More drama from June Hughes/Mckenna Denson

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Denson is attacking us.  She’s attacking me. And you can bet your boots I’m going to respond.

I wish I could think and respond with such clarity more often. Maybe I should get a JD. Whaddya think?

[Suzie]

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

You and I have no disagreement here, Suzie.  And you don't stand alone here.  If ever there was something that deserved some all-caps yelling, it would be a friggin PRESIDENT OF THE MTC doing something untoward with a young sister missionary.  You stand on your rooftop and shout, I'll stand on mine.  No really, on the list of betrayals, something like this is near the top.  Akin to being molested by your father.  

So yeah, let's print this out in a big 500 foot banner and have the plane that carries the space shuttle fly it around the country:

Church Statement About Alleged Sexual Assault by Former Mission President - 23 March 2018:

 

Thank you for sharing this statement NeuroTypical. The first one was horrendous.

[Suzie]

10 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Funny... You love to quote Elder Oaks talk about Righteous Judgment.  And you quote the Church as it makes a Righteous Judgment in condemning a set of actions (but note they do not condemn a person) In support of Suzie's effort to condemn a person.  That is not a righteous judgment.  The only facts we have against Bishop is his own confession.  A confession that sounds bad but it otherwise kind of unclear. 

 

You might want to go off the tangent and make the issue about condemning person VS. behaviour,  but let's remain on the real topic. This man was a predator in a position of trust and needs to be called as it is regardless of who they are.

A confession that sounds bad but it otherwise kind of unclear?. Which part of "MTC President asked a sister missionary to expose her breasts" is unclear? I am seriously asking. This is according to his own confession.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Suzie

[Suzie]

8 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Suzie explicitly stated state condemning Bishop... that is a person... not a behavior (Yes condemning him because of his behavior but it she is still asking for condemnation of him)

Simple Suzie wants the condemnation of Bishop to match the condemnation that is give to Hughes (Go read her post again if you are unclear on this complaint note again a condemnation of a person)

Bishop has been held accountable as he is going to be by Mortal authority.  His judgement is now divine.  The Church has condemned the behavior, the Church has altered its policies and processes to try to stop such behavior and/or catch such sooner, and the Church has faced/is currently facing Mortal Authorities for whatever role it played.  Thus those that have been accused by Hughes have been held accountable as much as it is mortally possible to do so using the principles of Mortal Justice and Mortal Rule of Law.

Where is Hughes being held accountable for her actions?  Where is the Mortal Justice for her crimes and sin?  There is a mismatch... but it does not favor Bishop or the church.

   

It's funny how the condemnation of the individual Vs. behaviour seems to be only when Bishop is concerned. Because to be completely honest, no one seems to have gotten that memo when they made/make horrible comments online about her. I understand people are upset about the recording in sacrament meeting etc, but they are treating her actions WORSE than what Bishop actually confessed he did.

The comments I read about the allegations are dismissive, sort of "Yes, what he did was wrong but he will pay for it etc..." end of the conversation. Opposite to the great length that people are going to in order to discredit her and bash her for recording in sacrament meeting.  And to be very clear, I do not support at all her choice of going to sacrament meeting and doing this. I think she is a broken person in many ways which makes (in my view) what Bishop did, even more repugnant giving his position of trust.

 

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, Suzie said:

A confession that sounds bad but it otherwise kind of unclear?. Which part of "MTC President asked a sister missionary to expose her breasts" is unclear? I am seriously asking. This is according to his own confession.

Suzie, as I understood you, your complaint was that people were focusing more on Hughes' lies and overall untrustworthy reputation than on Bishop's abuse of position. Here is the problem with your complaint as I see it:

Everyone already agrees that Bishop was a scumbag (or, if we want to avoid personal judgment, acted in a scumbaggy way). There really isn't much more to say about that. How many times can we say "Ewwwww?!" before it's useless? Everyone is glad he was caught. Everyone is glad he was exposed (except perhaps for those who think the Church's reputation was unfairly besmirched). So we're all more or less in agreement. There's no real controversy about Bishop. He's guilty of horrible abuse of his position and is the obvious black hat in this drama.

