.

3 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

It's incredibly said that the only people who are validating her are ex, post or very liberal members.  

Not so.  There are plenty of members of the Church, myself included, who sympathize with her, and who condemn the fact that she was abused in the MTC in some way.

3 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

To me, it seems the church legal department is so intent on avoiding liability that the human milk of kindness is lost.  

Meh.  This is a legal dispute.  Ms. Denson had her attorneys contact the Church.

And again, I've seen plenty members of the Church express sympathy ("the milk of kindness") to her.  But virtually none of us know her personally.  And most of what we can comment on pertains to factual claims, many of which are in dispute.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

How do you know?  

As I've said, I'm working from Denson's statements.

Ah.  I thought as much.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's good for you, but you could understand why other people might think that a person who has threatened to commit murder, and whose past behavior also includes identity theft, false rape claims, insurance scams, and using lies and deceit to secretly record a private discussion, and who sensationalizes and publicizes her private life (even when doing so is irrational and unreasonable), etc., is probably not in a good state of mind to meet with an apostle.  There would be no good faith on her part.  None.  Just grist for her to further her animosity toward the Church.

It's more than that, though.  It is one of many indications that she is a deeply disturbed person.  

In the absence of good faith, and reasonableness and civility, no meeting would be appropriate.  Her behavior last Sunday demonstrates that she presently lacks these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes... and Bishop's past behavior includes sexual misconduct likely perpetrated against at least two women within his priesthood leadership.