Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Calm]

From the first link I put up above:

Quote

All I can say is that I'm glad I confronted her and asked her to stop seeking out the  Elder in my district, and even though he thought she was just being friendly at the time, he is also very glad now that he didn't accept her invitation to "take a walk". I've been told that other Elders were not so wise and consequently made early exits from their missions, but I can't independently confirm that, and I doubt it will be reported by the media even if it is true. 

Of course none of that makes the alleged assault OK, but it does make me wonder whether she was pursuing Mr. Bishop in the same manner she was pursuing the Elder in my district and the other Elders I saw her frequent. That's a very different story from the one being told by the lawsuit of an innocent and naive sister missionary being groomed by a predator. While she has acknowledged past criminal mistakes, she has not acknowledged that she was also preying on missionaries while at the MTC.

Having prior knowledge of her name simply from what was shared about her and the timing in the transcript is odd unless Denson as a missionary was notable for something else that was mentioned  in the transcript (perhaps she shared she had an out of wedlocked child with others? there likely wouldn't have been many, if any, other sisters like her) unless he just happened to be a family member or former close friend she had shared the accusation with.  It is not like people were throwing out a couple of dozen names of sister missionaries that were there at the time and one got lucky.  This is the only comment I am aware of that attempted a name and he was correct.  So why did she stand out to him so much he remembered her later (name might have been found in a mission journal)?

However....

I see it as highly inappropriate for an Elder to be telling a Sister to keep her hands off another Elder rather than talking about his concerns with that Elder and letting him handle it (probably why I went to it being a sister missionary who couldn't talk to the Elder).  If that Elder refused to put a stop to it, the poster should have reported her behaviour.  It does come across to me as a Modesty Police episode...confront the girl rather than tell the boys they need to control themselves.  But if he was that type, then why single her out enough to know her name (that type tends to find multiple targets for their obsession)?

Also, if there were multiple missionaries being sent home for inappropriate behaviour with her as he appears to believe likely, but not be able to independently confirm, it makes no sense that she would be allowed to stay, so I find that part of his claim very improbable, which lowers credibility for rest of his comments.

If he is reporting the truth about him and others being interviewed by defense lawyers (I would assume that anyone who reported they were there at the time would get interviewed), we may see some other confirmation of his claims.  If we don't, while it doesn't dismiss his claims outright, it would suggest that defense lawyers get that it reads like overreaction gossip.

So the post did make me go hmmm for the sole reason of the name identification, but the rest is problematic for me.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Makes sense. It would likely have been her district leader who would chastise her about inappropriately touching a male missionary in her group (when I say "inappropriately", I mean anything other than a handshake--not necessarily sexual in any way). 

But he doesn't claim to be her district leader iirc which would have given him more standing, sounds more random.  But if he was district leader, do the rest of circumstances read credible to you?

I suppose he might be reluctant to share he was district leader as that could reveal who he was, but if he was willing to be interviewed and have his name out publicly that way, why not through the message board.

add-on:  this makes more sense now, he could be saying he is a district leader (but possibly not hers) here:  "personally confronted this Sister because of her behavior toward an Elder in my district"

How is this for conspiracy theory?....the poster's location is Park City.  Bishop's son, the lawyer, lives in Park City, iirc.  He would have known Denson's name prior to the reveal and could have shared it with a friend in order to attack her credibility.

-----

add-on:  reading his comments elsewhere (earlier on the Hub and one so far on KSL), he doesn't come across at all like someone who would be part of the Modesty Police.  Comes across as laid back and open to new ideas and compassionate, for example:

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/59312-depression-pornography-and-marriage/?do=findComment&comment=867416

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/59210-pornography-and-affair-in-an-lds-marriage/?do=findComment&comment=864917

His giving some very thoughtful, informed, and compassionate responses on a pornography thread, it is overturning my first impressions big time.  It is becoming harder to just dismiss his accusation.

