Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JulieM

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

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's being discussed on MormonDiscussions.

I did a search and found that.  Just spent some time reading the several threads that are in the Terrestrial (?) area.  

Consiglieri gives a lot of information and is still updating more as he gets it.  I found it extremely interesting to read through and he's quite impressive with what he's doing and finding, IMO.  Do some on here know Consiglieri personally or just from past communications on the different forums?  Just curious....

I know I can't link to that board (or any other), but it's worth searching out and reading those specific threads (RFM threads and one is in all caps about the redacted police reports).  It helps make sense of a lot of things (at least it did for me) and answered some of the questions I had. 

And, there's a lot more than just Mckenna's statement regarding her meeting with Thomas S. Monson as well.

(One or two of the posts are ones that I skipped over....PG13+.....just an FYI :lol:   But all of Consiglieri's comments are very informative and interesting for anyone following this topic, IMO)

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have read the one thread and agree with consig the mention of locked doors is significant in substantiating her claim she was taken to the room the MTC employee described, but I am also under the impression that was already confirmed by Bishop himself in the police report...it was only what happened there that was in dispute.  Will have to go dig up the link to the police report and refresh my memory.

Locked doors were not mentioned in the transcript that I can find.

Of course, Greg Bishop might argue the police report only substantiates the second victim's experience since Denson says Bishop was describing the second victim, not her, so it might be useful if that direction is taken.  Sure, the second victim might have told Denson about it (it appears there was some communication though it is possible Denson was just aware of similar private 'counseling' sessions since she asks if he molested her) but more likely Denson knew it from personal experience.  Denson did not share independent details of the second victim's experience with Bishop that I remember or can quickly find.

Share this post


Link to post

In checking out the police report, I paid more attention to the initial warning below.  Given it had been released to KUTV, I assumed it was completely public, but now am wondering.  Can lawyers clarify what this means:

Quote

The Information in this document is CONFIDENTIAL and/or PRIVILEGED. It is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization it was disseminated to. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this document and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein, is prohibited. If you have received this document in error, advise the sender of your receipt of it and destroy and/or delete the document immediately.

***PROTECTED RECORD NOTICE***
This document is a PROTECTED RECORD under UCA 63G-2-305(10),(11) and (25). Further and secondary release would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation or case, jeopardize the life or safety of an individual, and/or is a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Release or dissemination of any summaries, transcripts, and video/audio recordings or CJC interviews are also prohibited unless authorized by UCA 77-37-4(5) and (6). 

Does the fact the case is closed make a difference?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Duncan said:

in other words, keep your mouth shut.

Right. That worked before.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Right. That worked before.

No, it is more about choosing the right place and time and method for what she wants.  She was smart to go to the police finally (as opposed to them being sent by others because she threatened to kill Bishop) and smarter to get an experienced lawyer, though it is understandable why she and others have chosen over the years to just speak to Church leadership about accusations.  

If she wants a good settlement, it makes more sense to keep quiet about what she has as far as the public is concerned at least until a settlement is reached that includes what she can and cannot make public and still get a high end payout.  If she wants to motivate the Church to change procedures, then being completely open about what happened and what she wants seems to be the most likely option, imo (scandal creates a different sort of pressure than simply demanding changes in doctrine and culture, I am not happy about it but realistically it gets attention quick).

She has, however, chosen to weave what appears to be an uncertain path between the two, first withholding the tape from the public and then 'leaking' it herself while claiming someone did it without her permission.  Playing games isn't going to make anyone happy with her, for her own sake I hope she listens to her lawyer (the identity theft in February looks self destructive). He appears to have a decent reputation and certainly appeared to be a good victim's advocate in the press conference.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, bluebell said:

We had a really lengthy discussion about that issue a few weeks ago. If you are interested I’m pretty sure it’s searchable on here. I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t see any reason to hash it out again here. 

My short answer is that I don’t believe the gift of discernment works the way most people in the church believe it does. I think we have a spiritually immature understanding of it. 

