Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Another Open Letter


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, BillyandJane said:

This is how I feel as of late when people tell me they 'know' the church is the one and only true church because of feelings.  You can't argue, meaning have a rational discussion, when people just default to warm feelings they experienced to dictate to them the absolute truths in the world, never mind a real fact you want to discuss.  

I don't know how this applies to the topic, but if it is just a coincidence about things that make you roll your eyes, then I get it.  

Spirituality is not rational and as someone who is apparently highly rational then I suspect spirituality is just a humorous, if not annoying, stupidity that non-rational, lowly individuals delve into.  

We each have to learn to deal with others different from ourselves.  Yeah, it is a burden and can be a pain the backside, but it helps for a civil society to exist. I promise it will not stop you from rolling eyes over the things other people do and say, but it helps to get along.  You get to be rational and those other stupid people get to be people of faith. And for me, I have to deal with twits that whine about the Mormon Patriarchy ad nauseum.  

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't know how this applies to the topic, but if it is just a coincidence about things that make you roll your eyes, then I get it.  

Spirituality is not rational and as someone who is apparently highly rational then I suspect spirituality is just a humorous, if not annoying, stupidity that non-rational, lowly individuals delve into.  

We each have to learn to deal with others different from ourselves.  Yeah, it is a burden and can be a pain the backside, but it helps for a civil society to exist. I promise it will not stop you from rolling eyes over the things other people do and say, but it helps to get along.  You get to be rational and those other stupid people get to be people of faith. And for me, I have to deal with twits that whine about the Mormon Patriarchy ad nauseum.  

I think that for someone, religion can be very logical and based on the experiences they have had.  But you are right in that it won't look logical to those who have never had those experiences. 

Link to comment
Just now, bluebell said:

I think that for someone, religion can be very logical and based on the experiences they have had.  But you are right in that it won't look logical to those who have never had those experiences. 

Hello Bluebell, I don't think faith or spirituality is rational. For those that have experienced a manifestation of the Spirit then it can be easy to understand why they choose to have faith in an unseen god. But, such is not rational. It is operating beyond rational thought.

This tension between faith and reason is seen by as some as untenable, but I think for most people of faith we see faith and reason as eternal companions.  The one does not exist without the other. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Bluebell, I don't think faith or spirituality is rational. For those that have experienced a manifestation of the Spirit then it can be easy to understand why they choose to have faith in an unseen god. But, such is not rational. It is operating beyond rational thought.

This tension between faith and reason is seen by as some as untenable, but I think for most people of faith we see faith and reason as eternal companions.  The one does not exist without the other. 

From my understanding, all rational means is logical.  

If someone has experiences with God then it is logical (based on clear reasoning) for them to have faith or belief as they do. To use an extreme example, it was rational for JS to believe in Christ and Heavenly Father because of the experience that he had with them.  It would have been irrational for him not to have had believed after his vision.  

But that only translates to him because he's the one who had the experience.  His experience alone is not a rational reason for anyone else to believe.  That's why religion can look irrational (or feel irrational) to those on the outside of it.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my understanding, all rational means is logical.  

If someone has experiences with God then it is logical (based on clear reasoning) for them to have faith or belief as they do. To use an extreme example, it was rational for JS to believe in Christ and Heavenly Father because of the experience that he had with them.  It would have been irrational for him not to have had believed after his vision.  

But that only translates to him because he's the one who had the experience.  His experience alone is not a rational reason for anyone else to believe.  That's why religion can look irrational (or feel irrational) to those on the outside of it.

I should let Marginal speak for himself, but I think those that use the rational argument do not believe that people of faith have any experience - it is either made up or a hallucination. Thus, they say that people of faith are not rational following after the unseen, unprovable god.  

I don't think there is any disagreement between us and we both see it in the same manner.  For me, reason - or rational thought - does not exist without faith.  I don't think atheism is rational or reasonable.  To have faith is the highest product of reason.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Thinking, was the letter writer the individual involved in the lawsuit?  If not, she does not know what happened.  If you are saying they do know, please tell me how they know all the facts?

Never did I claim that she knew all the facts. I only questioned your claim that...

On 4/15/2018 at 6:37 PM, Storm Rider said:

this individual does not know jack from shine-ola about what has happened.