His credibility went up for me (probably because I mostly agree with his views on other topics from what I read...proPriesthood ordination for women if revealed for example, but he doesn't seem like the type to say "Church is always in the right, anyone who says otherwise is evil" and therefore target someone who hurts the Church's reputation).

Edited September 9, 2018 by Calm

[katherine the great]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

How is this for conspiracy theory?....the poster's location is Park City.  Bishop's son, the lawyer, lives in Park City, iirc.  He would have known Denson's name prior to the reveal and could have shared it with a friend in order to attack her credibility.

Lol! Love it! Anything is possible. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Lol! Love it! Anything is possible. 

After reading his comments on other topics, he comes across as definitely not "that guy".  He is an uplifting, compassionate writer who references science studies to support his claims...which are mainly telling people not to be so hard on themselves.

I am reevaluating how seriously I am taking him.  I am not saying people have to accept him as accurate, I just don't think it is fair to outright dismiss him.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

My misreading, the poster's profile says "male".

I find it more interesting that a male would speak to her about leaving an elder alone than a female. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

My response to all the pooh-poohing about harmless 'flirting' has been literally visceral. Since reading it this morning, I've had a dull ache in the pit of my stomach.

We had a pair of Sister missionaries in my first district in the field. At the end of my very first district meeting, I was standing awkwardly on the edge of the crowd when someone reached between my legs from behind and grabbed my genitals. Shocked and terrified, I spun around to confront the person who had done it. It was one of the Sisters, and she just laughed at my reaction. I felt both dizzy and sick from the experience, but I didn't know what I was supposed to do. Nothing like that had ever happened to me before in my entire life.

That evening, I told my trainer what had happened. His response was not what I'd expected: 'Yeah, you've got to watch out for the Sisters. Pretty much all of the Elders just try to avoid them. Don't talk to them unless you absolutely have to, and try not to be physically near them. Never turn your back to one'.

I pointed out that I hadn't intentionally put myself near this Sister; she had apparently walked up behind me. He just shrugged his shoulders and said, 'Look, that's why we all prefer to serve in all-Elder districts'.

I did everything in my power from that point forward to have zero interaction with the Sisters in our district, and thankfully there were no repeats. My next district was all-male, so I didn't worry as much, but it was in that area that I heard that one of our Sisters had done a sultry photo shoot on a bear-skin rug. She was apparently naked though posed carefully, and she had a print that she would flash to Elders she thought might appreciate it. I called shenanigans on this 'rumour', but the Elder who told me it (and lived in the same flat) swore she'd shown it to him, and at least two other Elders in the zone claimed she'd flashed it at them as well.

My next district was not only all-Elder but was part of an all-male zone. Phew.

My next assignment was as a district leader in an all-male district. I was only there for one transfer before finding myself in our headquarters city, serving as a zone leader over stacks of Sister missionaries. At this point, I had been in the field for over a year, and things appeared different. Our Sisters were fantastic, and over time I learnt to enjoy serving around them. I was so glad. And relieved.

I spent my final four transfers as an assistant to the president. I knew him as a man who was very protective of Sister missionaries. They weren't allowed, for example, to ride pushbikes; instead, they always had cars. This was, he pointed out, to keep them safe. As I've noted before in this forum, we had a map that showed areas where Sisters couldn't go unless escorted. I never served near those areas, but the Elders who did sometimes complained that instead of having to accompany the Sisters to appointments, they (the Elders) should just do all the teaching. My mission president would have none of that: Sisters had as much right to teach as Elders, he explained, and it wasn't their fault that the world is not always safe for females alone.

So I was hesitant to bring anything up with him regarding Sisters, but on a long drive back from a zone conference one day, I got brave and asked, 'President, is it just me, or were the Sisters who were here during the first half of my mission a bit ... ' I didn't know how to finish that question in a way that wouldn't offend him.

He completed it for me: 'Evil, Elder? Yes'. I was stunned. He then went on to explain how the first year of his mission had been filled with efforts to stop many (though not all ) of our Sister missionaries from sexually predatory behaviour. He knew we had a problem by the second week of his mission, he said, when the commander of an army post had rung him up and bellowed, 'You need to keep your damn missionaries out of my soldiers' barracks!' The poor mission president looked up the number for the Elders in that area to explain to them that there were probably better places to be teaching lessons to soldiers than actually in their barracks. But then he discovered that the local missionaries were Sisters.

