Did Mckenna Denson Meet With Thomas S. Monson After MTC?

[T-Shirt]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I've kind of tuned this out lately. Did Joseph Bishop resign his membership? 

That's interesting because of the handbook instruction that DCs should still be held if there is cause and someone resigns to avoid the DC. 

This is no longer the case.  The handbook states:

Quote

A request for name removal should be acted upon whether or not priesthood leaders suspect or have evidence of transgression. Any allegations or evidence of unresolved transgressions are noted on the Report of Administrative Action form so priesthood leaders may resolve such matters in the future if the individual applies for readmission into the Church.

 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

This is no longer the case.  The handbook states:

You are correct. This has been electronically updated since 2010.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Quote

I've kind of tuned this out lately. Did Joseph Bishop resign his membership? 

That's interesting because of the handbook instruction that DCs should still be held if there is cause and someone resigns to avoid the DC. 

This is no longer the case.  The handbook states:

Quote

A request for name removal should be acted upon whether or not priesthood leaders suspect or have evidence of transgression. Any allegations or evidence of unresolved transgressions are noted on the Report of Administrative Action form so priesthood leaders may resolve such matters in the future if the individual applies for readmission into the Church.

 

This is kind of cool.  I reviewed this "You can't excommunicate me, I quit" scenario a few years back (see here), and I came to the conclusion that the Church would likely be fine, from a legal perspective, in convening a disciplinary counsel after a person has "resigned" his/her membership.  However, the updated Handbook entry above suggests that the Church has diffused further controversy/acrimony by including "allegations or evidence of unresolved transgressions" in the "Report of Administrative Action" form.  This way the Church gets to protect itself in th future from members who may use resignation to avoid scrutiny of their misconduct, while also respecting the desires of members who want to dissociate from the Church.

It's a win-win solution, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

This is no longer the case.  The handbook states:

 

If i remember right, didn't this change occur after ex-members and LDS critics criticized the church for conducting disciplinary councils after they had requested that their names be removed?  

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If i remember right, didn't this change occur after ex-members and LDS critics criticized the church for conducting disciplinary councils after they had requested that their names be removed?  

Yes.  But these criticisms have been around for years, and I'm not sure when the update to the Handbook was added.  So it's hard to say if the Church was responding to the criticisms or not.  On balance, though, I imagine that the Church saw a way to avoid acrimony while still preserving its interests, and it took it.

If so, I think it was a good move.  The Church wasn't convening disciplinary councils to impede members from exiting the Church.  Rather, I think the Church just wanted a record of findings re: the individual's misconduct in case he/she ever wanted to re-join the Church.  The Church didn't want serial misbehavers or predators to use resignation as an escape hatch which obscures their misconduct.  Should such a person choose to re-join the Church later, the Church would want to have a record of why they previously resigned.  The added entry to the Handbook addresses that concern, while also minimizing acrimony and allowing the individual to go on his way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 15, 2018 by smac97

[Marginal Gains]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I heard he already resigned a few weeks ago.

If that is accurate I’m staggered.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But these criticisms have been around for years, and I'm not sure when the update to the Handbook was added.  So it's hard to say if the Church was responding to the criticisms or not.  On balance, though, I imagine that the Church saw a way to avoid acrimony while still preserving its interests, and it took it.

If so, I think it was a good move.  The Church wasn't convening disciplinary councils to impede members from exiting the Church.  Rather, I think the Church just wanted a record of findings re: the individual's misconduct in case he/she ever wanted to re-join the Church.  The Church didn't want serial misbehavers or predators to use resignation as an escape hatch which obscures their misconduct.  Should such a person choose to re-join the Church later, the Church would want to have a record of why they previously resigned.  The added entry to the Handbook addresses that concern, while also minimizing acrimony and allowing the individual to go on his way.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree.  I think it was a smart move on the church to change the policy.

I won't be surprised though if some people are upset with the church for not pursuing a disciplinary council regardless of whether or not he Bishop resigned.  I think some will see it as 'convenient' for the church to be able to drop the matter completely.  I'm interested in seeing if this becomes an issue of 'damned if they do and damned if they don't.'

 

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  I think it was a smart move on the church to change the policy.

I won't be surprised though if some people are upset with the church for not pursuing a disciplinary council regardless of whether or not he Bishop resigned.  I think some will see it as 'convenient' for the church to be able to drop the matter completely.  I'm interested in seeing if this becomes an issue of 'damned if they do and damned if they don't.'

 

The Church condemned itself when it first tried to sweep it under the carpet and then provided a dossier to sully the character of the complainant. To not take disciplinary action against the predator who the Church knew had confessed to actions worthy of excommunication, is knowingly protecting the predator at the expense of the victim. Again. Resignation shouldn’t have even been an option.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  I think it was a smart move on the church to change the policy.

I won't be surprised though if some people are upset with the church for not pursuing a disciplinary council regardless of whether or not he Bishop resigned.  I think some will see it as 'convenient' for the church to be able to drop the matter completely.  I'm interested in seeing if this becomes an issue of 'damned if they do and damned if they don't.'

I'm trying to put myself in his shoes. If I did something terrible (excommunication-worthy), I would want to be excommunicated and come back through repentance. I would not resign --- especially if I felt remorse. I once talked a man out of resigning to avoid his pending disciplinary council (excommunication was a certainty). He said, "What's the point?" And I said, "What's the point? In the one instance, you are voluntarily separating yourself from your covenants through resignation. In the second, you are submitting to the priesthood, and accepting the outcome. Huge difference." He went through with it and was excommunicated, but at least he didn't resign from the Church. 

If I were in my 80s and (presumably) dying, I would rather be excommunicated than resign. Even if it were unlikely I would live to be rebaptized. 