That’s probably an interesting starting point for a new thread on that specific topic.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I understood that the adoption was through LDS Family Services.  The Church's attorney would have access to such information.

Why would the Church’s attorney have access to Confidential LDS Family Services records?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why would the Church’s attorney have access to Confidential LDS Family Services records?

It might be required if Denson included treatment there with her claims or if Vernon demanded the Church hand over all records.

How many times has this question been asked?

Obviously no one answering can have a definite answer, but there are nonnefarious reason for a church attorney to have the records in his possession and share them with the lawyers involved.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Calm said:

It might be required if Denson included treatment there with her claims or if Vernon demanded the Church hand over all records.

How many times has this question been asked?

Obviously no one answering can have a definite answer, but there are nonnefarious reason for a church attorney to have the records in his possession and share them with the lawyers involved.

My understanding is that Utah law requires adoption agencies to maintain the confidentiality of so-called sealed adoption records. So even the mother may not have access to those records, and if that's the case, it would likely be improper for the Church or its attorneys to turn them over to Vernon without a court order. Also, the mother is not the only party with a privacy interest in the adoption records -- the child as well as the adoptive parents have similar interests. It may have been entirely improper for the Church's attorney to have included information from protected adoption records in the letter or report that he apparently provided to Vernon (and Greg Bishop).

Frankly, it may have been improper for anyone in the Church outside of LDS Family Services to have had access to those records. (Assuming, of course, that the adoption was through LDS Family Services.) LDS Family Services appears to be a non-profit corporation wholly owned and operated by the Church. But that doesn't mean that the Church necessarily is allowed access to LDS Family Services' adoption records, as being owned and operated doesn't mean that it's not technically a separate and independent entity. That would be an interesting angle to explore. It may not have been the reason for why LDS Family Services got out of the adoption business, but it may still be a side benefit. (As I often tell my clients, sometimes it's good not to know or have access to information, as it protects you from being accused of improperly using that info.)

It's also possible that the investigative report/letter compiled by the Church's attorney did not rely on any sealed adoption records, but rather on information that had been obtained independent of that. It was my understanding that the Church's investigation did not rely solely on information in its records, but also on interviews conducted with Denson's family members and possibly neighbors, who may have had that information. And the Church may have also had kept in its records information about the adoption that it had obtained independent of any sealed adoption record. One thing that this case seems to have exposed is that the Church may be keeping extensive records on at least some of its members, records that go far beyond anything a local bishop or ward clerk has access to. Records that it appears willing to use in the event a member or former member gets sideways with the Church.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, ALarson said:

Nice dodge, but it's what I expected.  

Replicating your reasoning ("That's complicated" ... "We have no idea why") is a "dodge?"

What does that say for your reasoning, then?

Personally, I think your reasoning on this point is sound.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, toon said:

My understanding is that Utah law requires adoption agencies to maintain the confidentiality of so-called sealed adoption records. So even the mother may not have access to those records, and if that's the case, it would likely be improper for the Church or its attorneys to turn them over to Vernon without a court order. Also, the mother is not the only party with a privacy interest in the adoption records -- the child as well as the adoptive parents have similar interests. It may have been entirely improper for the Church's attorney to have included information from protected adoption records in the letter or report that he apparently provided to Vernon (and Greg Bishop).

Frankly, it may have been improper for anyone in the Church outside of LDS Family Services to have had access to those records. (Assuming, of course, that the adoption was through LDS Family Services.) LDS Family Services appears to be a non-profit corporation wholly owned and operated by the Church. But that doesn't mean that the Church necessarily is allowed access to LDS Family Services' adoption records, as being owned and operated doesn't mean that it's not technically a separate and independent entity. That would be an interesting angle to explore. It may not have been the reason for why LDS Family Services got out of the adoption business, but it may still be a side benefit. (As I often tell my clients, sometimes it's good not to know or have access to information, as it protects you from being accused of improperly using that info.)