One of whom, by the way, was the Sister on the bear-skin rug. I asked him about that. He said he had no concrete evidence, but at least two dozen male missionaries had complained to him about having been shown it. He was inclined to believe these reports in large part because of everything else he knew about this Sister.

He told me that he'd worked closely with the Missionary Department to try to fix the situation, but in the end, the solution had been to put all the predatory Sisters together in companionships in less-productive areas to try to stop their behaviour spreading to newly arrived missionaries and then just wait for them all to go home. Thankfully, this seems to have worked, and as I said above, the second half of my mission was completely different to the first half when it came to Sister missionaries.

But I'm not buying any of the stomach-turning spin about sexually aggressive behaviour just being a harmless bit of 'flirting'. And by the way, I likewise reject the whole 'flirting' is normal amongst missionaries argument as well. Overwhelmingly, our Elders were chaste in word and deed, and once we sorted out the issue with our Sisters, so were they.

ETA: I would have been very grateful if my first district leader had told the Sister missionary who assaulted me to stop touching Elders. Good on the Elder quoted above for having done so in his MTC district!

Edited September 10, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Jeanne]

i think it is time..IMO...to shut this thread down.  There has to be a limit where so many can hurt just one person in preserving a semblance of mercy and love. 

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My response to all the pooh-poohing about harmless 'flirting' has been literally visceral. Since reading it this morning, I've had a dull ache in the pit of my stomach.

We had a pair of Sister missionaries in my first district in the field. At the end of my very first district meeting, I was standing awkwardly on the edge of the crowd when someone reached between my legs from behind and grabbed my genitals.

You were sexually abused.  Just as Mckenna Denson was.  So I have to believe you understand.  That’s entirely different than what was being discussed earlier today.  I’m sorry you had that happen to you, Hamba.

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

i think it is time..IMO...to shut this thread down.  There has to be a limit where so many can hurt just one person in preserving a semblance of mercy and love. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like you just don't like hearing certain people's experiences.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So I have to believe you understand.

What exactly is it that you hope I understand, Julie? I honestly don't know.

[Calm]

On 9/6/2018 at 3:04 PM, ALarson said:

All of the statements about recording were pretty confusing (I agree).  She also stated, "You know this is being recorded" at one point.  

I wonder if she actually did turn her phone or recording device off (she showed him as she did it, iirc), but that someone else was still recording.

I'd have to listen to it again, but I have to believe the men knew someone was still recording (or at least highly suspected it was).  I know I would have been aware and known it was very likely that someone was still recording.

I listened to the first 10 minutes or so.

The "you know this is being recorded" came at the beginning when she is being removed from the pulpit before she made a point of powering down her phone in their sight in the office or wherever they met and saying her friend was not recording it.

The sound of her voice is so consistent from the beginning of her testimony, all through the post discussion, with no wavering as she might shift her head from side to side, my opinion is she was wired with a mic.  Given Norton's clandestine recordings of the temple, what would be far fetched for anyone else, seems probable with him involved.  

Everyone else sounded farther away and faded in and out of range.  When the SP counselor was standing right next to her on the stand, it was very clear...so a device that was near or on her and there was no shift in the editing that I noticed that indicated it might have shifted to a different device that was on her friend.

At 3:20 she asks for permission to record, it is refused and she agrees there will be no recording.  Also says of her friend "He's not recording" at 3:38.  They ask to see phones shut off and Denson at least agrees and says at 3:50 they are willing to put their phones in the hallway (she says "we" a few times, but maybe it's royal we, but I am interpreting it as talking for them both at that point).  At 3:55, she says "off off" meaning completely powering down her phone.  Since there is not a hiccup in sound quality during this past minute, it is obviously another device, not the two phones she and her friend showed the counselor and his friend.

