Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[bluebell]

Just now, Abulafia said:

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.

He said that he confessed to having sexually assaulted someone to Elder Wells?

What part of his confession makes it a given that he confessed to be a sexual predator rather than confessing to immorality?  I ask because I don't think it's clear at all, and I'm doubting that you can provide a reference that shows that it is clear either (though my question is sincere and I'm willing to be wrong if you do).  I also ask because I think it's important that we stick to the information we have and not make assumptions that aren't supported by the evidence.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Quote

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.

He said that he confessed to having sexually assaulted someone to Elder Wells?

What part of his confession makes it a given that he confessed to be a sexual predator rather than confessing to immorality?  I ask because I don't think it's clear at all, and I'm doubting that you can provide a reference that shows that it is clear either (though my question is sincere and I'm willing to be wrong if you do).  I also ask because I think it's important that we stick to the information we have and not make assumptions that aren't supported by the evidence.

These are wise words.  Discussions of this sort are inherently difficult.  They deal with very sensitive issues.  We need to hew as closely to the evidence as possible, and refrain from characterizing unproven allegations, assumptions and speculation into "facts." 

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

We don't know that (particularly the "known" bit).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

These are wise words.  Discussions of this sort are inherently difficult.  They deal with very sensitive issues.  We need to hew as closely to the evidence as possible, and refrain from characterizing unproven allegations, assumptions and speculation into "facts." 

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

We don't know that (particularly the "known" bit).

Thanks,

-Smac

Okay, but from a legal perspective,  Smac, surely the judge would have dismissed the fraud case if there was no evidence?

 

 

"SALT LAKE CITY (News4Utah) - Attorneys for the woman at the center of a lawsuit against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are responding to the church's motion to dismiss. 

McKenna Denson claims Joseph Bishop, former president of the Missionary Training Center in Provo, raped her in 1984 when she was a sister missionary. She's suing the church for emotional distress caused by the assault. Her attorney, Craig Vernon, claims in his response to the motion to dismiss that the church acted fraudulently by knowingly concealing its knowledge of Bishop's alleged past abuse of women.

Vernon calls it "an epic betrayal of institutional trust."

The response argues the motion to dismiss the case should be denied because "...Defendants concealed the fact that Defendant Bishop was a sexual predator and had a long history of sexual improprieties prior to his tenure as MTC President. Defendants represented to Plaintiff just the opposite; that the MTC President was safe, trustworthy and not a sexual predator."

That "fraud," as Vernon's response calls it, wasn't known to Denson until 2017, when she secretly recorded a conversation with Bishop - in which he admitted to inappropriate behavior with women. That audio was released by MormonLeaks in March.

According to the response, filed in federal court Tuesday, Bishop had confessed "red flag sexual improprieties" to his ecclesiastical leaders while he was a young missionary in Argentina, while serving in an LDS bishopric in Florida and during his time as a mission president in Argentina in the 1970s. 

The statement claims that during Bishop's tenure as a mission president, he "counseled one of his sister missionaries who was 'besieged with evil spirits.' According to Bishop, those evil spirits then attacked him," the response says. "Frightened, and in an effort to 'save his soul,' he decided to confess or disclose all of his previous sins."

The response goes on to claim Bishop confessed to the person in charge of the church's activities in that area of Argentina, Elder Robert E. Wells. 

Having knowledge of his "sexual improprieties," the church still "elevated" Bishop to the position of MTC president, the statement claims. 

The LDS Church declined to comment on the response to its motion to dismiss..."

Edited September 11, 2018 by Abulafia

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

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

CFR with quotes....

Quote

Smac, surely the judge would have dismissed the fraud case if there was no evidence

My understanding is evidence hasn't been presented yet, that is for the trial.

And your above citation only restated your own claims, but provides no evidence.  CFR still stands.

Please show in the recording (easy to search, I have already done it multiple times in this thread) where he confessed to behaviour that qualifies as predatory before the MTC.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Calm

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, but from a legal perspective,  Smac, surely the judge would have dismissed the fraud case if there was no evidence?