But as JAG so clearly pointed out, Hughes/McKenna/whatever she's calling herself these days is directly attacking, not just Bishop, but the Church in general. That means me, and by the way it also means you. She is airing her grievances in the most public way she can figure out. She is looking for (1) blood and (2) money. There is much reason to believe she is exaggerating and even outright lying about the most serious charges she makes. Yet many people, apparently including you, want to defend her and make her out as some sort of a hero. She's nothing of the sort. Victim of a man who cynically abused his position of trust? Absolutely. Victim of forcible rape? Doubtful. Yet all sorts of people, even those hiding behind the name of the Church or its membership, are defending her probably baseless attacks -- attacks not only on Bishop, but on the Church and its members as a whole.

When we can have the same unanimity of disgust (if not the same intensity of disgust) toward her unsavory actions as we have toward Bishop's, the arguments will vanish. Until then, people who care more about the truth than about pushing their societal agendas will continue to point out that, despite the horrible abuses heaped on her, her actions are far from spotless, and she herself is far from believable.

[Suzie]

Suzie is making a point that if you put all the stuff everyone is saying in two piles, comments against Denson's actions fills a swimming pool, comments against Bishop's actions fills a shot glass.  I don't think she's wrong, and I do think her point is important.

@NeuroTypicalI appreciate this. I really do. Not because I think I am "right" and others are "wrong" but because you took the time to understand my points. Thank you.

[The Folk Prophet]

It's been a while, so I'm not sure I'm remembering right, but wasn't Bishop profoundly apologetic in his confession? That would be the difference in my mind. We're taught if someone confesses and forsakes we are to forgive. Well,  we're meant to forgive them either way I guess. But it's the continuation of wrong that I would guess elicits continuing criticism. If she were to stand down and apologize to the church and the members I'm pretty sure the criticism would go away too. 

[Just_A_Guy]

37 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's been a while, so I'm not sure I'm remembering right, but wasn't Bishop profoundly apologetic in his confession? That would be the difference in my mind. We're taught if someone confesses and forsakes we are to forgive. Well,  we're meant to forgive them either way I guess. But it's the continuation of wrong that I would guess elicits continuing criticism. If she were to stand down and apologize to the church and the members I'm pretty sure the criticism would go away too. 

The thing is, then his son came out when this went public with the “my father was heavily medicated and didn’t know what he was saying” schtick.

It’s more or less the same point I’ve made recently with Kavanaugh:  assuming you actually did what you’re accused of, you can’t claim to be truly repentant whilst simultaneously denying the core accusation.  The essence of penitence is accountability.  

Edited September 26, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

The thing is, then his son came out when this went public with the “my father was heavily medicated and didn’t know what he was saying” schtick.

It’s more or less the same point I’ve made recently with Kavanaugh:  assuming you actually did what you’re accused of, you can’t claim to be truly repentant whilst simultaneously denying the core accusation.  The essence of penitence is accountability.  

It's easy to presume one of the following: 1. The confession was sincere, he's repented/repenting, and the son's "schtick" was the son's doing. 2. The son's statement was legit and he is innocent. 3. He hasn't repented, and that's between him and his bishop and the Lord. Either way, what else is there to say? Hughes/McKenna, on the other hand, is openly, publicly, actively pursuing an attack against the church. My point in saying this is not to criticize or defend either. It is simply to point out that it should not be surprising that McKenna is getting more guff for her active...um... ...activity.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's easy to presume one of the following: 1. The confession was sincere, he's repented/repenting, and the son's "schtick" was the son's doing. . . 

Indeed.  One of the things that flummoxed me from the get-go was that Bishop had his lawyer-son defending him—and that the son got on board with such a plan.  That’s a rookie lawyer mistake—a crucial part of the value of your service lies in your being somewhat emotionally detached from the case.  

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Indeed.  One of the things that flummoxed me from the get-go was that Bishop had his lawyer-son defending him—and that the son got on board with such a plan.  That’s a rookie lawyer mistake—a crucial part of the value of your service lies in your being somewhat emotionally detached from the case.  

Exactly why I can't trust a word you say concerning Trump!

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Exactly why I can't trust a word you say concerning Trump!

If I were prosecuting Trump I’d have recused myself years ago.  

[NeuroTypical]

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's been a while, so I'm not sure I'm remembering right, but wasn't Bishop profoundly apologetic in his confession? 