Which means when she said she was powering down her phone, was willing to put her phone out in the hallway even, was not going to be recording, she was lying through her teeth (the other option is someone bugged her without her knowledge....yeah, not in the realm of possibility imo) and imo, trying to be so convincing that nothing would be recorded in hopes she could make them relax and open up about details about Bishop's treatment by leaders given the questions that immediately follow about whether he resigned, etc.

Which makes the Church instruction to all of the leaders she might contact to not speak to her about the lawsuit or anything connected with quite understandable to me.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

i think it is time..IMO...to shut this thread down.  There has to be a limit where so many can hurt just one person in preserving a semblance of mercy and love. 

She has insistently pushed herself into the public eye and demanded their attention (in the recording she talkabout finding her voice and using it to be heard).  Consequences of making yourself a public figure by taking a stance on morality is people are going to examine you on those issues.

In public, right after they take her down off the stand (so a good chance they are still in the chapel as you can hear quite a bit of talking) she accuses two sons of Bishop as sexual predators (at 1:52 in the audio Smac links to here http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70990-denson-interrupts-bishops-home-ward-testimony-meeting/?do=findComment&comment=1209851119 ).  I am going to double-check (see below for this), but I don't see how she could have interpreted what Bishop said as an accusation against his sons, so it comes across as another false accusation to get sympathy for herself in that moment. That crosses a line, imo.  Telling people one is a victim, problematic at times, but understandable and acceptable.  Labeling a total stranger in public as a sexual predator on no grounds, unacceptable no matter who you are.

-----

Searched transcript for her claim that in the recording Bishop says two of his sons are sexual predators.

Comments in transcript about his sons (adding one at a time as slow server and bombing lots...)

Quote

The divorce thing happened and then she came here when Icame here, but I cameherebecauseIhadasonhere,shecameherebecauseoffamily,butwe weren't gonna get together ... 

Very. And it's cute. So Icame to town and said Ineed to go find a cardiologist. My son who is a medical doctor here, and Icalled him and he said, this one over here, went to see him and now I've left my cardiologist all through the ... 

My big concern is the pain that's going to take place. With all of my family, who love me. I have five sons who would be devastated. Their wives will be devastated. My grandchildren will be devastated. My great-grandchildren. 

Quote

I have some feelings about church also, but I'll tell you about. It was with my son, _____, in Costa Rica last week. He is on his third ... He just divorced his third wife. And we have some really good talks. He asked me about, "Do you believe the Book of Mormon is true?" And I said, because I know other people have tried to talk to me just glad I'm with the church approach. He said, "Do you believe the Book of Mormon is true? 

Another quote I am having a hard time capturing that says to the best of my recall another son has had 'a spiritual experience, so that he's all about certain parts of the Gospel.  So much so he's the first counselor...'

Quote

I know President ____ from that when he talked to my son about you're spending too much time with born again, which is a ... So I do know him. He's just that way 

Context is his son likes to talk about the Gospel with EVs.

There were no other comments about his sons that I can find (searched on "son" and "boy").  No least suggestion two of his sons are sexual predators as Denson claims in the audio from a week ago.  Out of the blue slander as far as I am aware of.  

Edited September 10, 2018 by Calm

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My response to all the pooh-poohing about harmless 'flirting' has been literally visceral. Since reading it this morning, I've had a dull ache in the pit of my stomach.

We had a pair of Sister missionaries in my first district in the field. At the end of my very first district meeting, I was standing awkwardly on the edge of the crowd when someone reached between my legs from behind and grabbed my genitals. Shocked and terrified, I spun around to confront the person who had done it. It was one of the Sisters, and she just laughed at my reaction. I felt both dizzy and sick from the experience, but I didn't know what I was supposed to do. Nothing like that had ever happened to me before in my entire life.

Holy moly! I can't speak for everyone on the board but that is NOT what I think of when I think of harmless flirting! That is sexual harassment! I never heard of any shenanigans like that on my mission! The worst thing I remember about any sister was the one who would lean over to her companion when she saw a handsome guy and whisper, "I'd like to have his baby". I was quite shocked. Now a handful of elders on the other hand...

