Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

smac97 · September 27, 2018

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I just don't think it is that usual. Most women don't report (on sexual abuse).

Which point has zero evidentiary value in determining the veracity of her allegations against Joseph Bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

Calm · September 27, 2018

Quote

Why can't they do that on Bishop? Release that dossier too.

The Church didn't release Denson's dossier, Greg Bishop did. The Church sent the dossier to her lawyer.

Quote

On the razor blades. She went to a restaurant with some girl friends and their children, while she was pregnant. She felt a scratchy throat. Went to hospital. They found some pieces of blades. Her husband filed a report either to the church or the police accusing her of trying to kill her baby.

That's pretty straightforward and can be corroborated on multiple levels.

Has this info been corroborated?

Edited September 27, 2018 by Calm

Amulek · September 27, 2018

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Well, can the church have it both ways? It claims priest/penitent privilege when it suits them to do so.

First, I reject your implication that the church is doing anything other than taking a principled stand with respect to priest-penitent privilege.

Second, it is not considered “hav[ing] it both ways” when you’re talking about two completely separate situations. Sharing sensitive information with your lawyer, who is bound by attorney-client privilege, isn’t the same as sharing information with anyone who wants to know.

Quote

As I recall, one of the press releases on Bishop said the church didn't have the investigative tools in his case. That's really, really troubling. Aren't you troubled by that?

I’m troubled, to varying degrees, by a great many things. If you want to know what I think about some particular statement from the church about Joseph Bishop though, please provide a quote and a source. I would be more than happy to look at it and let you know how troubling I find it to be.

Quote

Again, they seem oblivious when it comes to Bishop. Whatever they have in him, they aren't telling. Doesn't that worry you?

Not especially.

Quote

Why can't they do that on Bishop? Release that dossier too.

It seems I need to remind you (again) that the church never released any dossier.

You have no evidence that the church played any part in Bishop’s son leaking that information to the media, and you have not provided a single example of when the church’s legal representative have ever done something similar in the past. Please stop with these baseless insinuations.

Quote

You may think that it is routine from a legal pov, for an institution that calls itself the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, to behave like this. I can assure you that it is jarring to many, and not just disaffected members.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Even though the statute of limitations had expired on pretty much every claim presented (I’m honestly surprised that even one survived), and the fact pattern and evidence in the case for her is hovering somewhere between bleak and non-existent, the church was still willing to enter into settlement negotiations.

Quote

Right, because no one who takes the church to task can be a friend to the church. That seems to be the unwritten rule whether it is the victims of Frank Curtis, of Joseph Bishop or the many victims of Kristy Johnson's father to name just a few. Sadly there are too many more.

I don’t have a problem with McKenna pursuing a claim against the church. I just honestly don’t think the evidence supports her claim. A lesser claim, probably, but not the one she is actually pursuing.

Quote

Because she left it too long to report. […]

That’s not what I understood her to be saying. Here is her exact quote from the interview, transcribed by me:

[22:40] I have had…different, um…So I have a neighbor that drugged our orange juice at my house. My girls lost some time. Um, then he raped me and the police came. By the time we did the rape kit there wasn’t enough evidence there. And they couldn’t prove that he put the drugs in the juice. So…yeah, anyway. So, you know, the church is saying she has a history of this. She has a history.

When she says “then he raped me and the police came,” I don’t take that to mean (or even remotely imply) that she waited days to report the incident.

You claim she waited "too long" to report. Do you have any evidence which would indicate how long she actually waited to report the rape in this case (preferably from an objective source like a police report)?

Quote

Right, because anyone who takes the church to task is an enemy if the church and they must be discredited because the default position here seems to be that the church can never be negligent.

I think you are misreading the general sentiment around here with respect to McKenna.

Quote

Right. Because anyone who takes the church to task is lying and cannot be credible.

Give me a break. I explained why I think she’s lying about the restaurant incident, and I think almost anyone who thinks critically about her razor blade story for more than two seconds is going to come away skeptical as well.

Except, of course, for those who are so ardently devoted to ‘believing’ McKenna that they are willing to latch on to any possibility – no matter how remote – in order to maintain her credibility.

Quote

Amulek, go watch the Shawn McCraney interview with Kristy Johnson. See wgat happens. You should watch it. You need to watch it.