 

 

"SALT LAKE CITY (News4Utah) - Attorneys for the woman at the center of a lawsuit against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are responding to the church's motion to dismiss. 

McKenna Denson claims Joseph Bishop, former president of the Missionary Training Center in Provo, raped her in 1984 when she was a sister missionary. She's suing the church for emotional distress caused by the assault. Her attorney, Craig Vernon, claims in his response to the motion to dismiss that the church acted fraudulently by knowingly concealing its knowledge of Bishop's alleged past abuse of women.

Vernon calls it "an epic betrayal of institutional trust."

The response argues the motion to dismiss the case should be denied because "...Defendants concealed the fact that Defendant Bishop was a sexual predator and had a long history of sexual improprieties prior to his tenure as MTC President. Defendants represented to Plaintiff just the opposite; that the MTC President was safe, trustworthy and not a sexual predator."

That "fraud," as Vernon's response calls it, wasn't known to Denson until 2017, when she secretly recorded a conversation with Bishop - in which he admitted to inappropriate behavior with women. That audio was released by MormonLeaks in March.

According to the response, filed in federal court Tuesday, Bishop had confessed "red flag sexual improprieties" to his ecclesiastical leaders while he was a young missionary in Argentina, while serving in an LDS bishopric in Florida and during his time as a mission president in Argentina in the 1970s. 

The statement claims that during Bishop's tenure as a mission president, he "counseled one of his sister missionaries who was 'besieged with evil spirits.' According to Bishop, those evil spirits then attacked him," the response says. "Frightened, and in an effort to 'save his soul,' he decided to confess or disclose all of his previous sins."

The response goes on to claim Bishop confessed to the person in charge of the church's activities in that area of Argentina, Elder Robert E. Wells. 

Having knowledge of his "sexual improprieties," the church still "elevated" Bishop to the position of MTC president, the statement claims. 

The LDS Church declined to comment on the response to its motion to dismiss..."

Is this story you've quoted just based on the allegations contained in Denson's suit?

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, but from a legal perspective,  Smac, surely the judge would have dismissed the fraud case if there was no evidence?

Actually, evidence is not weighed (considered / evaulated / adjudicated, etc.) in a motion to dismiss.  Just the allegations in the complaint.  

The fraud claim survived based solely on legal technicalities pertaining to how Ms. Denson's lawsuit was written, not because the judge considered any evidence about the claim.

And still waiting for you to respond to my CFR or retract your claim.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2018 by smac97

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, but from a legal perspective,  Smac, surely the judge would have dismissed the fraud case if there was no evidence?

 

Like Smac said, a motion to dismiss assumes all allegations are true, without evidence.

Evidence is not submitted until later in the process.

[Duncan]

Not to be gruesome but what happens to the case if Elder Robert Wells passes away before the trial? he was born in 1927 so he's 91. I hope he'll be fine but could they get records from him from that time or who knows maybe he'll burn records from that time...

[provoman]

18 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Not to be gruesome but what happens to the case if Elder Robert Wells passes away before the trial? he was born in 1927 so he's 91. I hope he'll be fine but could they get records from him from that time or who knows maybe he'll burn records from that time...

Bishop determines if Wells can speak about tbe confession. 

Denson suugest she can win and doesnt need their statements

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by provoman

[Tacenda]

When is enough..enough? And this may be just one week's worth. There's no doubt in my mind that the church protects the abuser, and nelects the abused. https://kutv.com/news/local/mormonleaks-leaked-document-sheds-light-on-lds-churchs-handling-of-seven-sex-abuse-cases

Edited September 12, 2018 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 hours ago, ALarson said:

You reported it ... 

I don't understand why you persist in either misreading what I've written or misrepresenting me. At no point did I ever 'report' what happened to me. I mentioned it to my trainer. He had had similar experiences and shrugged it off. End of story. At no point did I ever bring it up with the mission president or even a district or zone leader. To my knowledge, other missionaries were the same.

