Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Abulafia]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That you would think -- and repeatedly assert -- that the institutional Church would intentionally put a child in harm's way is offensive to a majority of Latter-day Saints. Deeply offensive.

Or does this only work one way?

Look, If this makes any difference I think the same of many religious organisations,  big and small.

I'm sure you think the same of the Catholic Church (in terms of it's  approach to abuse being evil). Too little, too late, but here is what the pope  said August 2018.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-statement-apology-catholic-church-pennsylvania-abuse-priest-vatican-letter-a8499631.html

 

"“The heart-wrenching pain of these victims, which cries out to heaven, was long ignored, kept quiet or silenced,” he wrote. “But their outcry was more powerful than all the measures meant to silence it, or sought even to resolve it by decisions that increased its gravity by falling into complicity”.

 

Has and will the church leaders do something similar? Not currently..

 

Here's the most salient section of the amicus

B. " The first amendment bars a claim against a church for the negligent supervision of a clergy member or unpaid volunteer,  (my bold) but may permit a claim for intentional failure to supervise if the church disregards a known risk of harm" (p22)

 

My thoughts. Of course and hopefully no one would ever *intentionally* put a child in harms way. Unintentional? Absolutely.

The Bishop or leader can argue persuasively that the *intention* wasn't there because: - 

1. The abuser has repented. 

2. The abuser has been forgiven.

3. We do no background checks so didn't know.

And *known risk of harm* can be avoided under

1. Priest/penitent privilege

2. The extension of priest/penitent privilege to situations where abuse was uncovered in other ways..(Where a victim tells the bishop).

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Abulafia

[Calm]

Quote

That you would think a mother would intentionally put her child in harms way is offensive to the majority of mothers out there. Deeply offensive.

That many have unrealistic views of motherhood and get offended by facts doesn't change the facts that there are mothers who intentionally put her child in harms way.  

Probably raises abuse rates, in fact, since if one refuses to suspect mothers of abusing their children, that would likely result in many more unaddressed cases of abuse than allowing bishop interviews simply based on numbers.

Thankfully most don't.  But let's not pretend it doesn't happen.  That isn't going to help anyone and it can cause a lot of harm.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-powers-ikea-mom-sex-trafficking-20170331-story.html

Quote

Among common patterns of sex-trafficking recruitment and control: Parents or foster care parents selling their children.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-5766513/Woman-sells-toddler-daughter-human-traffickers-5K-going-shopping-spree.html

https://nypost.com/2018/08/23/mom-charged-with-sex-trafficking-disabled-daughter/

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-mom-tries-sell-her-2-year-old-sex-gets-40-years-prison-instead-1022289

Quote

Research suggests that both mothers and fathers may physically abuse children. Findings from the ABS Personal Safety Survey (2005) indicated that of participants who had experienced physical abuse before the age of 15, 55.6% experienced abuse from their father/stepfather and 25.9% experienced abuse from their mother/stepmother. A further 13.7% experienced abuse from another known person and the remainder were family friends, other relatives, or strangers (ABS, 2005).

A British retrospective prevalence study of 2,869 young adults aged 18-24 (May-Chahal & Cawson, 2005) found that mothers were more likely than fathers to be responsible for physical abuse (49% of incidents compared to 40%). However, part of the difference may be explained by the greater time children spend with their mothers than fathers. Violence was also reported to be perpetrated by stepmothers (3%) or stepfathers (5%), grandparents (3%) and other relatives (1%) (May-Chahal & Cawson, 2005).

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/who-abuses-children

-----

I don't see effective solutions appearing when one set of participants are angelicized and the other demonized.

Realistic views drawn from research where possible are more likely to result in saving lives, physically and emotionally.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Calm

[Abulafia]

Calm I did write *the majority*.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Calm I did write *the majority*.

And it being only the majority having rose colored glasses on, ignoring the facts that yes, mothers do intentionally harm their children, makes it all okay?  Not following your logic here.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

We do no background checks so didn't know [...]

How would a background check have helped McKenna Denson? 

 

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And it being only the majority having rose colored glasses on, ignoring the facts that yes, mothers do intentionally harm their children, makes it all okay?  Not following your logic here.

In terms of the British study, what kind of physical abuse are we talking about here? A smack on the bottom or intentional and significant violent physical abuse?  So, does the original study clarify?