Yes, he was profoundly apologetic at times in the hidden-microphone gotcha interview.  What he was apologetic for, and what Denson is currently accusing him of, are very different things.  (And what Denson has accused him of, has also changed over time, getting worse and worse with each telling until now it's full-blown rape.)

 

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yes, he was profoundly apologetic at times in the hidden-microphone gotcha interview.  What he was apologetic for, and what Denson is currently accusing him of, are very different things.  (And what Denson has accused him of, has also changed over time, getting worse and worse with each telling until now it's full-blown rape.)

 

Exactly the same issue with Pope Francis.

[clwnuke]

Wow, a lot of discussion in the last little while. I've been on vacation and missed the great comments. Based on the recent comments I'd like to say a few things as an involved party:

1. From the Lord's perspective there is no excuse for a grown man engaging in any type of sexual conduct with someone other than his wife, period. President Bishop is responsible for his behavior no matter what it's full extent was.

2. That being said, I can understand how men and women can struggle with sexual matters. It is by far the most common weakness among people, and being a leader or a missionary doesn't change that. In this case, by admission of both Sister Hughes and President Bishop it was a weakness for both.

Let me ask those who think this case is a straightforward example of President Bishop being a predator and Ms. Denson being an innocent victim the following: 

• Why does Ms. Denson's own family not support her account or lawsuit?
• Is it possible that the victim knew about the hidden room before President bishop took her there?
• Is it possible that the victim and the accused went to the room willingly for sexual purposes? Would that make a difference to the claim of rape?
• Would it make any difference to this story if Mr. Bishop were to admit that he sought and experienced sexual encounters with people other than Sister Hughes while he served at the MTC?
• Would it make any difference to this story if Ms. Denson were to admit that she sought and experienced sexual encounters with people other than President Bishop during that same time frame in the MTC and as a missionary?
• Is it possible the Ms. Denson embellished her story a little? Could that be why President Bishop (despite being clearly confused at times) seemed to recall  a lot of what Ms. Denson mentioned right up until she asked him about raping her on the secret tape?

 

 

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, clwnuke said:

1. From the Lord's perspective there is no excuse for a grown man engaging in any type of sexual conduct with someone other than his wife, period. President Bishop is responsible for his behavior no matter what it's full extent was.

2. That being said, I can understand how men and women can struggle with sexual matters. It is by far the most common weakness among people, and being a leader or a missionary doesn't change that. In this case, by admission of both Sister Hughes and President Bishop it was a weakness for both.

A. There is a difference between attaining the age of legal majority and actually being an adult. Hughes had done the former; Bishop was the latter.

B. When a man (or woman) is acting in a leadership capacity under Priesthood authority, his/her accountability for his/her actions skyrockets. Bishop was the freaking mission president!

There is simply no reasonable way to argue that Hughes and Bishop were equally culpable for what happened in the early 1980s. I don't care of Hughes was doing a striptease; he's the one who receives the lion's share of blame. Period.

From what I've read, Hughes' charges of forcible rape by Bishop look ridiculously contrived and utterly unbelievable. Setting those spurious-looking claims aside, I don't see that Bishop did anything illegal. I lay blame for such false testimony at Hughes' door, and only at her door. But let's not pretend that Bishop is some poor victim of a spurned, vengeful woman. He may well be a victim, all right; but if he is, he's the victim of his victim.

(I really despise the whole victimhood mindset. It's a leftist thing, it's pathetic, and it sucks.)

[NeuroTypical]

I see Vort and I were basically typing the same answer.  Here's mine: 

Here are ways I see it could be:

Denson has mental issues and is troubled and wrong, and Bishop did something horrible and wrong.
Denson is lying and untrustworthy, and Bishop did something horrible and wrong.
Denson was a predator herself back in those days, and Bishop did something horrible and wrong.
Denson was troubled but trying really hard to turn over a new leaf and live a good life, and Bishop did something horrible and wrong.

No matter what Denson's story, no matter who she was back then and who she is now, I honestly don't see any scenario where Bishop didn't do something horrible and wrong.  We've got enough to reach that as a reasonable conclusion.  Now, what that horrible thing is, is very much in dispute. We peanut gallery people may never know for sure. Nobody may ever know.  Bishop is aging and possibly in the early stages of dementia.  Denson seems bent on never missing an opportunity to damage her own credibility.  She has changed her story so many times, it has so many holes in it, that she just isn't believable any more.  It's not like there were hidden cameras back then recording the event. 