Quote

... even porn being made by at least one sister and passed around ...

At no point did I label the photo (which I never saw and therefore can't verify) as 'porn'. It was carefully posed, from what I was told, meaning that it probably could have been published on the cover of a 'glamour' magazine in America. (I.e., the nudity with legal implications was obscured. By arms? By crossed legs? By bear fur? I have no idea, but I've seen enough magazine covers to know it's all possible.)

In addition, as I've repeatedly made clear, the image was never 'passed around'. If it had been, then one of the Elders could simply have given a copy to the mission president. Instead, the Sister missionary had a closely guarded print that she merely flashed at targeted Elders. I suspect she was shrewd enough to know that passing around copies would be solid evidence of misbehaviour.

Quote

 ... and the leaders simply told her to just avoid the elders ...

Who are these 'leaders' you keep wanting to blame? My trainer certainly wasn't a leader in any formal way. He was some dumb kid from California, only a few months older than I was.

Quote

You are the one who brought this up in response to a discussion about something entirely different. 

No, I brought this up specifically because a poster on another message board who claims to have been in the MTC with Ms Denson described her behaviour in a way that sounds to me like exactly some of what happened in my mission.

Quote

No one here would ever say that what happened to you was innocent or normal.

And yet when very similar behaviour was ascribed to Ms Denson (either correctly or incorrectly), Abulafia immediately felt compelled to relabel the behaviour as innocent 'flirting', and you and others jumped on her bandwagon. The Sisters in my mission also thought they were just flirting, and at least some of the Elders agreed with them. I find it odd that you're more upset about what I experienced than I am but you're equally certain that Ms Denson did nothing of the sort. It makes me dizzy.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Storm Rider]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When is enough..enough? And this may just be one week's worth. There's no doubt in my mind that the church protects the abuser, and nelects the abused. https://kutv.com/news/local/mormonleaks-leaked-document-sheds-light-on-lds-churchs-handling-of-seven-sex-abuse-cases

1

It is possible you are correct, but my problem is that I don't think you or anyone else here is qualified or knowledgeable enough to know anything that would enable such a deduction. Where does your lack of doubt spring?

My position is that I know for a certainty - having been involved in over 20 excommunications - that the guidelines of the Church are not just firm, but crystal clear, regarding immorality. Further, given the fact that there have been excommunications from the level of apostle down to the position of a priesthood holder, I find it difficult that out of the blue church leaders would just begin to look the other way for no other reason than they like some twit. That has never stopped them in the past and I am having a challenge thinking they would start now with a fellow as lowly as Bishop. Correct me if I am wrong - this guy did not walk on water or anything else that would tell the Brethren he was beyond reproach, right?   

There is something else going on here. Either the information the Brethren received as highly truncated or something of that nature. The only way an individual continues to be a member when they have done these horrible acts that Bishop has been alleged to have committed is for the truth of such acts to not be known. 

I know the Brethren have called unqualified people to serve as mission presidents i.e. called individuals that did not have the highest caliber, but that is not the same thing as tolerating immorality in the men they call to be leaders.

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is possible you are correct, but my problem is that I don't think you or anyone else here is qualified or knowledgeable enough to know anything that would enable such a deduction. Where does your lack of doubt spring?

My position is that I know for a certainty - having been involved in over 20 excommunications - that the guidelines of the Church are not just firm, but crystal clear, regarding immorality. Further, given the fact that there have been excommunications from the level of apostle down to the position of a priesthood holder, I find it difficult that out of the blue church leaders would just begin to look the other way for no other reason than they like some twit. That has never stopped them in the past and I am having a challenge thinking they would start now with a fellow as lowly as Bishop. Correct me if I am wrong - this guy did not walk on water or anything else that would tell the Brethren he was beyond reproach, right?   

There is something else going on here. Either the information the Brethren received as highly truncated or something of that nature. The only way an individual continues to be a member when they have done these horrible acts that Bishop has been alleged to have committed is for the truth of such acts to not be known. 