It's also possible that the investigative report/letter compiled by the Church's attorney did not rely on any sealed adoption records, but rather on information that had been obtained independent of that. It was my understanding that the Church's investigation did not rely solely on information in its records, but also on interviews conducted with Denson's family members and possibly neighbors, who may have had that information. And the Church may have also had kept in its records information about the adoption that it had obtained independent of any sealed adoption record. One thing that this case seems to have exposed is that the Church may be keeping extensive records on at least some of its members, records that go far beyond anything a local bishop or ward clerk has access to. Records that it appears willing to use in the event a member or former member gets sideways with the Church.

Thanks for the commentary.  Good point info might have been provided another way through family, perhaps.  Since the daughter made some contact in the past with Denson, it is likely some would know her name.  That could be a source.

There is a good chance the adoption wasn't in Utah.  Denson talks about growing up in a nonMormon family and then hearing about the Church when she was a teen iirc, getting baptized at 15.  If she lived in Utah, chances are her first exposure to the Church would have been earlier.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, toon said:

I wasn't talking about the leak of the adopted daughter's name.

Greg Bishop shared other information her learned in the letter with the media.

Such as?  What specific "other information" do you find morally problematic?

Quote

This information was used to discredit Denson.

A lawyer attempting to discredit a person who is publicly accusing his client (and father) of rape?  Using information which is apparently accurate?

It may well be that Greg Bishop's initial response was, from a PR / legal strategy perspective, unwise.  See here:

Quote

An attorney for an abuser might go on the offensive and attack the accuser, he said, but an organization, like a church, typically would start by expressing concern and compassion for the victim while it examined the allegations.

Cassell believes Greg Bishop’s response, especially his initial statement challenging the Colorado woman’s claims, was done in haste.

“I was surprised to see this maneuver executed so quickly,” he said. “‘Trash the victim’ is the last option an organization would typically employ. It may be the least successful tactic, used only after all other options have been exhausted.”

Once you go there, he said, “you can’t put the cat back into the bag.”

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Quote

I don't see how this is in dispute.

Nor do I.  

Quote

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

Well, now you have.

At its most basic, a JDA is just a written memorialization of the joint defense privilege. The benefit is that it helps define how and when that privilege applies to the matter at hand so that the parties are on the same page. And perhaps, most important, it sets forth the parties obligations with regard to how they handle and what they can do with confidential information that has been shared.

Good to know.  But my point is that a JDA may not have been the necessary component you are portraying it as here.

Quote

I don't always litigate with one in place, but often have.

Right.  So JDAs are optional.  Meaning "The only way it should have been shared with Greg Bishop is if he was acting as his dad's attorney and if there was a joint defense agreement between the Church and Bishop" doesn't appear to be warranted. 

That first part (Greg Bishop acting as his dad's attorney) is unequivocally true.  But as for the second part, even by your reckoning, there are times when JDAs are not used.

So you apparently have no grounds to complain about the Church's attorney sharing information with Greg Bishop.

Greg Bishop, in turn, used information which was appropriately shared with him (as his father's attorney) to defend his client/father.  It may be that Greg Bishop is not in his comfort zone.  He does not appear to be a criminal defense lawyer.  He does not appear to be particularly experienced with handling trial-by-media-circus matters.  But to the extent that people like you want to complain about sensitive private information being displayed in the public sphere, I would say the lion's share of the fault for that lies with McKenna Denson (who "leaked" her recording to the media, then thereafter feigned being upset about the "leak") and MormonLeaks.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Replicating your reasoning ("That's complicated" ... "We have no idea why") is a "dodge?"

What does that say for your reasoning, then?

Personally, I think your reasoning on this point is sound.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You want to compare the leaders of the church praying about calling Joseph Bishop to be called to the position of being president of the MTC (and having stewardship over hundreds of young women and young men) to why Christ called Judas to be his apostle?  

