Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And here you once again try to pin the attitude of my trainer (just another 20-year-old missionary) and many of the other Elders in my mission on supposed 'leaders'. I never told the mission president (who was new himself) what happened to me. I doubt most of the Elders ever did. I know the mission president had been told about the bear-skin rug photo, and obviously he'd got the phone call from the commander of the army post. I have no idea what else he knew or how long it took him to figure it all out.

But we Elders just viewed this bad behaviour has over-the-top 'flirting', sought to avoid it, and went to work. In my case, in hindsight I think my attitude was very much shaped by the reaction of my trainer and the attitudes of the other missionaries around me. I'm sorry that upsets you so much. I think it's a pretty common reaction.

From what you reported in your original post, it was handled horribly, IMO.  Other elders knew what was going on (and even the President of the mission according to you here):

Quote

 

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

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70990-denson-interrupts-bishops-home-ward-testimony-meeting/?do=findComment&comment=1209851823

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am curious if you hold the same standard for other missionary 'shenanigans'.

My mission president walked into a shambolic mess left over from the previous mission president, who'd been very 'progressive' in his leadership. It took him about a year to clean up much of what he found, and he went gently that whole time, but once he finally 'owned' the mission, he laid down the law. I still remember the zone conference where he told us the next missionary to pull a prank or stunt would be sent home. He of course couldn't have done that, as I now understand, but at least we knew he was serious.

Thankfully, the vast majority of the missionaries in my mission thrived on the discipline. I heard many Elders who'd experienced both presidents talk about loving having a president who supported them in their desires to serve wholeheartedly (and a few who grumbled, to be honest ...).

Edited September 11, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Other elders knew what was going on (and even the President of the mission according to you here):

Yes, that was fully two years after he'd arrived and about a year after the last of our problem Sisters had gone home. As I wrote above, I have no idea what process he went through to piece everything together. I do know, because he told me, that he'd sought counsel from the Missionary Department. Clearly nothing was concrete enough soon enough for anyone to be sent home. I actually learnt from our mission president when I was his assistant just how hard it is to send a missionary home ... or at least it was then.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was under the impression that he wasn't anonymous, but I could be wrong on that.

Oh....I didn't see if he was named.  I thought at one point they were joking about it possibly being Bishop's son (and concluded it wasn't, but still didn't know who he was).

[bluebell]

Just now, ALarson said:

Oh....I didn't see if he was named.  I thought at one point they were joking about it possibly being Bishop's son (and concluded it wasn't, but still didn't know who he was).

I though that @Calm said that his identity was put up on another web sight.  Maybe she'll weigh in.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, that was fully two years after he'd arrived and about a year after the last of our problem Sisters had gone home.

Were they sent home?  Was it ever investigated or were they ever questioned about their behavior and what they did to you (and it sounds like to others as well)?  How about the one passing naked pictures around of herself?

If not and you were simply told to avoid the sister missionaries, don't talk to them unless you have to and never turn your back on them (and try to get assigned to all-Elder zones), it was handled poorly, IMO.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Were they sent home? 

No.

Quote

Was it ever investigated or were they ever questioned about their behavior and what they did to you (and it sounds like to others as well)?

How am I to know the answers to questions like this? The mission president didn't send out weekly updates in the mission newsletter addressing these issues.

Quote

How about the one passing naked pictures around of herself?

The mission president did tell me that he asked her about it, and she denied it. Blamed it on 'mission gossip' and Elders who didn't like her.

Quote

If not and you were simply told to avoid the sister missionaries, don't talk to them unless you have to and never turn your back on them (and try to get assigned to all-Elder zones), it was handled poorly, IMO.

It was my trainer who told me that was his approach. I can assure you that that attitude was pretty common, but it wasn't some top-down directive. And it didn't include trying to get assigned to all-Elder districts or zones, just a sense that life was easier (for a number of reasons) when that happened.