Sorry, I’m not really interested in discussing any other cases on this particular thread. If someone else wants to go down that rabbit hole with you (like what was done with the amicus stuff, or the Curtis stuff, or this, or whatever the next one happens to be), they are more that welcome to do so.

Abulafia · September 27, 2018

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Which point has zero evidentiary value in determining the veracity of her allegations against Joseph Bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

I meant to say that date rape is not that *unusual*. I was offering an opinion in response to Rain's post. McKenna has had a lot of rubbish things occur in her life. That she has survived and opened herself up to ridicule, attack and virulent attempts to discredit her, says a lot about her strength of character imho.

Abulafia · September 27, 2018

Amulek said

*Sorry, I’m not really interested in discussing any other cases on this particular thread. If someone else wants to go down that rabbit hole with you (like what was done with the amicus stuff, or the Curtis stuff, or this, or whatever the next one happens to be), they are more that welcome to do so.*

That's such a pity. I think the amicus brief, the Curtis case, the Johnson case are very relevant in terms of situating what allegedly happened to McKenna and the response she got over the years from church authorities and how her case has been approached legally. Her case isn't unique. The way she was treated isn't unique. The amicus brief indicates that the church, in effect, will never accept that it can act negligently. There is no duty of care. Lots of power. No responsibility. That's dangerous.

Even the Pope, with the utterly horrific things that have occurred in the Catholic Church, has recognised the failings in the system and has apologised.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Abulafia

smac97 · September 27, 2018

19 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I meant to say that date rape is not that *unusual*. I was offering an opinion in response to Rain's post. McKenna has had a lot of rubbish things occur in her life.

I agree with that.

19 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

That she has survived and opened herself up to ridicule, attack and virulent attempts to discredit her, says a lot about her strength of character imho.

I'm not sure I agree with this. She may well have had mercenary motives to begin with, but I was willing to giver her the benefit of the doubt. But her claims continue to not impress me much. So far her credibility has not improved. And I think her character took a pretty substantial hit when she teamed up with Mike Norton to disrupt a Sacrament Meeting. She really burned some bridges with her behavior there.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · September 27, 2018

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Amulek said

*Sorry, I’m not really interested in discussing any other cases on this particular thread. If someone else wants to go down that rabbit hole with you (like what was done with the amicus stuff, or the Curtis stuff, or this, or whatever the next one happens to be), they are more that welcome to do so.*

That's such a pity. I think the amicus brief,

Yes, this is relevant.

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

the Curtis case,

Not relevant at all. It's guilt by association, that's all.

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

the Johnson case

Again, not relevant at all. Guilt by association.

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

are very relevant in terms of situating what allegedly happened to McKenna

I have no idea what "situating what allegedly happened to McKenna" means. At all.

What happened to her in 1984 is not remotely illuminated by what happened in the Curtis and Johnson cases.

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

and the response she got over the years from church authorities and how her case has been approached legally.

Nah. This is just guilt by association.

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Her case isn't unique. The way she was treated isn't unique. The amicus brief indicates that the church, in effect, will never accept that it can act negligently. There is no duty of care. Lots of power. No responsibility. That's dangerous.

Even the Pope, with the utterly horrific things that have occurred in the Catholic Church, has recognised the failings in the system and has apologised.

The Church has made plenty of changes and improvements to how allegations of sexual abuse are handled. And yet critics and cranks consistently ignore these efforts.

Thanks,

-Smac

provoman · September 27, 2018

35 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

The amicus brief indicates that the church, in effect, will never accept that it can act negligently.

Which amicus brief?

And where in that amicus brief does the Church indicate that the Church "will never accept that it can act negligently".

Abulafia · September 27, 2018

Smac, nothing to do with guilt by association. What the Curtis and Johnson cases show is how the church has historically dealt with alleged victims.

Provoman I've posted sections of the amicus more than once and asked when the church could ever, ever be proven negligent in a court of law. The church as an institution has never admitted liability and has never apologised to victims.

How powerful would it be to apologise for past mistakes, and to recognise liability where leaders knew and did nothing.

I hope you are right Smac, I hope the church has done enough to make abuse rarer. I hope the church has done enough for kids growing up today, and for other vulnerable groups. I hope the culture has changed.. but that doesn't help the Kristy Johnson's or McKenna Denson's of this world whose experience was very different.

smac97 · September 27, 2018

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smac, nothing to do with guilt by association. What the Curtis and Johnson cases show is how the church has historically dealt with alleged victims.