I'm asking specifically about how the leaders could have prayed about calling Bishop and received a confirmation that he was a good and righteous man.  That's the question (and is a part of this discussion for many members asking the same question).  Can you answer that without doing the dodge of asking me a question in return regarding Christ and Judas?  

If you have nothing to add to that discussion, I'll accept that too.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

That first part (Greg Bishop acting as his dad's attorney) is unequivocally true.  But as for the second part, even by your reckoning, there are times when JDAs are not used.

But isn't toon saying in the cases where there is no JDA, such sharing would be inappropriate?

Quote

The only way it should have been shared with Greg Bishop is if he was acting as his dad's attorney and if there was a joint defense agreement between the Church and Bishop. As mentioned above, while a joint defense agreement allows for the sharing of information between co-defendants (or co-plaintiffs), they typically impose an obligation to not use or disclose that information without authorization. And I can't imagine the Church having authorized Bishop to do what he did.

My guess is that there was no such joint defense agreement. Most likely, Denson's attorney sent an email to the Church's lawyer, probably as follow up to an initial demand letter. Greg Bishop was also included as the attorney representing his Dad. The Church's attorney sent the report to Denson's attorney, and either erroneously did a "reply all" or didn't realize it was an issue. Nothing nefarious, just carelessness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A lawyer attempting to discredit a person who is publicly accusing his client (and father) of rape?  Using information which is apparently accurate?

Didn't they state that she'd only "served briefly as a missionary"?  Was that accurate?

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

What a sad commentary of what goes on here--when a person who used to post here is attacked for mentioning a story that was already out there, and saying he was told the name of the victim of the story, and yet the whole character assassination by the Church and it's attorneys on McKenna should not be reason to question motives.  Or that another person's name was leaked, through the Church's hidden info, and yet everyone involved gets off for most posters here without questioning, while another person is getting called names, and is somehow the focus of a couple of posters' ire.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, ALarson said:
Quote

A lawyer attempting to discredit a person who is publicly accusing his client (and father) of rape?  Using information which is apparently accurate?

Didn't they state that she'd only "served briefly as a missionary"?  Was that accurate?

I don't know.  Do we know how long she served?

She did serve as a missionary, we know that much.  What is your concern on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You want to compare the leaders of the church praying about calling Joseph Bishop to be called to the position of being president of the MTC (and having stewardship over hundreds of young women and young men) to why Christ called Judas to be his apostle?  

To some extent, yes.

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm asking specifically about how the leaders could have prayed about calling Bishop and received a confirmation that he was a good and righteous man.

How do you know he was not a "good and righteous man?"

What does "good and righteous" even mean to you?  Utterly free from sin and character flaws?

What disqualifying conduct by Joseph Bishop do we know of prior to his being MTC president?

We seem to be straying rather far.  The discussion seems to be getting less about what Joseph Bishop did or did not do, and more about weaponizing Denson's allegations against the LDS Church.  Perhaps this is not a good idea?

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's the question (and is a part of this discussion for many members asking the same question). 

Yes, and I have addressed it.  My present assessment is that we don't really know much about Joseph Bishop, particularly prior to his becoming president of the MTC.  To me, the evidence at hand (his admissions to BYU police, the second victim, Denson being aware of the basement room) cumulatively suggests that he did something very wrong while acting in a sacred calling.

But then . . . so did Judas.  And yet Jesus Christ called him to be an apostle anyway.  However, we don't really know much about Judas, particularly prior to his becoming an apostle.  So how do I reconcile his calling to that sacred office by an all-knowing God with his eventual betrayal of the Son of Man?  Well . . . I don't.  As you said, "that's complicated."  As you said, "we have no idea why..."

I submit that if a person can plead ignorance of or failure to comprehend and fully understand the facts as to Judas (when contemplating why he was called as an apostle), as you have done, then perhaps we can (and should) do the same as to Joseph Bishop (when contemplating why he was called to be president of the MTC).