I'm sorry you don't like how we handled the situation. In hindsight, I'm not 100% on board with it either. But I was not quite 20 at the time, and completely naive myself. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I though that @Calm said that his identity was put up on another web sight.  Maybe she'll weigh in.

No, I saw him comment on KSL using the same alias.  He did give some possible clues to 'hunting him down' like his first name, so he might have mentioned it somewhere.  I didn't read all his posts.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am curious if you hold the same standard for other missionary 'shenanigans'.  For example, I have no doubt you believe knocking heads off of Catholic Saints at shrines is highly inappropriate.  But would you see making up songs making relatively mild fun of Catholic beliefs to pass time as inappropriate, zero tolerance as well?  ( I draw both examples from real life, the first has been reported in the news, the second I heard in a podcast as a performer was taking a walk down memory lane after someone mentioned his storytelling somewhere as anticatholic and inappropriate).  (serious question, interested in how you approach such things).

I've never been a fan of missionary "shenanigans." And I deplore any behavior that disrespects the religious faith of others, especially such behavior on the part of our missionaries.

By way of illustration, I'll share an experience. On one occasion, my companion and I were bicycling out in the country en route to the home of an investigator.  We stopped along the way to view the interior of a Swedish state church (Lutheran). State churches in Sweden are open and accessible to anyone who wants to go inside. My junior companion climbed to the top of the lectern (not sure of the terminology, but it's the location up high from which the sermon is delivered). His intent was to leave one of our missionary tracts there. I required him to remove it, as it was (and is) my belief that it would be viewed as disrespectful.

Does my response to your post surprise you? If so, I wonder why.

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

 

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does my response to your post surprise you? If so, I wonder why.

 

No, just didn't want to assume anything.

[Abulafia]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And there you go again. The 'one anonymous poster' did not infer [sic] that Ms Denson was flirtatious. Instead, he stated openly that she engaged in frank sexual talk with other missionaries, 'pursued' Elders, inappropriately touched Elders (plural), including one in his district whom he attempted to protect by calling her out on it, and then went on to do 'much worse'. As I noted before, none of us knows if these statements are accurate, but your need to spin them as 'Denson was flirtatious' reeks of a need to protect the purity of your chosen martyr. I genuinely thought we'd reached a consensus that 'warts and all' are better than whitewashing a person's past for multiple reasons. Apparently not ...

Seriously? It takes an awful lot to offend me, but you've managed to do so. Well done. I didn't realise that being interested in the complete, messy truth was the same thing as defending bad behaviour. Can you produce a single sentence or phrase that I have ever written on this topic wherein I have said that someone, anyone, deserved to be abused?

My single purpose has been to point out the ridiculousness of trying to dismiss accusations of bad behaviour as mere 'flirting', which you and Abulafia have attempted to do repeatedly. It's shameful.

Whoa there Hamba.  We are talking about big differences in perceptions of the word flirting here.  Really. 

 You were sexually assaulted. Full..stop..

 

Whole different ball league here. 

 

If.. *if* McKenna was involved in the serious sexual assault of Elders then she deserved to be sent home...But...heck... Hamba.. what a mess.. because we can all agree that McKenna and other sister missionaries were the subjects of sexual abuse by the MTC president. 

 

Which, brings us back to the point that he was already a known predator before he was ever called.  Why? Given he had confessed at least to some wrong doing before he was called.  Why?  Why, why, why..the disconnect?

[Calm]

Quote

brings us back to the point that he was already a known predator before he was ever called

Says who?  Denson and her lawyers because they choose to interpret what he said by filling in the gaps that a confession had to include sexual assaults?

Bishop himself...not if you have actually read the transcript and paid attention to the timing, which he gets wrong btw twice iirc where he says he confessed to Wells about Denson at a time when he hadn't met her yet, Denson catches it and corrects him the second time but not the first...and if he is misremembering where, what, and when he confessed, that is highly problematic for using his comments as proof he was a known predator prior to the MTC.