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Holy moly! I can't speak for everyone on the board but that is NOT what I think of when I think of harmless flirting! That is sexual harassment! I never heard of any shenanigans like that on my mission! The worst thing I remember about any sister was the one who would lean over to her companion when she saw a handsome guy and whisper, "I'd like to have his baby". I was quite shocked. Now a handful of elders on the other hand...

Do you think it gets to this point immediately without their being some so-called “harmless flirting” in the interim? 

I repeat what I said earlier: Nothing of a sexual nature (and flirting is in that category) should ever transpire among missionaries. Nothing. Ever. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I find it more interesting that a male would speak to her about leaving an elder alone than a female. 

I can understand that. But do you still think that after reading Hamba’s experience. 

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Holy moly! I can't speak for everyone on the board but that is NOT what I think of when I think of harmless flirting! That is sexual harassment! I never heard of any shenanigans like that on my mission! 

I agree!  That’s horrible and it was abuse.  Not the same as what was referred to earlier which is totally normal and was not accosting or forcibly groping someone.

Edited September 10, 2018 by JulieM

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

From the first link I put up above:

Having prior knowledge of her name simply from what was shared about her and the timing in the transcript is odd unless Denson as a missionary was notable for something else that was mentioned  in the transcript (perhaps she shared she had an out of wedlocked child with others? there likely wouldn't have been many, if any, other sisters like her) unless he just happened to be a family member or former close friend she had shared the accusation with.  It is not like people were throwing out a couple of dozen names of sister missionaries that were there at the time and one got lucky.  This is the only comment I am aware of that attempted a name and he was correct.  So why did she stand out to him so much he remembered her later (name might have been found in a mission journal)?

However....

I see it as highly inappropriate for an Elder to be telling a Sister to keep her hands off another Elder rather than talking about his concerns with that Elder and letting him handle it (probably why I went to it being a sister missionary who couldn't talk to the Elder).  If that Elder refused to put a stop to it, the poster should have reported her behaviour.  It does come across to me as a Modesty Police episode...confront the girl rather than tell the boys they need to control themselves.  But if he was that type, then why single her out enough to know her name (that type tends to find multiple targets for their obsession)?

Also, if there were multiple missionaries being sent home for inappropriate behaviour with her as he appears to believe likely, but not be able to independently confirm, it makes no sense that she would be allowed to stay, so I find that part of his claim very improbable, which lowers credibility for rest of his comments.

If he is reporting the truth about him and others being interviewed by defense lawyers (I would assume that anyone who reported they were there at the time would get interviewed), we may see some other confirmation of his claims.  If we don't, while it doesn't dismiss his claims outright, it would suggest that defense lawyers get that it reads like overreaction gossip.

So the post did make me go hmmm for the sole reason of the name identification, but the rest is problematic for me.

I agree.  I was  a distract leader, and I would have been much more comfortable speaking with the Elder in question rather than the sister.  I will have to see serious collaborating evidence before I accept this story.

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeat what I said earlier: Nothing of a sexual nature (and flirting is in that category) should ever transpire among missionaries. Nothing. Ever. 

Um yes. I heard you the first time. 

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That evening, I told my trainer what had happened. His response was not what I'd expected: 'Yeah, you've got to watch out for the Sisters. Pretty much all of the Elders just try to avoid them. Don't talk to them unless you absolutely have to, and try not to be physically near them. Never turn your back to one'.

I pointed out that I hadn't intentionally put myself near this Sister; she had apparently walked up behind me. He just shrugged his shoulders and said, 'Look, that's why we all prefer to serve in all-Elder districts'.

I did everything in my power from that point forward to have zero interaction with the Sisters in our district, and thankfully there were no repeats. My next district was all-male, so I didn't worry as much, but it was in that area that I heard that one of our Sisters had done a sultry photo shoot on a bear-skin rug. She was apparently naked though posed carefully, and she had a print that she would flash to Elders she thought might appreciate it. I called shenanigans on this 'rumour', but the Elder who told me it (and lived in the same flat) swore she'd shown it to him, and at least two other Elders in the zone claimed she'd flashed it at them as well.