Nah. Two examples in a church with millions of members gets nowhere near showing "how the church has historically dealt with alleged victims."

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Provoman I've posted sections of the amicus more than once and asked when the church could ever, ever be proven negligent in a court of law. The church as an institution has never admitted liability and has never apologised to victims.

You can't say that. You don't know that.

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

How powerful would it be to apologise for past mistakes, and to recognise liability where leaders knew and did nothing.

I think apologies are for the wronged parties, not rubbernecking standersby.

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I hope you are right Smac, I hope the church has done enough to make abuse rarer.

There is always room for improvement. But incessent and unending faultfinding is not the way to go.

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I hope the church has done enough for kids growing up today, and for other vulnerable groups. I hope the culture has changed.. but that doesn't help the Kristy Johnson's or McKenna Denson's of this world whose experience was very different.

Actually, it does help. Or is should. Ms. Denson claims she wants to affect change in the Church as to how it addresses allegations of sex abuse. But the Church has changed as to how it addresses such allegations. A lot, actually. And yet these changes and improvements are not acknowledged or addressed. The Church and its bishops are overwhelmingly beneficial in helping detect and address allegations of abuse. And yet these efforts are not acknowledged or addressed.

It's just endless faultfinding. Forever.

-Smac

Abulafia · September 27, 2018

*Nah. Two examples in a church with millions of members gets nowhere near showing "how the church has historically dealt with alleged victims.*

You really think it's only 2. I personally know two friends both female RMs who were abused by their fathers and nothing was done. Nothing.

In one case the daughter was nearly sent home from her mission because it was *her* fault.

The other friend was also raped on the way home from school and she was told by the SP it was *her* fault.

It's the tip of the iceberg.

Some faults deserve and need to be uncovered whether it's the Catholic Church, the JWs or the Mormons.

smac97 · September 27, 2018

2 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

*Nah. Two examples in a church with millions of members gets nowhere near showing "how the church has historically dealt with alleged victims.*

You really think it's only 2.

Those are the only two you cited.

2 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I personally know two friends both female RMs who were abused by their fathers and nothing was done. Nothing.

I can't really speak to anecdotes. Were the local leaders aware of the abuse? Did the men involved admit to the abuse? How do you know "nothing was done?" And what is it that the Church could have done that it did not do? Convene a disciplinary council? Were the purported victims willing to testify against their fathers? If not, and if the fathers denied the abuse, what is it you that you think should have been done?

Were civil authorities notified? I assume "nothing was done" extends to them as well. Is that an indictment on those civil authorities?

How long ago were these events? Has the Church changed its policies since then?

Do the Church's current policies provide effective guidance to local leaders as to how to handle allegations of abuse. Yes. Decidedly yes. And yet these improvements are ignored and shunted aside.

In the end, the Church has very limited authority and power. D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

I have lost count of the number of times I have posted this passage, but it seems to do no good. Faultfinders and naysayers constantly complaint about the Church not "doing" anything, despite the fact that A) the Church is doing a lot to propertly address allegations of abuse (comply with mandatory reporting laws, provide counseling and assistance to victims, provide for the victims' immediate safety and welfare, legal helpline for bishops, and on and on and on), B) these improved efforts are working quite well (they are not foolproof, and can be improved upon in some ways), and C) in the end, the Church really doesn't have the power to get much "done" in terms of punishing a perpetrator. All it can do is obey the law, help the victims, encourage perps to repent, and impose church discipline (probation / disfellowshipment / excommunication).

The Church is doing these things. All. The. Time. Bishops are using the helpline all the time. Allegations of abuse disclosed to bishops get reported to civil authorities all the time. The bishops aren't perfect at this, but they are getting better.

But for the faultfinders and naysayers, none of this matters. That's the terrible thing about faultfinding: you will always succeed at it.

Always.

2 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

In one case the daughter was nearly sent home from her mission because it was *her* fault.

The other friend was also raped on the way home from school and she was told by the SP it was *her* fault.

It's the tip of the iceberg.

Again, I can speak to anecdotes based on multiple hearsay.

2 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Some faults deserve and need to be uncovered whether it's the Catholic Church, the JWs or the Mormons.

Sure would be nice if that faultfinding was balanced with some acknowledgements of the Church improving and helping people.

Instead, we get people like Sam Young characterizing the thousands of (unpaid, volunteer) bishops as nascent perverts and child molesters. We get people accusing the Church of not caring about the victims of sexual abuse.