What were the sexual assaults that he admitted to prior to becoming MTC Pres? CFR with quotes.

When asked how many sister missionaries in Argentina, he states "none".  

He says very vaguely there was something with a lady on his first mission, states he was not forthright with the MP then and ends with "it was nothing".

He states there was a woman when he was in the Bishopric, no more details and given he is listing women where it wasn't sexual assault according to his details, it is inappropriate to assume if he didn't give details it was one....anyone know when he was in a Bishopric?

He states in .Florida a woman flirted with him and a friend, showing off a swimsuit...nothing was said about his response.  

He states there was an incident with a woman in something like a hot tub with a number of other Church leaders being present, she took her top off.  No comment about what he did.

Weber State has him involved in some possible wiretapping and discrimination, but no reported sexual harassment or assault.

So where are the admissions to assault prior to the MTC?  And if not admissions, accusations with specifics so we known his comments about the above are not being misrepresented as sexual assaults (they very well may have been, but one would need more info than .Bishop provided to even suggest that imo.

----

As far as his admissions about molesting, here is one of his descriptions:

Quote

Well when did you molest her?

When she was living with us.

Oh God.

I want to tell you about this.

Please do.

[Crosstalk) - came in and she wanted a back rub. And I rubbed her back. And that got too much...frisky. that's all that ever happened with all, and with-______

So if he is defining giving frisky back rubs when asked for them as molesting in this case and no details are provided in other cases, it is a leap imo to assume the cases he is thinking of when Denson demands him to tell her are sexual assault.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm sorry you don't like how we handled the situation. In hindsight, I'm not 100% on board with it either. But I was not quite 20 at the time, and completely naive myself. 

Hamba, I completely understand the position you were in as a young missionary and believe that you were the victim here.  There is no "we" in how it was handled from there.  You reported it (which you should have done) and it's from there I believe it was horribly handled (as well as the entire situation of what was going on in your mission that others obviously knew about....other sexual abuse from these sisters and even porn being made by at least one sister and passed around). 

Can you imagine if a sister was sexually abused by an elder and the leaders simply told her to just avoid the elders, don't talk to them and make sure you never turn your back on them from then on out?

You are the one who brought this up in response to a discussion about something entirely different.  No one here would ever say that what happened to you was innocent or normal.  Once again, I'm sorry you were abused and you are not to blame for how wrong it was dealt with after you reported it.

Edited September 11, 2018 by ALarson

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Says who?  Denson and her lawyers because they choose to interpret what he said by filling in the gaps that a confession had to include sexual assaults?

Bishop himself...not if you have actually read the transcript and paid attention to the timing, which he gets wrong btw twice iirc where he says he confessed to Wells about Denson at a time when he hadn't met her yet, Denson catches it and corrects him the second time but not the first...and if he is misremembering where, what, and when he confessed, that is highly problematic for using his comments as proof he was a known predator prior to the MTC.

What were the sexual assaults that he admitted to prior to becoming MTC Pres? CFR with quotes.

When asked how many sister missionaries in Argentina, he states "none".  

He says very vaguely there was something with a lady on his first mission, states he was not forthright with the MP then and ends with "it was nothing".

He states there was a woman when he was in the Bishopric, no more details and given he is listing women where it wasn't sexual assault according to his details, it is inappropriate to assume if he didn't give details it was one....anyone know when he was in a Bishopric?

He states in .Florida a woman flirted with him and a friend, showing off a swimsuit...nothing was said about his response.  

He states there was an incident with a woman in something like a hot tub with a number of other Church leaders being present, she took her top off.  No comment about what he did.

Weber State has him involved in some possible wiretapping and discrimination, but no reported sexual harassment or assault.

So where are the admissions to assault prior to the MTC?  And if not admissions, accusations with specifics so we known his comments about the above are not being misrepresented as sexual assaults (they very well may have been, but one would need more info than .Bishop provided to even suggest that imo.