 

Above and  beyond that, the notion that this mother was negligent (blame the victim and/or his family) is appalling imho. Why? Because it can never be the institutional church's fault? That seems to be the unwritten assumption here in any case where any individual tries to bring the church to task where they consider the church: -

 Failed in it's duty of care because 

1. The church failed to let families know there was a child abuser in their midst.

2. Promoted an abuser into positions of trust under the naive assumption that repentance was sincere.

3. Disbelieved victims for whatever reason.

4. Historically had inadequate policies in place after disfellowshipment or excommunication of an abuser.

5. Sends the message that being an apostate is a more grevious sin than child abuse.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Abulafia

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And a stranger at that. 

It's comments like this one that show your complete ignorance of this case.  You might want to refrain from commenting more until you read the book or at least read up on the documented facts.  He was not a stranger:

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

No. He wasn't a stranger. He had already lived with the family with the husband and wife giving up their room to him. They did this as an active family who were concerned by a man who seemed lovely, but lonely.  He cooked for them regularly.  But spent too much money. He left and then returned. Not wanting the previous sleeping arrangements  they put him in with one of their sons. Curtis was very elderly by this time. He was a high priest and trusted member of the church. They had no reason to suspect untoward behaviour.

This Mother felt sorry for him.  He'd expressed he did not want to die alone in an old folks home, but wanted to be with a family at the end of his life.  She felt he was just a sweet, old man (that's how he'd portrayed himself to the family).  The only place available for him in their home was to share a room with her 11 year old son.  Yes, that seems very strange (especially today), but remember this was 40 years ago and we didn't take the precautions we do today.  Most parents don't even allow sleepovers with friends anymore because we are more educated and knowledgeable on this topic.

But you portraying this as if a Mother took in a stranger to bed with her son only shows your complete lack of knowledge regarding this case.

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR that this was proved and not just claimed.  My understanding was the Bishop said he told her not to take him in, but she did anyway.  Also that he claimed to have learned about the abuse after she asked him for his advice, though there were leaders elsewhere that knew of it.

Juliem provided the record that I was referring to.  Iirc, after this was shown to be in his church records, the attorneys wouldn't allow the Bishop to respond to that question anymore (claiming clergy-penitent privilege).  You'd need to read the book as this case is very well laid out in a very easy to read format (and it's well documented).  After reading it, there was no doubt in my mind that the Bishop knew this man had molested children and had been excommunicated for it (and had been rebaptized and had his blessings restored making him a High Priest in their ward).

There's enough blame to go around regarding this case.  Of course the Mother is responsible for her child and shares some of it, IMO.   The church leaders over the  years horribly mismanaged this and allowed Curtis to be in callings where he worked with children.  But in the end, Curtis is the one who is responsible for abusing all of those children.

I'm moving on from this topic as I've discussed it previously here and expressed my beliefs and feelings.  I just don't like some coming here and making comments that are not correct regarding this case who obviously haven't even taken the time to read the book or research the case.  I'm not referring to you, Calm as I know that you and I have had discussions about this case before and you are one who does take the time to do research.

Edited September 26, 2018 by ALarson

[Abulafia]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

How would a background check have helped McKenna Denson? 

 

It wouldn't because whatever Bishop confessed to Wells, he wasn't reported to outside authorities. Whatever Denson told Leavitt or Asay wasn't believed so we are told in the case of Leavitt, and many here are questioning if Denson even saw Asay.  

 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

It wouldn't because whatever Bishop confessed to Wells, he wasn't reported to outside authorities.

We don't know what Bishop confessed to Elder Wells.

Quote

Whatever Denson told Leavitt or Asay wasn't believed so we are told in the case of Leavitt, and many here are questioning if Denson even saw Asay.  

Whether she met with Elder Asay is, I think, one the most interesting unanswered questions in this matter.  She has claimed that her ex-husband (then fiancé) accompanied her to her interview with Elder Asay.  From her podcast interview (my summary):

Quote

Ms. Denson's description of the purported meeting with Carlos Asay is interesting.  She prefaces it by saying that she told her fiancé about Bishop's sexual assault, and that he told her to forget about it and move on with her life, but that she refused and reported it to her bishop (Leavitt) anyway.  So she's clearly claiming that her fiancé was aware of her claims against Bishop in 1987.  