My next district was not only all-Elder but was part of an all-male zone. Phew.

Where did you serve your mission?  The parts I put in bold are interesting to read and I cannot imagine getting advice from any leaders to do that (first sentence I put in bold and the second one too). 

And I agree, that what you describe with having your genitals grabbed is not at all in the same category as what was discussed earlier in this thread.....it's a completely different situation.

Edited September 10, 2018 by ALarson

[Abulafia]

Duplicate

Edited September 10, 2018 by Abulafia
Duplicate

[Abulafia]

Duplicate

Edited September 10, 2018 by Abulafia
Duplicate

[Abulafia]

Scott, did you serve a Mission? I did. What Hamba wrote of is assault.  Had it happen to me at a bus stop. Went straight to the police. The guy was a known abuser.

 

I served in the EMM in 1982 and I can confirm that, yes, there was banter, and innocent flirtation.  Good grief, my MP even told me that I could well meet an eternal companion on my mission. I didn't as it happens. (I met my wonderful husband years later, a non-member). I know missionaries who did and went on to marry. 

 

Hamba's description of evil sisters is totally alien to me.  Totally.  But it does serve the narrative of the time that missions were a male domain, and sisters were a distraction. Which was awful. I went out to teach what I thought were wonderful historical and spiritual truths that would help people live a better life. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

Not the same as what was referred to earlier which is totally normal and was not accosting or forcibly groping someone.

 

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

And I agree, that what you describe with having your genitals grabbed is not at all in the same category as what was discussed earlier in this thread.....it's a completely different situation.

The person whom Calm referenced discussed inappropriately touching Elders, aggressively 'pursuing' them, and speaking openly about sexual topics.  In one of his posts, he wrote, 'But I have deliberately not shared further knowledge that is much worse. I don't think it takes much imagination for people (especially church members and missionaries) to conclude what much worse might include'.

Now none of us knows if these accusations are accurate or not, but they obviously hit a nerve since immediately Abulafia assured us that Ms Denson 'was a really,  really pretty girl as a missionary. Stunning in fact. Did she *prey* on innocent missionaries? Nah. Do missionaries flirt with each other? Yep!' (Though only with the really, really pretty ones??? Poor Elders couldn't help themselves, apparently ...)

I.e., there's nothing to see her. It was just flirting. And we all know that missionaries flirt with each other ... even when they don't. And apparently 'flirting' includes frank sexual talk, inappropriately touching a missionary of the opposite sex and 'much worse'. This is precisely pooh-poohing and seeking to dismiss these claims by relabelling them as merely flirting (which, as Scott has pointed out repeatedly despite open mockery, is not actually what missionaries are supposed to do).

And then Abulafia feels the need to dismiss and deprivilege my experiences in her post above by recasting them as intended to 'serve the narrative of the time that missions were a male domain, and sisters were a distraction'.

So much spin has left me feeling dizzy and physically sick again. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

The person whom Calm referenced discussed inappropriately touching Elders, aggressively 'pursuing' them, and speaking openly about sexual topics.  In one of his posts, he wrote, 'But I have deliberately not shared further knowledge that is much worse. I don't think it takes much imagination for people (especially church members and missionaries) to conclude what much worse might include'.

Now none of us knows if these accusations are accurate or not, but they obviously hit a nerve since immediately Abulafia assured us that Ms Denson 'was a really,  really pretty girl as a missionary. Stunning in fact. Did she *prey* on innocent missionaries? Nah. Do missionaries flirt with each other? Yep!' (Though only with the really, really pretty ones??? Poor Elders couldn't help themselves, apparently ...)