Forever. Without end.

-Smac

provoman · September 28, 2018

..........

Edited September 28, 2018 by provoman

Abulafia · September 28, 2018

Smac, I acknowledged elsewhere that the steps the church has taken are a step in the right direction. Is it enough? A resounding NO.

I will not be reduced to a label by you. Oh, If you highlight these issues, however imperfectly, you are just a naysayer and faultfinder.

My biggest gripe against the church, the biggest reason I initially left, was it's inability to be honest and open about it's history. Now, it's made great strides to open up the doors and let light flood in. That's brilliant. Superb. Wonderful. I applaud the leaders for doing this. Utterly. Credit where credit is due.

But the amicus brief indicates that however much it has changed its culture and policies, however much it gets right, that it still refuses to admit liability de facto under any circumstance. I say that confidently because that is what the amicus does, even if it is implicit.

There has never been a time when the institional church has admitted to a negligent duty of care to a victim, even where it is painfully obvious that leaders knew they were dealing with an abuser. It refuses to perform CRBs or formulate clear policies on physical and sexual abuse or even bullying and corporate fraud. If I am wrong on that, show me the documents. Refer me to them.

They failed to reprimand and deal with individuals in a way that would protect potential future victims. Heck, Johnson was sent to California to work with young people when Elder Oaks was head of BYU, and what did Johnson do in California? He kept on abusing. Just like Curtis when he moved about even after being excommunicated.

There was an abuser in my home ward. A female abuser actually. How do I know. Because the woman molested a young boy in primary who happened to be the SPs son and the SPs wife told me in hushed tones. Is that enough to protect other children? A few hushed whispers here and there?

Fair enough an abusers record can be annotated but first the victim has to be believed. Their claims taken seriously. Police need to be told at all times, not just where there is mandatory reporting. If someone is being sexually or physically assaulted, a crime has been committed. It's a crime. And potential victims need to be warned. Brother or Sister so and so has been charged with ...... please be aware...investigations are ongoing.

And there you have my reasons for supporting Denson for getting up in a testimony meeting. You have a sexual predator in your midst. He's there sitting in that seat, taking the sacrament having never taken legal responsibility for his crimes.

So many men and women who never faced criminal charges. And it still happens today. And the advise at lds.org is still to tell the bishop first whose first port of call will be to a law firm who will advise on mandatory reporting and assess liability to the church.

So let's not pretend all is currently well in Zion. The release of the 2012 document shows it is not imho.

If there are Bishop's who have done the right thing. Reported crimes, got social services involved, outside counsellors for victims and perpetrators, advised the ward of potential risk. Great. Mistakes can still happen. Trust can be abused. But people would know.

Abulafia · September 28, 2018

Oh...And from the Associated Press on the Pope's visit to Estonia

https://www.apnews.com/8e627156352a4d9fb2ad95c4353882e3

"We ourselves need to be converted," he said. "We have to realize that in order to stand by your side we need to change many situations that, in the end, put you off." (Speaking to young people)

"It was a very public admission of the church's failures in confronting sex abuse scandals, which have roared back to the headlines recently with revelations of abuse and cover-up in the U.S., Chilean and now German church. The German bishops conference on Tuesday was releasing a report that found that some 3,677 people — more than half of them 13 or younger and nearly a third of them altar boys — were abused by clergy between 1946 and 2014."

"The report, compiled by university researchers, found evidence that some files were manipulated or destroyed, many cases were not brought to justice, and that sometimes abusers were simply moved to other dioceses without the congregations being informed about their past, according to the results that leaked earlier in the German press."

"The abuse scandal, which erupted in Ireland in the 1990s and subsequently Australia and the U.S., now threatens Francis' own papacy since a former Vatican ambassador accused him of rehabilitating an American cardinal who slept with seminarians. In addition, Francis badly botched a case of cover-up in Chile for which he has tried to make amends."

You know, why can the pope do this, but the prophet and apostles cannot?

Is it because the Catholic Church is set up differently? Diocese can be sued in their case, but in the case of the church, because it is set up as a corporate sole, it just can't do it?

Amulek · September 28, 2018

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Police need to be told at all times, not just where there is mandatory reporting.