She also says her fiancé drove her to the appointment, which was at a church building somewhere in Orem about a week after she disclosed to Ron Leavitt, that her fiancé went in with her, shook Elder Asay's hand, and then waited in the hallway during her interview with Elder Asay.

As I understand it, the fiancé then became Ms. Denson's husband, then ex-husband, and has expressed substantial skepticism about her allegations of rape.  See here:

  Quote

In separate interviews with The Republic, the woman's former husband and another family member also questioned her motives and credibility.

On at least two additional occasions, they said, the woman reported being raped — once while on her Mormon mission in Washington, D.C.

The ex-husband, who is not named in this report so as not to reveal the woman's identity, said, "This is an insult, especially, to women who have gone through something like that and really have been hurt."

She summarized her purported interview with Elder Asay this way (my transcript):

Quote

Denson: You know, I don't really remember a whole lot about it, but I do remember explaining to Elder Asay the grooming process.  How there were four sister missionaries, including myself, and then there were two, including myself, and then it became one-on-one.  And I remember sharing the inappropriate sexual stories that Elder, excuse me, President Bishop shared with me about his wife, and about the hot tub or hot springs.  I don't remember a whole lot more.  I just remember telling him what happened.

Interviewer: What was Elder Asay's reaction?

Denson: He was rather stoic.  He didn't seem to have a lot of emotion.  He seemed very rigid, like he was just taking the information in.  But it didn't move him at all.  

Interviewer: What did he say at the end of the meeting?

Denson: The last thing I remember at the end of the meeting was that Elder Asay said he would look into it and get back to me.

Interviewer: Okay.  And that was it?

Denson: That was it.

Interviewer: And did you ever hear anything back from Carlos Asay or anybody else in the Church relating to this?

Denson: Not a word.  Not a word.  But again, I left the country shortly after I got married, and I was in Taiwan for about three years or so.  So I guess because we're members of the Church, we have church records and they would have known how to get a hold of me.  But noone did, no.  It wasn't until I returned from Taiwan, got divorced, and started looking into what happened with Joseph Bishop.  I was very curious to know what the follow-up was.  

Further, Ms. Denson's "Rough Draft" letter states:

Quote

I reported the incidents of President Bishop to my Bishop in about 1988. His name was Ron Leavitt. He reported to the Stake President’ who called and reported to church headquarters in Salt Lake.

Elder Carlos Asay visited me in Provo or Orem and interviewed me. I reported everything except the rape. I didn’t think of it as rape as he didn’t have a full erection.

Elder Asay said he would investigate the incident and let me know the outcome.

"I reported everything except the rape."  The one thing she is suing about she says she didn't report to Elder Asay.

I wonder if her ex-husband will corroborate her story about meeting with Elder Asay.  If he does, then that could cast some real doubt on the veracity of Leavitt's statement to the press (that he did not notify the Church about Ms. Denson's 1987 disclosure).  It seems unlikely (though not impossible) that she Elder Asay would have met with her without Leavitt's involvement in coordinating such a meeting.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by smac97

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

It wouldn't because whatever Bishop confessed to Wells, he wasn't reported to outside authorities. Whatever Denson told Leavitt or Asay wasn't believed so we are told in the case of Leavitt, and many here are questioning if Denson even saw Asay.  

 

A background check would not have helped because, Bishop - to all of our knowledge - does not have a criminal history. Checking criminal/credit history are primarily what background checks are for.

You do not know what Bishop reported to Wells so at this point stating "wasn't reported to outside authorites" is a red herring.

[Abulafia]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

A background check would not have helped because, Bishop - to all of our knowledge - does not have a criminal history. Checking criminal/credit history are primarily what background checks are for.

You do not know what Bishop reported to Wells so at this point stating "wasn't reported to outside authorites" is a red herring.

That's why I wrote *whatever*.  That leaves the option open for Bishop confessing criminal behaviour.

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

That's why I wrote *whatever*.  That leaves the option open for Bishop confessing criminal behaviour.

and a red herring.

[Amulek]

7 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

That's why I wrote *whatever*.  That leaves the option open for Bishop confessing criminal behaviour.

The other option, of course, being that nothing he confessed to was criminal in any way whatsoever, right?