But yeah, we need to come to grips with one of our leaders did something horrible and wrong, while he was one of our leaders.  It happens with us humans sometimes.  If we can't admit that, we need to figure out why not, and fix ourselves.

Edited September 26, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

On 9/24/2018 at 7:56 PM, Suzie said:

I'm upset that all I see online about this case  is condemnation towards her,  people choosing to dig about her past,  condemnation at the fact that she recorded the public shaming in sacrament meeting, etc and YET I have NOT seen online the SAME amount of condemnation about the CONFESSION of this Bishop. Disappointing to say the least.

I'm not sure if you've read the entire thread and other related threads.  Here's my take.

When I was given enough data to believe that Bishop abused his position, I was all about saying he should be lynched (figuratively).  But then something else became apparent.  He was a scumbag, not a rapist.  There is a difference.  I was fully willing to condemn not only what he did, but him personally (yes, unrighteous judgement, I know).  He abused his position of utter trust.  Emotionally, spiritually, ecclesiastically,   What a travesty!!!  And I would have continued if that was all there was.

But then something else became apparent.  I saw insufficient evidence to believe he was a rapist.  In fact, I actually saw evidence to the contrary. See, if Denson's claims were that he asked to see her breasts, that would be the end of it.  He was a simple scumbag.  But she was accusing him of attempted rape (or full blown rape).  Uhmm.. Just because we established that he's a scumbag automatically makes him a rapist?  I find that hard to believe.  I've known many scumbags in my life -- a side effect of working in the construction industry.  But only a small fraction of them would actually cross the line to become a rapist.

That is why sh'e now receiving more condemnation.  We believed what she said when it was true.  Now she's milking it for all it's worth and pushing a bigger and badder story.  She herself is to blame for taking the spotlight away from Bishop.  She shined it on him.  We saw it. We condemned him.  And it would have ended with his condemnation and utter ruin (which he will still feel).  But she wanted more.  Now she's doing everything to shine the light on herself.  She herself is distracting us from Bishop.  If she would have stuck with what was true and provable, then it would have been a LOT better for her.  It was when she started lying that she lost me.

[JohnsonJones]

In Denson's defense, she is FAR more believeable than the current accusers of the SC nomination.  She can tell us when, where, and how.  We have who, we have a place, we have approximately when, and we know how it was done.

The question, is if there is a confession, and obviously the victim has not had reparations, what is happening in regards to the church and the person who did wrong?  I think this may be one aspect of which Suzie was trying to point out.  To the victim it appears that nothing will be done in relation to the individual that assaulted her.

On the otherhand, I think she (Denson) has some emotional difficulties and problems that have arisen and that she is being used by various people for nefarious purposes.  These people do NOT have her best interest in mind.  I think she may have had a better chance at winning some lawsuits had she had better legal advice, AND, not gone along with some of these individuals plans BEFORE the court cases were decided.  Because of her actions (inspired by these individuals who I feel are using her for their own means) her court cases were hurt in very terrible ways.  Her chances to win were shot even before they got to court because of others actions.

This is why lawyers will normally tell clients to NOT go public, do NOT announce things, do not even speak about the case without the lawyer present or things dealing with it until it hits the court and is going through it. 

Instead, these "Friends" of hers convinced her to do the exact opposite of this.  Her talking in church that Sunday was a terrible move (she had one case tossed out due to statute of limitations, a defense easily prepared and based upon many various items that had already come out, though it may have been contested better if she had been quiet prior to that.  She had yet one other case pending (and I think still pending) but after what she did, she gave the defense a HUGE lift.  Basically, she killed her own case with that action.  Unless she has an exceptionally genius lawyer, there are many things that action did to hurt her case tremendously).

Those "Friends" are NOT her friends.  They are using her, and I think that is perhaps the greater tragedy of it all.  I think she may have been able to force some sort of concession or settlement had her "friends" not convinced or to do things or done things "for her" on their own. 

She has had the unfortunate experience perhaps to have been used by multiple people on multiple sides of the equation when in truth, what she really needed was someone who really wanted to help her just to help her, rather than to use her.

Edited September 28, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Suzie]

17 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In Denson's defense, she is FAR more believeable than the current accusers of the SC nomination.  She can tell us when, where, and how.  We have who, we have a place, we have approximately when, and we know how it was done.