Do you think this should only apply to clergy members? What about attorneys, doctors, psychiatrists, etc.? Should all of them be required to report matters to the police "at all times?"

provoman · September 28, 2018

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

But the amicus brief indicates that however much it has changed its culture and policies, however much it gets right, that it still refuses to admit liability de facto under any circumstance.

Your gross misrepresentations is why I challenge you on your comments so often.

So CFR

And the brief is about when and if a Court of law can legally review decisions by a religious organization.

The brief is NOT about admissions.

Edited September 28, 2018 by provoman

provoman · September 28, 2018

19 hours ago, Calm said:

The Church didn't release Denson's dossier, Greg Bishop did. The Church sent the dossier to her lawyer.

I have not find a news outlet that claims Greg Bishop released it. Portions yes, but at least on news outlet was mum on how it received the full document. (Though I accept that you have information I do not)

Edited September 28, 2018 by provoman

Abulafia · September 28, 2018

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Do you think this should only apply to clergy members? What about attorneys, doctors, psychiatrists, etc.? Should all of them be required to report matters to the police "at all times?"

If a serious crime has been committed? Yes.

Abulafia · September 28, 2018

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Your gross misrepresentations is why I challenge you on your comments so often.

So CFR

And the brief is about when and if a Court of law can legally review decisions by a religious organization.

The brief is NOT about admissions.

Hey. I know I'm not the best advocate. I don't claim to be. I'm doing the best I can whilst trying not to tick you or anyone else off here. Because if I tick you off and make you defensive, then I have failed miserably. I get that.

So, please tell me the difference. As a lawyer. I'm no lawyer.

Under what circumstances would the church ever admit liability in real terms?

When has it ever admitted liability and apologised?

I've never had an answer as far as I can tell.

Abulafia · September 28, 2018

And apparantly something big is going to happen on October 3rd in terms of lawsuits. Been told this twice now by people in the know. There will be no press conference.

I don't think this is going away.

smac97 · September 28, 2018

8 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Smac, I acknowledged elsewhere that the steps the church has taken are a step in the right direction. Is it enough? A resounding NO.

Meh. This is faultfinding near its apogee. A begrudging acknwoledgement of the Church taking "a step in the right direction," followed by "a resounding NO."

Quote

I will not be reduced to a label by you. Oh, If you highlight these issues, however imperfectly, you are just a naysayer and faultfinder.

I'm speaking generally. Whether the shoe fits is up to the individual to decide.

Quote

My biggest gripe against the church, the biggest reason I initially left, was it's inability to be honest and open about it's history. Now, it's made great strides to open up the doors and let light flood in. That's brilliant. Superb. Wonderful. I applaud the leaders for doing this. Utterly. Credit where credit is due.

Okay.

Quote

But the amicus brief indicates that however much it has changed its culture and policies, however much it gets right, that it still refuses to admit liability de facto under any circumstance.

Oh, brother. First you start off with quoting a an amicus brief that the Church did not write and repeatedly (and falsely) attribute it to the Church.

Now you are disregarding the plain language of the brief which you yourself quoted, and in which the Church acknowledged that "[the First Amendment] may permit a claim for intentional failure to supervise if the church disregards a known risk of harm."

It must be nice to have your own set of portable goal posts.

Quote

I say that confidently because that is what the amicus does, even if it is implicit.

"Even if it is implicit" rather undermines you being able to "confidenty" say anything, particularly when the Church's brief explicitly states that liability may exist "for intentional failure to supervise if the church disregards a known risk of harm."

Quote

There has never been a time when the institional church has admitted to a negligent duty of care to a victim, even where it is painfully obvious that leaders knew they were dealing with an abuser.

Again, you can't say this. You don't know this.

Quote

It refuses to perform CRBs

I would be open to this.

Of course, I don't for a minute think that it would satisfy the faultfinders and naysayers, who would just shift the goalposts again and continue to do what they do best: find fault.

Quote

or formulate clear policies on physical and sexual abuse

This is patently false, and I am frankly astounded that you have the audacity to say it. The Church's policies on this are explicit and crystal clear. Physical and sexual abuse are condemned. Pretty simple, eh? These things are addressed fairly extensively in the CHI. The First Presidency just published a letter in March about this issue, which was accompanied by a summary of the Church's policies regarding abuse:

Quote

PREVENTING AND RESPONDING TO ABUSE

This document summarizes current Church policies and guidelines on abuse. All priesthood and auxiliary leaders should be familiar with and follow them to help protect God’s children.