 

[Abulafia]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Haven't listened yet, but thought it may be of interest since it appears to me to be her first interview. 

 

Thank you. I watched all of this. McCraney was pretty fair. Totally disagreed with the first couple minutes!

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

The other option, of course, being that nothing he confessed to was criminal in any way whatsoever, right?

 

*Whatever* leaves room for that. 

On the point that McKenna didn't describe to Asay her sexual abuse as rape, then Tacenda and I have already explained, reasonably I think, that she didn't regard what happened to her as rape until the BYU or Provo Police Department described it as such. 

[Abulafia]

McKenna (in the McCraney video) describes her own childhood abuse as pretty significant and ongoing. Her mother knew and for whatever reason, did nothing. It appears that she wasn't the only child abused. Her sister, whom her step father formed a relationship with (think Woody Allen and his adopted daughter) and possibly had a child with, and a  neighbours daughter. 

 

McKenna describes her conversion to the church, and the peace and security the church offered her. She then describes a date-rape event which led to the birth of her  first daughter. She felt she gave mixed signals but did not give consent. She was young at the time. A teenager. She describes how she was viewed as a bad example for getting pregnant and how she fully believed she was doing the right thing by giving her baby up for adoption through LDS social services. 

McKenna now has 4 daughters. 

There will be another episode next week. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Abulafia

[provoman]

 

55 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

*Whatever* leaves room for that. 

On the point that McKenna didn't describe to Asay her sexual abuse as rape, then Tacenda and I have already explained, reasonably I think, that she didn't regard what happened to her as rape until the BYU or Provo Police Department described it as such. 

CFR that Denson tokd Asay that Bishop tried to kiss her.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop grabbed her breast.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop tore her skirt.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop pulled her hose and garments down in one pull.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop forced himself on her and penetrated her.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop was grabbing at his penis.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop said "Look at you....Look at me"

Did she describe those things and not use the word rape. OR 

Did she just mention porbography and a small room?

Did she mention any aspects of an attack/sexual assault?

 

[Danzo]

8 hours ago, Abulafia said:

That you would think a mother would intentionally put her child in harms way is offensive to the majority of mothers out there. Deeply offensive.

 

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

McKenna (in the McCraney video) describes her own childhood abuse as pretty significant and ongoing. Her mother knew and for whatever reason, did nothing.

It would appear thinking a mother would intentionally put her child in harms way is not unheard of. 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Danzo

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

 

It would appear thinking a mother would intentionally put her child in harms way is not unheard of. 

 

That's right. But thankfully it's not too common.

[Abulafia]

Smac, you may want to watch this. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=735104453551915&id=319398665176588

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=872544023135191&id=319398665176588

Edited September 26, 2018 by Abulafia

[provoman]

28 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smac, you may want to watch this. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=735104453551915&id=319398665176588

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=872544023135191&id=319398665176588

Her shirt lets others can know her end goal toward the Church.  Nothing like a rabid anti-mormon slogan as jersey.

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

 

CFR that Denson tokd Asay that Bishop tried to kiss her.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop grabbed her breast.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop tore her skirt.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop pulled her hose and garments down in one pull.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop forced himself on her and penetrated her.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop was grabbing at his penis.

CFR that Denson told Asay that Bishop said "Look at you....Look at me"

Did she describe those things and not use the word rape. OR 

Did she just mention porbography and a small room?

Did she mention any aspects of an attack/sexual assault?

 

We don't know because she said she just remembers telling him what happened.

*Denson: You know, I don't really remember a whole lot about it, but I do remember explaining to Elder Asay the grooming process.  How there were four sister missionaries, including myself, and then there were two, including myself, and then it became one-on-one.  And I remember sharing the inappropriate sexual stories that Elder, excuse me, President Bishop shared with me about his wife, and about the hot tub or hot springs.  I don't remember a whole lot more.  I just remember telling him what happened.*

That's ambiguous isn't it. But she probably assumed that the interviewer was already aware of the specific claims, and she was filling him in on the details that preceded it.  

[Abulafia]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

Her shirt lets others can know her end goal toward the Church.  Nothing like a rabid anti-mormon slogan as jersey.

I have no idea what it means. But if you want to ignore that and listen to her then you might change your mind.  

[Abulafia]

The first link details the dossier and specific allegations about 20-30 minutes in.