----

As far as his admissions about molesting, here is one of his descriptions:

So if he is defining giving frisky back rubs when asked for them as molesting in this case and no details are provided in other cases, it is a leap imo to assume the cases he is thinking of when Denson demands him to tell her are sexual assault.

Over and over again, with everything brought up, it seems to always come back to this. There are a lot of assumptions made from little bits of half information all over the place and not just from Bishop and when I say "little bits" I really mean it. Volumes could be written about the case with the information we haven't heard. And then on top of that you have to go back to who to believe on the things we have heard.

So meanwhile we go back to Denson saying she wants to help/protect others and I wonder if some of the abused/assaulted don't want to come forward now because they don't want to be associated with her and don't want to deal with their stories being torn apart.

  

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Which, brings us back to the point that he was already a known predator before he was ever called.  

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  As you are making a factual claim here, you are obligated to back it up with substantiation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Rain said:

Over and over again, with everything brought up, it seems to always come back to this. There are a lot of assumptions made from little bits of half information all over the place and not just from Bishop and when I say "little bits" I really mean it. Volumes could be written about the case with the information we haven't heard. And then on top of that you have to go back to who to believe on the things we have heard.

So meanwhile we go back to Denson saying she wants to help/protect others and I wonder if some of the abused/assaulted don't want to come forward now because they don't want to be associated with her and don't want to deal with their stories being torn apart.

  

There is also Denson's creating out of less than nothing imo two accusations of sexual predator against his sons, claiming their father accused them in the recording.  I would sue her for libel.  She made the recording herself, was present, so she should be familiar with the content.  And anyone just has to listen to her demanding to be told if he is a sexual predator to realize it is malicious, imo.

If she is making up stuff now when she knows people can check up on her, why wouldn't she make up stuff when she knows they can't.

[provoman]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is also Denson's creating out of less than nothing imo two accusations of sexual predator against his sons, claiming their father accused them in the recording.  I would sue her for libel.  She made the recording herself, was present, so she should be familiar with the content.  And anyone just has to listen to her demanding to be told if he is a sexual predator to realize it is malicious, imo.

If she is making up stuff now when she knows people can check up on her, why wouldn't she make up stuff when she knows they can't.

I was wondering why at her F&T stunt she made that comment about his Sons.

[Calm]

Just now, provoman said:

I was wondering why at her F&T stunt she made that comment about his Sons.

Somebody was probably filming it and she thought it made for good drama is my completely made up guess.

[Durangout]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Over and over again, with everything brought up, it seems to always come back to this. There are a lot of assumptions made from little bits of half information all over the place and not just from Bishop and when I say "little bits" I really mean it. Volumes could be written about the case with the information we haven't heard. And then on top of that you have to go back to who to believe on the things we have heard.

So meanwhile we go back to Denson saying she wants to help/protect others and I wonder if some of the abused/assaulted don't want to come forward now because they don't want to be associated with her and don't want to deal with their stories being torn apart.

  

The longer this goes on and the more Ms Dennison exposes herself (poor choice of words I know) the less credibility she has.  At this point, I wouldn’t convict Bishop of jay-walking based on the info that’s out there.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is also Denson's creating out of less than nothing imo two accusations of sexual predator against his sons, claiming their father accused them in the recording.  

Yes, that was disturbing.  Her attorney had her under control during the press conference, but her credibility takes a substantial hit pretty much every time she left to her own devices.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I would sue her for libel.  

That's an interesting suggestion.  On balance, I probably would not.  At this point I am really starting to question her overall mental health.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

She made the recording herself, was present, so she should be familiar with the content.  And anyone just has to listen to her demanding to be told if he is a sexual predator to realize it is malicious, imo.

If she is making up stuff now when she knows people can check up on her, why wouldn't she make up stuff when she knows they can't.

Yep.