Do you know whether she made contact with any alleged victims? If not, you can't assert that "[she] does not know jack from shine-ola."

8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

What part of waiting for the judicial system to function makes no sense?

"O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm." 2 Nephi 4:34

Edited by Thinking
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Marginal Gains,

The actions of Greg Bishop and his efforts to protect his 85 year old father, imo, can be overlooked as protecting his father. What would you do if your father was 85 years old and a person lies about who she is, interviews your dad under false pretenses, threatens to kill him, and then alleges a horrible rape that your father did some 30 years prior? How would you respond?  Would you immediately go out and put up a stake to burn your father or do you think you might try and defend him?  

I suppose that would depend on whether my dad had a porn den in the basement of the MTC where he took female missionaries to sexually abuse them. 

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't know what was in these records. If there is anything that could be pertinent to the lawsuit against the Church then the release of the documents is appropriate.  If the details of these documents have no bearing the lawsuit then their release is inappropriate.

By that measure, we now know their release was inappropriate. The Church knew all along it was inappropriate, but still did it to try and reduce the settlement.

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I get the impression that you have never been in a lawsuit of any kind, which is the norm for most Americans.  I have been involved in a few lawsuits while serving as an investment manager for institutional clients in order to protect their assets.  The moment that a lawsuit begins your attorney controls what is and what is not needed or required for them to do their job to the best of their ability.  If the attorney asks for information are you capable of knowing what is and what is not needed?  

Oh please.

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

What I believe is best is that those who committed wrong are punished. I don't care if they are a church, a leader in a church, or a member of any church.  I also think that if anyone that brings a lawsuit against another person or entity and is found to be lying in any degree they also should be punished in equal manner.  The objective of a legal system, imo, is to find and obtain justice - I don't think our system always does that, but it is the best we have at present.

How has the victim lied?

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Yeah, it was only sexual abuse after all...

It happens. It would be wonderful if the lds church made perfect people. But it doesn't. And it never will. We all have our free agency and free will. And people use it in very evil ways and they use it in very good ways. However, regardless of all the imperfections of people, it doesn't change the foundation of the lds church which is found with the book of mormon.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, why me said:

It happens. It would be wonderful if the lds church made perfect people. But it doesn't. And it never will. We all have our free agency and free will. And people use it in very evil ways and they use it in very good ways. However, regardless of all the imperfections of people, it doesn't change the foundation of the lds church which is found with the book of mormon.

I thought it was founded on Jesus Christ?  

This whole thing reiterates the fact the members rely too much on prophets and other church leaders, instead of putting their primary devotion and trust in G-d.

Link to comment

"I suppose that would depend on whether my dad had a porn den in the basement of the MTC where he took female missionaries to sexually abuse them."

CFR for the claim made by anyone involved that it was porn.  She refers to movies in the transcript  but states that she had no knowledge of the content of the videos in the press conference.  There is no reference to porn in the transcript.  The alleged MTC worker who worked there after Bishop was MTC president did not state they were porn videos.  In fact he reported he was told they were MoTab videos.

http://kutv.com/news/local/former-employee-confirms-odd-mtc-room-with-bed-and-tv

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Calm said:

"I suppose that would depend on whether my dad had a porn den in the basement of the MTC where he took female missionaries to sexually abuse them."

CFR for the claim made by anyone that it was porn.  Iirc, Denson states that she had no knowledge of the content of the videos.  The alleged MTC worker who worked there after Bishop was MTC president did not state they were porn videos.  In fact he reported he was told they were MoTab videos.

http://kutv.com/news/local/former-employee-confirms-odd-mtc-room-with-bed-and-tv

Okay, secure room in the basement of the MTC containing a bed and vcr, accessed through two locked doors and where he took at least two female missionaries and sexually abused them.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Okay, secure room in the basement of the MTC containing a bed and vcr, accessed through two locked doors and where he took at least two female missionaries and sexually abused them.

I believe he likely did abuse both, but he admitted only to the one encounter independently imo.  He wasn't very consistent in what he said in the transcript though when he got specific it was always the woman who instigated any of the encounters.  Even the counseling sessions, he stated women came to him for help.