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Can you answer that without doing the dodge of asking me a question in return regarding Christ and Judas?

I believe the Brethren could have (and very likely did) pray about calling Joseph Bishop to be president of the MTC.

So what do you mean by "how the leaders could have prayed about calling" him?

He could have been called by inspiration, only to later transgress while serving in a sacred calling.  That is an unfortunate thing, but it can happen.  Corianton, for example, sinned greatly while serving as a missionary.  And the effect of his sin was to cause cynicism and disbelief by those who may have otherwise been open to the message of the Restored Gospel.  I wonder if we are seeing somethign similar in this matter.

You seem to be suggesting that Joseph Bishop was a known rapist or pervert or something prior to being called as MTC president.  Is that what you are doing?  If so, what evidence do you have of his prior-to-serving-as-president-of-the-MTC character failings?

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If you have nothing to add to that discussion, I'll accept that too.

You seem to be greatly bothered by the reference to Judas.  You seem to be able to accommodate that he A) committed a great wickedness while serving in a sacred calling, and B) was nevertheless called by inspiration to that sacred office.  Is that a fair statement?

If so, can you likewise consider the possibility that Joseph Bishop A) committed a great wickedness while serving in a sacred calling, and B) was nevertheless called by inspiration to that sacred office?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be greatly bothered by the reference to Judas. 

Not at all.  I simply wanted you to address this topic without continuing to bring him up.

Thanks for your thoughts....I disagree with most of them and also the fact that it was evident that Bishop had already known issues when he was called to be the president of the MTC.  

There is no doubt these types of things undermine some member's faith in the discretion and inspiration our leaders have regarding issuing callings.  Bishop should not have been called to be the president of the MTC, IMO.  Our leaders should always err on the side of protecting our youth when there is even a hint of someone having sexual abuse issues from their past.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Not at all.  I simply wanted you to address this topic without continuing to bring him up.

Thanks for you thoughts....

Hats off to you in how you're responding in this thread.  I'd be repping you left and right, but, well...

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not at all.  I simply wanted you to address this topic without continuing to bring him up.

I am addressing the topic.  By bringing him up.  It's a somewhat analogous situation, and useful to consider IMO.

Quote

Thanks for your thoughts....I disagree with most of them and also the fact that it was evident that Bishop had already known issues when he was called to be the president of the MTC.  

"It was evident?"

That's a bold assertion.  I don't think there is sufficient evidence for it.

Quote

There is no doubt these types of things undermine some member's faith in the discretion and inspiration our leaders have regarding issuing callings. 

Yes.

Quote

Bishop should not have been called to be the president of the MTC, IMO. 

Should Judas have been called to be an apostle?

Hindsight's always 20-20.  

Quote

Our leaders should always err on the side of protecting our youth when there is even a hint of someone having sexual abuse issues from their past.

What evidence do we have that Joseph Bishop had "sexual abuse issues from {his} past" prior to his calling as president of the MTC?

And what evidence do we have that the Church was aware of these purported "sexual abuse issues?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am addressing the topic.  By bringing him up.  It's a somewhat analogous situation, and useful to consider IMO.

Should Judas have been called to be an apostle?

You just can't do it, can you?  

Ok....then, answer these questions:

Many believe that Christ knew of Judas's role prior to him calling him to be his disciple.  Is that what you're saying went on here with Bishop?  The leaders knew he'd sexually abuse young sister missionaries in a secret room in the basement of the MTC prior to them calling him?

You seem to insist on saying these two are comparable.  So let's compare them.

Do you believe Christ knew in advance what Judas would do (as part of God's plan) or do you believe he was deceived by the spirit?  Or was the spirit wrong and Christ followed these wrong promptings?  

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

What a sad commentary of what goes on here--when a person who used to post here is attacked for mentioning a story that was already out there, and saying he was told the name of the victim of the story, and yet the whole character assassination by the Church and it's attorneys on McKenna should not be reason to question motives.  Or that another person's name was leaked, through the Church's hidden info, and yet everyone involved gets off for most posters here without questioning, while another person is getting called names, and is somehow the focus of a couple of posters' ire.  