-Smac

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  As you are making a factual claim here, you are obligated to back it up with substantiation.

Thanks,

-Smac

The fraud claim is based in part, as I understand it, on Bishop's recognition in the taped interview with McKenna, that he had already confessed to a number of acts of sexual predation while he was a Mission President in Argentina.  Those confessions were prompted by feeling attacked by evil spirits.  I think there were confessions to various Bishop's before that also.

The transcript is on line.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Quote

Quote

Which, brings us back to the point that he was already a known predator before he was ever called.  

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  As you are making a factual claim here, you are obligated to back it up with substantiation.

The fraud claim is based in part, as I understand it, on Bishop's recognition in the taped interview with McKenna, that he had already confessed to a number of acts of sexual predation while he was a Mission President in Argentina. 

But that's not what you said.  You said: "Which, brings us back to the point that he was already a known predator before he was ever called."  (Emphasis added)

CFR on that point, please.  Who is it that you claim knew he was a "predator before he was ever called [to the MTC]?"  And what evidence do you have that this was "known?"

Quote

Those confessions were prompted by feeling attacked by evil spirits.  I think there were confessions to various Bishop's before that also.

The transcript is on line.

Nope.  That will not do.  Chapter and verse, please, as to who knew that Joseph was "a predator" before he was called as president of the MTC.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 11, 2018 by smac97

[provoman]

13 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

The fraud claim is based in part, as I understand it, on Bishop's recognition in the taped interview with McKenna, that he had already confessed to a number of acts of sexual predation while he was a Mission President in Argentina.  Those confessions were prompted by feeling attacked by evil spirits.  I think there were confessions to various Bishop's before that also.

The transcript is on line.

The transcript is online, and it has been discussed indepth.

Bishop does not identify what he had confessed to.

Bishop mentioned 2 females, with whom his interaction occured prior to him being called as Mission President.

one when he was serving as a young missionary - he did not provide any details about his interaction with her.

a woman in a skimpy bathing suit, when he was a Bishop, he did not provide any details about his interaction with her.

 

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But that's not what you said.  You said: "Which, brings us back to the point that he was already a known predator before he was ever called."  (Emphasis added)

CFR on that point, please.  Who is it that you claim knew he was a "predator before he was ever called [to the MTC]?"  And what evidence do you have that this was "known?"

Nope.  That will not do.  Chapter and verse, please, as to who knew that Joseph was "a predator" before he was called as president of the MTC.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well. That will be for the court to decide. He says he confessed to Elder Wells.  I guess what he confessed is the issue, yes? In general terms he makes it clear he has been a lifelong sexual predator.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Abulafia said:

Quote

But that's not what you said.  You said: "Which, brings us back to the point that he was already a known predator before he was ever called."  (Emphasis added)

CFR on that point, please.  Who is it that you claim knew he was a "predator before he was ever called [to the MTC]?"  And what evidence do you have that this was "known?"

Nope.  That will not do.  Chapter and verse, please, as to who knew that Joseph was "a predator" before he was called as president of the MTC.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well. That will be for the court to decide.

Nope.  Not sufficient.  Again, you said: 

"Which, brings us back to the point that he was already a known predator before he was ever called."  (Emphasis added)

CFR on that point, please.  Who is it that you claim knew he was a "predator before he was ever called [to the MTC]?"  And what evidence do you have that this was "known?"

1 minute ago, Abulafia said:

He says he confessed to Elder Wells. 

But he didn't say to what he confessed.

1 minute ago, Abulafia said:

I guess what he confessed is the issue, yes?

Broadly speaking, yes.

For my CFR, however, I am askin gyou to substantiate your claim that Joseph Bishop "was already a known predator before he was ever called."

1 minute ago, Abulafia said:

In general terms he makes it clear he has been a lifelong sexual predator.

Again, this will not do.  You have made a factual claim.  You need to respond to the CFR or retract your claim.

Thanks,

-Smac