The question, is if there is a confession, and obviously the victim has not had reparations, what is happening in regards to the church and the person who did wrong?  I think this may be one aspect of which Suzie was trying to point out.  To the victim it appears that nothing will be done in relation to the individual that assaulted her.

On the otherhand, I think she (Denson) has some emotional difficulties and problems that have arisen and that she is being used by various people for nefarious purposes.  These people do NOT have her best interest in mind.  I think she may have had a better chance at winning some lawsuits had she had better legal advice, AND, not gone along with some of these individuals plans BEFORE the court cases were decided.  Because of her actions (inspired by these individuals who I feel are using her for their own means) her court cases were hurt in very terrible ways.  Her chances to win were shot even before they got to court because of others actions.

This is why lawyers will normally tell clients to NOT go public, do NOT announce things, do not even speak about the case without the lawyer present or things dealing with it until it hits the court and is going through it. 

Instead, these "Friends" of hers convinced her to do the exact opposite of this.  Her talking in church that Sunday was a terrible move (she had one case tossed out due to statute of limitations, a defense easily prepared and based upon many various items that had already come out, though it may have been contested better if she had been quiet prior to that.  She had yet one other case pending (and I think still pending) but after what she did, she gave the defense a HUGE lift.  Basically, she killed her own case with that action.  Unless she has an exceptionally genius lawyer, there are many things that action did to hurt her case tremendously).

Those "Friends" are NOT her friends.  They are using her, and I think that is perhaps the greater tragedy of it all.  I think she may have been able to force some sort of concession or settlement had her "friends" not convinced or to do things or done things "for her" on their own. 

She has had the unfortunate experience perhaps to have been used by multiple people on multiple sides of the equation when in truth, what she really needed was someone who really wanted to help her just to help her, rather than to use her.

I would like to say that I do understand the concerns about Ms. Denson. I have my own  "theory" about why she is acting this way. A theory that comes from trying to help (professionally) many individuals who went through a lot of trauma in their lives. She seems like someone who is really struggling emotionally and perhaps wants to make out of Bishop, the person to pay not only for what he did to her but for everything else she went through.

Having said that, what makes the situation very disturbing to me (besides asking a missionary to expose her breasts) is the fact that he specifically targeted an emotionally broken missionary. A missionary that trusted him. She shared with him all the things she went through in her life, her traumatic past of sexual abuse so he knew fully well the story. It is my understanding that a second woman is also coming forward and if she is who I think she is, she is also someone who is emotionally broken.

I do not know if he is a rapist but it seems quite clear to me that he demonstrated the characteristics of an inconspicuous predator. It is not uncommon for sexual predators to be in positions of trust and target the emotionally weak and broken. As a matter of fact these are the kind of individuals they seek and target. A scumbag? That's a compliment.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Suzie said:

I would like to say that I do understand the concerns about Ms. Denson. I have my own  "theory" about why she is acting this way. A theory that comes from trying to help (professionally) many individuals who went through a lot of trauma in their lives. She seems like someone who is really struggling emotionally and perhaps wants to make out of Bishop, the person to pay not only for what he did to her but for everything else she went through.

Having said that, what makes the situation very disturbing to me (besides asking a missionary to expose her breasts) is the fact that he specifically targeted an emotionally broken missionary. A missionary that trusted him. She shared with him all the things she went through in her life, her traumatic past of sexual abuse so he knew fully well the story. It is my understanding that a second woman is also coming forward and if she is who I think she is, she is also someone who is emotionally broken.

I do not know if he is a rapist but it seems quite clear to me that he demonstrated the characteristics of an inconspicuous predator. It is not uncommon for sexual predators to be in positions of trust and target the emotionally weak and broken. As a matter of fact these are the kind of individuals they seek and target. A scumbag? That's a compliment.

Not discounting that...the problem is that she COULD HAVE perhaps won.

However, just like she had the problems when she was young, she has definitely lost at least one case and may the other one because she is STILL being taken in by predators.  They are using her right now and this has direct consequences on what is happening legally. 

People are concerned about the predators in her earlier life and that is all well, but almost no one is helping her NOW.  Just like many in her situation she may not realize those that are preying on her and using her, but if she ever realizes how much she COULD HAVE at least gotten in recompense vs. what she has now lost because of their predatory actions, well...

