What's new
By:
Filters

McKenna Denson brings it; gets put down

Harambe

Harambe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
McKenna Denson was training as a missionary in 1984 in Provo, when she alleges Joseph Bishop, the Missionary Training Center’s president at the time, raped her in a basement room.

https://kutv.com/news/local/woman-w...ed-her-filmed-testifying-about-rape-in-church
https://kutv.com/news/local/woman-w...ed-her-filmed-testifying-about-rape-in-church
I've got some trouble here. And I have with the whole damn situation. I don't particularly care for her bringing it up in a Sacrament meeting. But if you consider public safety, it's more suitable than troubles at your job, or with your kid is, or your dog, and I used to see that every Fast Sunday when I went.

But I think I have more trouble with the statement from the church afterwards:

Once each month, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints participate in a worship service that includes an opportunity for members to share their testimonies of the Savior, Jesus Christ, and His gospel. It is disappointing that anyone would interrupt such a worship service to bring attention to their own personal cause. Recording and posting of these disruptions on social media to seek public attention and media coverage, sadly, shows an unfortunate lack of respect for others. We respectfully request that those with personal grievances find other means to communicate their messages than disrupting the sanctity of a worship service.
Click to expand...

Request; don't rape. Thx.
 
I don't think this is what I would do, but then again I haven't had to wait 30 years to get justice for a rape. The whole thing is horrifying, and I'm tired of men covering up other men's bad and criminal behavior.
 
Harambe said:
But I think I have more trouble with the statement from the church afterwards:
Click to expand...

Is that an official LDS response? If it is they are making a monthly meeting to "share" more important than a woman's rape.
 
str8line said:
Is that an official LDS response? If it is they are making a monthly meeting to "share" more important than a woman's rape.
Click to expand...

The article posted says that was the response from the LDS church. So if you can trust KUTV to tell the truth when they say it came from an LDS Spokemsan, then yes, it is the response from the MORMON church.
 
str8line said:
Is that an official LDS response? If it is they are making a monthly meeting to "share" more important than a woman's rape.
Click to expand...
I think if someone here were to be assaulted or raped by another member of the forum and made a thread about it in the Jazz section, it would get moved to GD, if it wasn’t locked. In that case, I don’t know that I or anyone else would view it as prioritizing Jazz discussion over someone’s rape.
 
infection said:
I think if someone here were to be assaulted or raped by another member of the forum and made a thread about it in the Jazz section, it would get moved to GD, if it wasn’t locked. In that case, I don’t know that I or anyone else would view it as prioritizing Jazz discussion over someone’s rape.
Click to expand...



Fine, move it. But why come down on the poster for putting it in the Jazz section?

The church could have issued a supportive statement. Attacking her for the way she came forward about rape is so wrong.


"It is disappointing that anyone would interrupt such a worship service to bring attention to their own personal cause."

"worship service that includes an opportunity for members to share their testimonies of the Savior, Jesus Christ, and His gospel."
 
Last edited:
str8line said:
"It is disappointing that anyone would interrupt such a worship service to bring attention to their own personal cause."

"worship service that includes an opportunity for members to share their testimonies of the Savior, Jesus Christ, and His gospel."


Why come down on the poster for putting it in the Jazz section? The church could have issued a supportive statement. Attacking someone for coming forward about rape just seems so wrong.
Click to expand...

I think the argument can be made that no, in practice every first Sunday of the month, people don't talk about their testimony. Fast and testimony meeting is less about sharing your belief in God, and more about their goings on. It's a forum to bitch about however they got their feelings hurt over the last month, or once in a while whatever made them happy. And then they end it with "I know this church is true", or some derivative therein, and "I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen". Hell, a man(and Bishop) I respect deeply discussed that his care broke down on the way to Pocatello, and it forced him to have Thanksgiving dinner at Taco Bell. And that was God's will... I guess, somehow, and such a humbling experience.

An argument can be made that she would have ended her "testimony" the same way as everyone else. But she wasn't given a chance. It feels like relatively recently, they also had a young girl talking about her trouble with either her gender or her sexuality, and she was pulled off the stand, too.
 
Eminence said:
Can someone explain these services to me?
Click to expand...

Sure homie. I don't want anyone feeling left out.

Every Sunday, members of the LDS church have Sunday sessions. It consists(or at least did when I was going) of Sacrament meeting, church studies, and then breaks off into I guess relief society for the women and priesthood meetings for the men.