Since the abuse is what is being debated, it is inappropriate to argue debate positions should be based on accepting abuse actually occurred.

add-on:  Denson keeps interrupting him when he starts to explain what he remembers about the basement, outside of denials, he begins by saying she had a breast enhancement and then she interrupts him to correct and they get distracted and go off on something else.

Given his admission to the police, I would not be surprised if he was going to say she had exposed herself to him...I think he was confusing her with Green.  It is very unfortunate she just didn't let him go on, she interrupted him twice when he was going to get specific iirc.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Is there any update on continuing investigation or court dates?  Negotiations? 

I just checked the court docket.  No real developments.  We are still in the very, very early stages, though.  The lawsuit (the "Complaint") was filed on April 4, but the summonses were not generated by the Court until April 11.  The Complaint and the Summons will need to be formally served on the defendants, including the Church.  That probably either has happened or else will be happening in the very near future.  Then the Church will have, IIRC, three weeks to file a response.

I am curious as to whether the Church will file a Motion to Dismiss by citing the statute of limitations.  That seems like a formidable obstacle for Ms. Denson's attorneys.

Settlement negotiations would almost certainly not be publicized.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I just checked the court docket.  No real developments.  We are still in the very, very early stages, though.  The lawsuit (the "Complaint") was filed on April 4, but the summonses were not generated by the Court until April 11.  The Complaint and the Summons will need to be formally served on the defendants, including the Church.  That probably either has happened or else will be happening in the very near future.  Then the Church will have, IIRC, three weeks to file a response.

I am curious as to whether the Church will file a Motion to Dismiss by citing the statute of limitations.  That seems like a formidable obstacle for Ms. Denson's attorneys.

Settlement negotiations would almost certainly not be publicized.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for the update..I hope there is no Motion to Dismiss...it will take more time and how could they??  Statute of Limitations or not...what he is accused of should be the right thing to prove..or disprove. 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I hope there is no Motion to Dismiss...it will take more time and how could they??  Statute of Limitations or not...what he is accused of should be the right thing to prove..or disprove.

Well, that's kind of why we have statutes limiting how long you have to bring a case, because the longer you wait (in many cases) the harder it will be to actually prove or disprove. Evidence disappears, memories fade, etc. all making it harder for someone to defend themselves. 

 

Link to comment

Jeanne, how do you believe it could be proved at this time outside more witnesses coming forward (and apparently there haven't in the last month or so, unless Vernon or others are keeping them under wraps)?

Serious question, outside of other witnesses, the only thing I can think of is a journal of his full of confessions.

And if there are other witnesses, why haven't they been announced?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for the update..I hope there is no Motion to Dismiss...it will take more time and how could they??  Statute of Limitations or not...what he is accused of should be the right thing to prove..or disprove. 

That is the point of a statute of limitations.  Bringing a lawsuit about wrongful conduct and proving that it happened more than 30 years after the fact is very difficult.  And perhaps even more difficult than that is mounting a defense 2 the reported wrongful conduct.

I'm not sure what you mean by I motion to dismiss taking more time. I motion to dismiss would actually greatly shorten the lawsuit, and even eliminate it all together.

Link to comment
On 4/15/2018 at 5:27 PM, Tacenda said:

I listened to Radio Free Mormon https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/04/radio-free-mormon-29-church-sex-scandal-cover-up-part-2/ , or just the first half, and in it he said that Mckeena Denson called him and discussed details of the case, I guess she is a fan or something since listening to his podcast.

I want to share a quote that he shared because it relates to this topic. He references what the Saviour said: "A leader of men should be a server of all". In the church it seems the members are the servants to the corporate church or leaders. Since the church strives to protect their image or those that are high in the PH, image. It struck me to the core. I wish the church would behave like the Saviour would want. Not like it has with these victims. ETA: Not all leaders, but a few. I got caught up with listening to Radio Free's message, and believed it. But I need to step back and just say a few leaders have forgotten.

Yeah, in Bishopric meetings and Ward Councils we sit around trying to think of ways to make the apostles day. Brother X is in surgery.....bah....blow him off. Sister Y is struggling with a health problem preventing her from taking care of her kids. Let them eat cake I say. Couple Z has no income? Hmmmm.....better save the money to impress the Stake President with our fiscal responsibility. NO HELP FOR YOU!