The question is whether people feel sorry for what has happened in the past (which is okay to do) but are being hypocritical about the predators who are using her NOW. 

Legally, they've caused her to lose her case.   IF she had WON her case and THEN come out publically she would probably stood a far greater chance of accomplishing what her perceived target is, rather than how she's been used today.

She is struggling and wants Bishop to pay.  Up until these predators started to use her, that may actually have been a possibility.  BECAUSE of the actions of these predators and her actions on their pushing her, she LOST that chance entirely and probably will lose the other chance legally.

I've seen and helped with abuse cases in the past.  She has done the exact opposite of what she should have done in these instances.  I cannot believe her lawyers are that inept that they would give her that advice (and if they are, how did they even pass the bar, much less remain in business?).  I have seen at least one individual who appears to be using her (and he is NOT a lawyer).  Thus, these are evil people preying on someone vulnerable for their own purposes.

I should sympathize, and I can try, but I am also in shock at how utterly these NEW predators have ruined her court cases (and thus, if they are as big an impact as some imply, her life along with it even more than it was previously).  I am also in shock how much people are ignoring these predators who are doing this too her as this is fresh and currently happening before our eyes!  She's being preyed upon anew, and those who claim to want to help her, do not seem to actually be doing that.

For me, it more is like watching a trainwreck occurring before your eyes.  Just like an active trainwreck occurring, you don't want to really dive in or you'll get crushed among the cars as well.

What is happening to her is horrible and you can only hope that she does not realize and never comes to a realization just how badly they've taken advantage of her.  I imagine if she has mental or emotional handicaps that this would be a terrible thing for her to realize and not be good for her mental health if that happens.  I'm not someone who is equipped to deal with that though (perhaps you are) and thus, even if I were in a position to do something, I would have no idea how to approach it.

She's an unfortunate lady who has had a hard life thus far.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure it is going to get easier or better for her.

She may still get lucky and win the remaining court case (it will take a genius of a lawyer at this point, with the mistakes made I'm not seeing even an offer of a settlement), but I think she's done such a botch job on her case there's not even a temptation to settle at this point.

We can feel for her, but I'm not sure what anyone can do for her right now that isn't directly related to her or who have been a true friend of hers for awhile (and I'm not sure if she would listen to them in her current state even if they tried, but they would be more able to help her than I).

[Just_A_Guy]

@clwnuke, what specifically do you think could have been done differently that would have led Denson to prevail in her suit against Bishop?  How, specifically, do you think her antics damaged her still-pending case against the Church?

[clwnuke]

50 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@clwnuke, what specifically do you think could have been done differently that would have led Denson to prevail in her suit against Bishop?  How, specifically, do you think her antics damaged her still-pending case against the Church?

I'm not sure you mean't to ask me, but I don't think she could have prevailed under any circumstances.  Given the destructive trail she left at the MTC and on her mission before she was sent home I think it would have been better to address this entire affair privately and in the background. There was no benefit to going public except to try and pressure the church into a larger settlement. Perhaps that was bad advice from lawyers and MeToo advocates???

I agree with Suzie, I think she has issues that make her behavior unstable and unreliable. Mental illness is real, but the answer isn't winning a lawsuit.

Edited September 29, 2018 by clwnuke

[Just_A_Guy]

21 minutes ago, clwnuke said:

I'm not sure you mean't to ask me, but I don't think she could have prevailed under any circumstances.  Given the destructive trail she left at the MTC and on her mission before she was sent home I think it would have been better to address this entire affair privately and in the background. There was no benefit to going public except to try and pressure the church into a larger settlement. Perhaps that was bad advice from lawyers and MeToo advocates???

I agree with Suzie, I think she has issues that make her behavior unstable and unreliable. Mental illness is real, but the answer isn't winning a lawsuit.

You’re right, I apologize.  I had meant to address @JohnsonJones.  Though as always, I value your opinion as well.  

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@clwnuke, what specifically do you think could have been done differently that would have led Denson to prevail in her suit against Bishop?  How, specifically, do you think her antics damaged her still-pending case against the Church?

I do not want to appear as hostile to her or not showing sympathy.  In that light, I'll send you a PM, since if I spoke about them in this thread, it could be seen in the wrong light and portray me differently than what I am feeling or thinking.