A Sacrament meeting usually consists of an opening hymn, announcements, opening prayer, church business, a sacrament hymn, the actual sacrament, various sermons(also known as talks) given by members that the Bishop has previously asked to prepare, a final hymn, and a benediction. It generally lasts for one hour.

However, the first Sunday of the month is reserved for Fast and Testimony meeting. There's still an opening prayer, hymns, sacrament, but instead of having talks, they allow members to come up to the pulpit and bear their testimony of the church, the gospel, that they know its true(and hopefully an example of why). To be honest, half the time is generally someone's kid that doesn't know what they're saying at all, merely saying it to get praise. This is purely speculation, but it feels very culty to me.

At a fast and testimony meeting, McKenna decided that she was going to express that she was raped, and who she was raped by. I think this was in poor taste. But I also think her message was really not that far outside the practiced rules. And I certainly know it was more helpful than most "testimonies".
 
Harambe said:
An argument can be made that she would have ended her "testimony" the same way as everyone else. But she wasn't given a chance. It feels like relatively recently, they also had a young girl talking about her trouble with either her gender or her sexuality, and she was pulled off the stand, too.
Click to expand...
I’d think if one were to speak up in an AA meeting that they’ve found a balance with drinking alcohol to a degree that they felt healthy, and felt that strict abstinence was not good for their health, they may find that open mic to be a little less open, and I don’t know that many people would find that all too surprising.
 
infection said:
I’d think if one were to speak up in an AA meeting that they’ve found a balance with drinking alcohol to a degree that they felt healthy, and felt that strict abstinence was not good for their health, they may find that open mic to be a little less open, and I don’t know that many people would find that all too surprising.
Click to expand...

In the scenario shared, you are correct. But I feel like to be on the page you need to see a difference declaring a man that raped a woman, and declaring something to be contradictory to core tenants of faith, or whatever AA meetings declare themself as.

I feel like a better comparison would be standing up at an AA meeting and declaring that a past leader is a rapist, and you should protect yourself. I don't believe she attacked the core tenants of the LDS faith, merely that "there's a wolf among us".
 
Harambe said:
In the scenario shared, you are correct. But I feel like to be on the page you need to see a difference declaring a man that raped a woman, and declaring something to be contradictory to core tenants of faith, or whatever AA meetings declare themself as.

I feel like a better comparison would be standing up at an AA meeting and declaring that a past leader is a rapist, and you should protect yourself. I don't believe she attacked the core tenants of the LDS faith, merely that "there's a wolf among us".
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was referring to the scenario you brought up with the individual discussing their gender identity and not the one from the OP.
 
I spent a great deal of time thinking about this woman since last evening, when my mother and I had a discussion about this situation. My mother is of course appalled that someone would degrade the meeting in such a way. My initial reaction was that her using this meeting was perhaps unwise. But in thinking about her situation from the beginning, I cannot blame her for doing what she did. She is not much younger than me, and was in the MTC only a couple of years after I was, so I think I can understand her entire situation to a certain extent.

She was a part of a religion that claimed to be God's true church on the earth. She was taught that church leaders were called of God, and that they were inspired by Him for those over whom they had jurisdiction. Back in the early 80s, we hadn't really heard about church leaders (Mormon, Catholic, or otherwise) sexually abusing others. At that point, we still naively believed that our leaders were nearly infallible. We were told that God would never lead the church astray, and that even if leaders ever say something wrong, we would be blessed for following their counsel anyway. We were also used to being interviewed in one-on-one meetings with our male church leaders who asked questions about our sexual behavior. Women have been perfectly groomed to be victims if they are unfortunate enough to have a leader who will take advantage of that situation.

Sexual predators obviously know how to pick their victims, and Joseph Bishop chose her (and who knows how many others). He was the President of the MTC (over several hundred missionaries at any given time) and she was susceptible to his attention. He admits that he took her to a room and asked to see her breasts. She says that she was raped. No matter where the truth lies between those two statements, his actions were inappropriate and accordingly he should have been disciplined by the church and perhaps by the law. At the least, he should have been removed from any position where he was a leader over young women.

She did nothing about it at the time, which would be consistent to what it was like in the 1980s. She knew that no one would believe her over him (and she says that he told her as much at the time). She served her mission. When she came home, she told her bishop about it. I know many, many women who tried to tell their bishops about such situations, and they were usually told to not go to the police (often with the terms "because it will ruin his career"). Her story is pretty consistent with the experience of so many others who are not believed by their church leaders because everyone involved still believed in the near infallibility of church leaders. There is no way that God would ever have a sexual predator be the MTC leader, so the woman must be lying. Even reporting to the police in Utah back then meant you were likely to be speaking to an LDS officer, and he would have the same misconceptions and little reason to believe her.