I know the Brethren have called unqualified people to serve as mission presidents i.e. called individuals that did not have the highest caliber, but that is not the same thing as tolerating immorality in the men they call to be leaders.

I'm sorry that the church may just let you down on this. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

When is enough..enough? And this may be just one week's worth. There's no doubt in my mind that the church protects the abuser, and nelects the abused. https://kutv.com/news/local/mormonleaks-leaked-document-sheds-light-on-lds-churchs-handling-of-seven-sex-abuse-cases

“the person who leaked the document to him is someone whose credibility is “beyond reproach.””

Because someone who leaks someone else’s confidential attorney privilege documents has no ethical issues.

““It seems to show that the church’s main concern is its image and the aftereffects of this abuse, as opposed to the focus being on the victims,” McKnight said.”

It is work product of attorneys whose duty is to the legal needs of the Church, not pastoral care of its people 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When is enough..enough?

Did you actually read the document, Tacenda? I just did. It's very short. I didn't find anything in it to be concerned over.

[Calm]

Is the Kutv article accurate in your opinion, Hamba?

Going to read it after I eat something.  

[Tacenda]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

Did you actually read the document, Tacenda? I just did. It's very short. I didn't find anything in it to be concerned over.

You agree the missionary who abused a 15 year old should not be sent home? Or the cases of missionaries that served in foreign countries and abused children were sent home but no action taken? 

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You agree the missionary who abused a 15 year old should not be sent home? Or the cases of missionaries that served in foreign countries and abused children were sent home but no action taken? 

I read the leak but at that time it says no action was taken but we don't know what happened later though

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You agree the missionary who abused a 15 year old should not be sent home?

Again, did you actually read the document??? The recommendation is this: 'It is clear that the Elder needs to go home'.

Quote

Or the cases of missionaries that served in foreign countries and abused children were sent home but no action taken? 

Did you read the document? One missionary was 'accused' of abusing an 8-year-old. The disciplinary council and the home stake president both took no action. This would almost certainly mean there was no evidence. And even then, how did the lawyers respond to this? 'We continue to monitor this one'. And how did the Church respond to the victim? 'Leaders are working with the victim's family'.

Does this honestly sound to you like protecting the abuser and neglecting the abused???

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is the Kutv article accurate in your opinion, Hamba?

Going to read it after I eat something.  

You'll be far better served reading the document itself, and it's probably shorter than the news report.

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Again, did you actually read the document??? The recommendation is this: 'It is clear that the Elder needs to go home'.

Did you read the document? One missionary was 'accused' of abusing an 8-year-old. The disciplinary council and the home stake president both took no action. This would almost certainly mean there was no evidence. And even then, how did the lawyers respond to this? 'We continue to monitor this one'. And how did the Church respond to the victim? 'Leaders are working with the victim's family'.

Does this honestly sound to you like protecting the abuser and neglecting the abused???

I read mostly from the news report and when I read the full document, I do see what you're talking about, but my bias goes toward stories I keep reading about where abuser gets off, and the abused suffers.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When I read the full document, I do see what you're talking about, but my bias goes toward stories I keep reading about where abuser gets off, and the abused suffers.

Respectfully, you may want to keep an eye on that.

Thanks for the response! 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Did you actually read the document, Tacenda? I just did. It's very short. I didn't find anything in it to be concerned over.

Are you serious?  

I will reserve judgement to wait for more information, but you’re not concerned over the abuse if true?

Edited September 12, 2018 by JulieM

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Are you serious?  

I will reserve judgement to wait for more information, but you’re not concerned over the abuse if true?

Yeah, because not being concerned about how the Church seems to have responded to abuse and accusations of abuse in a single document = not being concerned by abuse full stop ... 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yeah, because not being concerned about how the Church seems to have responded to abuse and accusations of abuse in a single document = not being concerned by abuse full stop ... 

You stated:

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I didn't find anything in it to be concerned over.

Did I misunderstand what you meant?

Edited September 12, 2018 by JulieM