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church condemned itself when it first tried to sweep it under the carpet and then provided a dossier to sully the character of the complainant. To not take disciplinary action against the predator who the Church knew had confessed to actions worthy of excommunication, is knowingly protecting the predator at the expense of the victim. Again. Resignation shouldn’t have even been an option.

Have you read this supposed dossier? 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church condemned itself when it first tried to sweep it under the carpet and then provided a dossier to sully the character of the complainant. To not take disciplinary action against the predator who the Church knew had confessed to actions worthy of excommunication, is knowingly protecting the predator at the expense of the victim. Again. Resignation shouldn’t have even been an option.

There are too many of your personal opinions presented as facts in this post to really be able to address anything.  Besides that, the opinions that you do present have been debated for pages and pages and pages and pages without any real consensus or any factual conclusions being gained, which is another reason why there is no reason to address it.

 

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Have you read this supposed dossier? 

“Supposed”? Do you seriously doubt there was a dossier compiled and passed on to Greg Bishop who e mailed it’s contents to various media outlets and which contained the name of Mckenna’s adopted child, a name that was in ‘supposedly’ private and confidential records?

Edited May 15, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm trying to put myself in his shoes. If I did something terrible (excommunication-worthy), I would want to be excommunicated and come back through repentance. I would not resign --- especially if I felt remorse. I once talked a man out of resigning to avoid his pending disciplinary council (excommunication was a certainty). He said, "What's the point?" And I said, "What's the point? In the one instance, you are voluntarily separating yourself from your covenants through resignation. In the second, you are submitting to the priesthood, and accepting the outcome. Huge difference." He went through with it and was excommunicated, but at least he didn't resign from the Church. 

If I were in my 80s and (presumably) dying, I would rather be excommunicated than resign. Even if it were unlikely I would live to be rebaptized. 

Me too.

[provoman]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

“Supposed”? Do you seriously doubt there was a dossier compiled and passed on to Greg Bishop who e mailed it’s contents to various media outlets?

Have you read it? If not you don't the reason for it.

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are too many of your personal opinions presented as facts in this post to really be able to address anything.  Besides that, the opinions that you do present have been debated for pages and pages and pages and pages without any real consensus or any factual conclusions being gained, which is another reason why there is no reason to address it.

 

 

 

So you think resignation should have been an option for Bishop? 

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Have you read it? If not you don't the reason for it.

http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive-documents-reveal-how-the-lds-church-responded-to-mtc-sex-scandal

Edited May 15, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[provoman]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive-documents-reveal-how-the-lds-church-responded-to-mtc-sex-scandal

so you have not read it, and it stands to reason you do not know the purpose of it.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So you think resignation should have been an option for Bishop? 

Don't you?

Since when are critics of the LDS Church opposed to the idea that individuals within the Church may leave whenever they want?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So you think resignation should have been an option for Bishop? 

How can resignation not be an option? Nobody can force you not to resign. I suppose they can refuse to accept the resignation, but that seems silly for a free-association organization like a church. If you choose to resign, then you choose to resign. It's your call. 

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Don't you?

Since when are critics of the LDS Church opposed to the idea that individuals within the Church may leave whenever they want?

Thanks,

-Smac

He’s not resigning because he wants to, he’s resigning to save the embarrassment of a Church court. I also strongly suspect that the Church has allowed it because excommunicating him is the church making an admission about his guilt. I wonder if Hamula was given the option of resigning...

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

How can resignation not be an option? Nobody can force you not to resign. I suppose they can refuse to accept the resignation, but that seems silly for a free-association organization like a church. If you choose to resign, then you choose to resign. It's your call. 

Yep.

How weird is it that a critic of the LDS Church is complaining about the Church letting a member resign.

Of course, if the Church didn't let a member resign, then the critic would still find fault.  The LDS Church is tyrannical!  It won't let its members resign!

I guess we chalk it up to the whimsical caprice that's allowed when one is a critic.  The Church is darned if it does, darned if it doesn't, darned no matter what.

Faultfinding.  Ain't it great?  You'll always succeed at it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So you think resignation should have been an option for Bishop? 

That is a hilarious question.  What do you think the church should have done to prevent Bishop from resigning?  

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

He’s not resigning because he wants to, he’s resigning to save the embarrassment of a Church court.

Unless he is being threatened or coerced, he is resigning "because he wants to."

Are you suggesting he is being threatened or coerced?

Quote

I also strongly suspect that the Church has allowed it because excommunicating him is the church making an admission about his guilt.

If the Church "has allowed it," then it could simply be in accordance with the guidelines in the Handbook.

JSB's misconduct, if established, doesn't necessarily inculpate the Church.  We have no evidence that the Church was aware of his apparent misconduct until years after the fact.

Quote

I wonder if Hamula was given the option of resigning...

Yes, he was.  Necessarily.  The option is always there.  It's not really up to the Church to "give" it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 15, 2018 by smac97

[Marginal Gains]

Okay, enough of you have made a clear enough case, and T-Shirt has posted the relevant portion of the Handbook, for me to stop and consider if I’m being unreasonable on the point about excommunication versus resignation. It feels to me like he’s getting away with it all over again, but I’ll give it some consideration before commenting further.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

That is a hilarious question.  What do you think the church should have done to prevent Bishop from resigning?  

I remember having a number of discussions/debates where critics were outraged at the notion of the Church proceeding with a disciplinary council after a member has resigned his/her membership.  See, e.g., here.

And now we have a critic complaining about the Church not preventing a person from resigning.  

How do we reconcile such incoherences?  For me, I chalk it up to endless faultfinding.  Critics think they have carte blanche to find fault.  They have no obligation to be logical or fair or reasonable about it.  The objective is to make the Church look bad.  Faultfinding is the end, and any argument can be the means.

Thanks,

-Smac