Your blanket assertion that our leadership and members spend their time bootlicking is ridiculous and a slap in the face to everyone who serves in the Church.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, in Bishopric meetings and Ward Councils we sit around trying to think of ways to make the apostles day. Brother X is in surgery.....bah....blow him off. Sister Y is struggling with a health problem preventing her from taking care of her kids. Let them eat cake I say. Couple Z has no income? Hmmmm.....better save the money to impress the Stake President with out fiscal responsibility. NO HELP FOR YOU!

Your blanket assertion that our leadership and members spend their time bootlicking is ridiculous and a slap in the face to everyone who serves in the Church.

You need to read my post better. When did I say ward councils/bishoprics? Try never! I was speaking to those that ignored Mckeena, if what she said is true, and she called the church office building over and over. Surely they knew about her. 

I never said the bold in your post, please don't twist my words. But you are great at writing. Ever think of movie scripts, plays, book? 

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You need to read my post better. When did I say ward councils/bishoprics? Try never! I was speaking to those that ignored Mckeena, if what she said is true, and she called the church office building over and over. Surely they knew about her. 

I never said the bold in your post, please don't twist my words. But you are great at writing. Ever think of movie scripts, plays, book? 

No, here is what you said:

"In the church it seems the members are the servants to the corporate church or leaders. Since the church strives to protect their image or those that are high in the PH, image. It struck me to the core. I wish the church would behave like the Saviour would want. Not like it has with these victims. ETA: Not all leaders, but a few. I got caught up with listening to Radio Free's message, and believed it. But I need to step back and just say a few leaders have forgotten."

That is very general and not limited to those who were called at the COB.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, here is what you said:

"In the church it seems the members are the servants to the corporate church or leaders. Since the church strives to protect their image or those that are high in the PH, image. It struck me to the core. I wish the church would behave like the Saviour would want. Not like it has with these victims. ETA: Not all leaders, but a few. I got caught up with listening to Radio Free's message, and believed it. But I need to step back and just say a few leaders have forgotten."

That is very general and not limited to those who were called at the COB.

I see how you might have misinterpreted my post. When I mentioned members being servants, I think you thought I meant we are only meant to serve the top tier of the church membership, that isn't what I meant at all. In the podcast and in the news article at the Trib, that this topic is all about, is where I get a notion that we as members aren't treated like we matter enough, such as the victim in the Bishop/Denson case. 

I know of another instance where someone was abused, two brothers, by a man in high leadership and who went to the COB and met with Elder Tingey about it, and nothing came of it. The man who they say abused them, went onto serving as a mission president afterwards. It was on a Mormon Stories podcast if you care to see it. https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/christopher-swallow/ 

This is why I speak out so often, but apparently not very eloquently or coherently ( I botched the members being servant thing, because in reality we're all servants, just tonight I read all about Pres. Henry B. Eyring, and one of the articles had the heading "humble servant" in it, speaking of Pres. Eyring, which I totally agree on). But I think I need to take a break from discussing this.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I suppose that would depend on whether my dad had a porn den in the basement of the MTC where he took female missionaries to sexually abuse them. No spin there, very, very objective.  The problem is, as your dad's child, all you have is the accusation of another individual and you have your father's declaration that he did no such thing.  Are you really trying to tell me that you would burn your father because you are so enlightened you know when an accuser is telling the truth and when they are not?  

By that measure, we now know their release was inappropriate. The Church knew all along it was inappropriate, but still did it to try and reduce the settlement.

Oh please.

How has the victim lied?

I started to respond to your response, but you are neither objective or rational.  You have your mind made up and it does matter what anyone else says.  YOU KNOW THE REAL TRUTH.  Okay, good for you.  No need for further discussion because you know. Cheers

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Thinking said:

Never did I claim that she knew all the facts. I only questioned your claim that...

Do you know whether she made contact with any alleged victims? If not, you can't assert that "[she] does not know jack from shine-ola."

"O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm." 2 Nephi 4:34

Gads you are bending over backwards to make your position work.  Okay, let's assume the author of this little diatribe actually talked to the accuser. Now what?  Does she now know the facts?  Heck no, wake up! The most she would have is the accuser's assertions. She does not know the facts anymore than you do.  This is not rocket science, folks.  You seriously are alleging she actually knows the facts?  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...