And so her life went on. I do not know exactly what triggered her after all these years to pursue this. If I remember correctly, she had assumed that he had likely been punished by the church somewhere down the line, and she found out this had never happened. She decided to confront her abuser, and met with him and recorded his conversation. He admitted to having had incidents of inappropriate sexual behavior and that he had never been punished for them, even when he had confessed them.

She filed her lawsuit against him and the church, and all but one of her claims have been dismissed due to expired statute of limitations (which needs to be done away with in the case of sexual assault). Her only remaining claim is whether the church covered up his crimes.

I believe she wants to be heard. And I believe she wants the church to acknowledge that she was treated unfairly, and that he should have been dealt with appropriately. I suspect the reason she went to Mr. Bishop's fast and testimony meeting is because she still feels so powerless, and because he still has not been punished for any of his crimes. That would make anyone upset, and this has been festering for over 30 years. All she wants is some sort of justice.

So whether I think her actions are appropriate or not doesn't matter. Whether I believe her story or not doesn't matter. This woman deserves all the compassion that we can give her for all that she has endured. And I hope that through her suffering and the actions she now takes, the church will realize that women deserve better than what they have gotten in the past.
 
Trauma has profound affect on the human psyche. She apparently is still trying to cope with an assault that was left unresolved. She took control of her story and took it to her perpetrator.

We can disagree on whether she could have chosen a different venue, but I think the best response would have been to hear her out. Let her have her say, and then offer some empathy. If his son really was there that would have been hard to do. But paternalism, e.g
Shuffling her off the podium, in the face of allegations of rape just reinforces the message that she is the problem. Victim shaming is never the best answer.

According to what I have read, Bishop admits he cornered her in secluded room and had her "show him her breasts." That alone would be traumatic for a missionary to endure from her religious leader. I suspect her recollection is closer to the truth than his.

Victims almost always need justice to heal. The sense that people acknowledge they have been wronged. The absence of justice can victimize the offended thrice over. I can not fault her for trying get a little justice on her own terms. The legal system, and the church did not provide her with any sense that justice would be done.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
 
It would have been hard for parents in the congregation hear that with their kids there. However, if that was Bishop's ward, there could be other victims in that ward. If so, I wonder how they would have responded to seeing her shut down like that? My guess is not well.
I don't know how I would have reacted in the leader's position. It's a hard call when you don't have any warning. Having thought about it. I hope I would try to protect the individual over the institution.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Having now watched the video...

She had an agenda. Absolutely.

Her agenda was to speak her truth, to bare her testimony.

Her removal was cowardly. It was absolutely an act of cowardice.

These religious institutions are protecting rapists and pedophiles. The Catholic Church is guilty and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is guilty.

If you stand for what is right then you DO NOT shield rapists and pedophiles. You haul them out and make them answer for their crimes. There are no two ways on this issue. You are either evil or you are righteous. Religious institutions have shown that they are in fact, undeniably evil. That's your God, the one that abuses women and then shuts them up and shames them. That's your church. That's your leadership. That's who they are. That's what religion is.

Enjoy.
 
Bulletproof said:
Having now watched the video...

She had an agenda. Absolutely.

Her agenda was to speak her truth, to bare her testimony.

Her removal was cowardly. It was absolutely an act of cowardice.

These religious institutions are protecting rapists and pedophiles. The Catholic Church is guilty and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is guilty.

If you stand for what is right then you DO NOT shield rapists and pedophiles. You haul them out and make them answer for their crimes. There are no two ways on this issue. You are either evil or you are righteous. Religious institutions have shown that they are in fact, undeniably evil. That's your God, the one that abuses women and then shuts them up and shames them. That's your church. That's your leadership. That's who they are. That's what religion is.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...

This is more than overly dramatic. There was nothing wrong with the leadership requesting she take her situation up in an appropriate forum. Part of their job is maintaining a reverent atmosphere appropriate for worshiping services and that's what they did.

I don't blame the lady for what she did to get her revenge, but that doesn't mean it was appropriate or that she had a free pass to do whatever she liked. She knew it wasn't. She also had other avenues to spread the message she wanted to get out but chose a way she knew would end as it did. She got the attention she was after, and the hateful backlash against the church like in your comments and those before yours.

Thinking the LDS church is shielding rapists in this situation is beyond absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top