I.e., there's nothing to see her. It was just flirting. And we all know that missionaries flirt with each other ... even when they don't. And apparently 'flirting' includes frank sexual talk, inappropriately touching a missionary of the opposite sex and 'much worse'. This is precisely pooh-poohing and seeking to dismiss these claims by relabelling them as merely flirting (which, as Scott has pointed out repeatedly despite open mockery, is not actually what missionaries are supposed to do).

And then Abulafia feels the need to dismiss and deprivilege my experiences in her post above by recasting them as intended to 'serve the narrative of the time that missions were a male domain, and sisters were a distraction'.

So much spin has left me feeling dizzy and physically sick again. 

Yup, I suspect there is a lot of spin going on here.

But you apparently served a mission in an area where you served with "evil" sister missionaries and you were told by your leaders not to speak the sisters and to avoid them if at all possible.  And, if you couldn't avoid running into them, you should cover your genitals and run.  That's quite the story and I can't imagine that being allowed to continue for long.  I hope it was taken care of (all the sisters should have been sent home if they were sexually abusing elders).

However, that has nothing to do with this case, IMO. 

We have one anonymous poster inferring that Denson was flirtatious and forward with at least one Elder in the MTC.  We do not know what that means or what she did or if she did anything.

But even if she did something as "evil" as the sister did to you, are you claiming that Denson deserved to be taken down into the basement by the MTC president, into his secret room, and sexually abused or possibly raped?  

If you are, then you're in dangerous territory because that's blaming the victim and akin to stating that because a woman or girl was drinking she deserved to be raped or because of how a woman was dressing, she was asking for it, etc.

And one thing that should be made clear.  The behavior of the "evil" sisters you're describing who were in your mission is not at all what we were discussing earlier in this thread.  It's a very different conversation.

Edited September 10, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I listened to the first 10 minutes or so.

The "you know this is being recorded" came at the beginning when she is being removed from the pulpit before she made a point of powering down her phone in their sight in the office or wherever they met and saying her friend was not recording it.

The sound of her voice is so consistent from the beginning of her testimony, all through the post discussion, with no wavering as she might shift her head from side to side, my opinion is she was wired with a mic.  Given Norton's clandestine recordings of the temple, what would be far fetched for anyone else, seems probable with him involved.  

Everyone else sounded farther away and faded in and out of range.  When the SP counselor was standing right next to her on the stand, it was very clear...so a device that was near or on her and there was no shift in the editing that I noticed that indicated it might have shifted to a different device that was on her friend.

At 3:20 she asks for permission to record, it is refused and she agrees there will be no recording.  Also says of her friend "He's not recording" at 3:38.  They ask to see phones shut off and Denson at least agrees and says at 3:50 they are willing to put their phones in the hallway (she says "we" a few times, but maybe it's royal we, but I am interpreting it as talking for them both at that point).  At 3:55, she says "off off" meaning completely powering down her phone.  Since there is not a hiccup in sound quality during this past minute, it is obviously another device, not the two phones she and her friend showed the counselor and his friend.

Which means when she said she was powering down her phone, was willing to put her phone out in the hallway even, was not going to be recording, she was lying through her teeth (the other option is someone bugged her without her knowledge....yeah, not in the realm of possibility imo) and imo, trying to be so convincing that nothing would be recorded in hopes she could make them relax and open up about details about Bishop's treatment by leaders given the questions that immediately follow about whether he resigned, etc.

Thanks Calm. for taking the time to go back and listen (I haven't had the chance to do so, but intended to when I could).  

I think that possibly the other man that was with her (I don't know who he is, do you?) afterwards was probably the one who continued taping after phones were turned off.  Maybe it wasn't a phone he was recording with, but another device in his pocket? Or maybe Denson had something in her pocket that continued recording.   Either way, I feel it was deceptive to lead the leaders to believe they weren't going to continue recording.

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Which makes the Church instruction to all of the leaders she might contact to not speak to her about the lawsuit or anything connected with quite understandable to me.

Oh, I agree.  That's why I stated that hopefully the leaders assumed or knew they were still being recorded.  I know that I wouldn't have trusted that all devices had been turned off.

Edited September 10, 2018 by ALarson