 

The story reporting I get...it is the mole leaking the info I am criticizing.  The only thing I am attacking consig for is his letting everyone know he knew the second victim's name who had not gone public at all in the middle of this very public discussion so the default position should be she wants her privacy and while he wasn't sharing the name, he was alerting people that it was possible to get it and thus is threatening her privacy.  I don't see how knowing he knows it advances the information at all so it appears to me he is attempting to boost his own credibility as someone with inside information in a potentially harmful way.

Who here has been dismissive of the sharing of the adopted daughter's name? The only dispute I can recall is over who leaked it since the media reported Greg Bishop didn't leak it.

When I misremembered Greg Bishop as the leaker of her name, I was hoping for his being kicked off the Bar.  Once I was corrected, since no one stated how the letter leaked out, I don't know where to focus my criticism.

"Jordan, who did not return a request for comment made to his office, launched an inquiry. In a nine-page letter to the woman’s attorney, he notes “inconsistencies” in her story and details a string of episodes in the accuser’s life, ranging from the church discipline she had previously faced to her criminal record, and from failed relationships to lawsuits, even job firings.

A bulleted timeline begins with the woman’s teenage pregnancy and includes the name of the daughter she gave up for adoption.

Seeing her name in the file on her birth mother was troubling on several levels, the adoptee told The Salt Lake Tribune this week. “It has given me a lot of anxiety.”...

Jordan shared his letter with Bishop’s son, Greg Bishop, who is acting as his father’s attorney, to use in any settlement efforts. Jordan did not share his letter with reporters, but Greg Bishop, who declined to comment for this story, copied some of the information about the victim — omitting mention of the adopted daughter’s name — and sent it to various news outlets as a way to defend his dad.

The full letter has since leaked out."

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/04/04/a-woman-was-shocked-to-see-her-name-in-a-mormon-church-compiled-dossier-which-she-says-was-designed-to-discredit-her-birth-mother/

I can't think of any reason why the daughter's name needed to be included unless she was being called as a witness by someone and that seems highly unlikely.  Jordan was not the one to share it with the media; his communication would have been, I assumed, intended to remain confidential among the lawyers.  It does not say where the information was received from, given the inclusion of failed relationships, toon's suggestion it might be from family or friends and the restrictions Utah places on adoption records seems quite possible.  It is still in my opinion totally inappropriate for her name to be made a part of the case even if this was information shared by a family member, but since it was in confidential communication it does not appear to violate any legal standard, so while I think there should be something significant required for restitution by Jordan if there is no legal requirement to include it, getting disbarred for including private irrelevant information in a confidential communication unintended for publication seems too far.  I assume there are comparable cases that the Utah Bar Association can find precedent for if a complaint is made (and if the daughter wants to, I hope she does).

Does anyone know who leaked the full letter to the press?  Whoever did that, if the daughter sued, I would be finding for her on that jury most likely.

Smac was the other discussing this and he as well doesn't know who leaked the letter.  I did not see him dismissive about it, CFR that he was letting off anyone for leaking full letter that included the daughter's name to the media.

-----

As far as the dossier compiling about Denson, I find that comparable to the recording not reacting, but including Bishop's negative commentary about his wives (names are redacted, but that is a joke since he identifies who they are and Denson makes sure you know by color coding the names), his sexless marriage, some stuff going on with one of his sons, including personal information about the background of the other victim...all things to boost her own credibility while challenging the credibility of Bishop's when he denied any abuse.  Instead of a point by point dossier, it was a lengthy transcript of the things she knew about him doing wrong in his life and pushing him to expose himself more...and Denson ensured it was made public while Jordan showed no intention that I know of for it not to remain in the circle of only those directly involved in the settlement negotiations.  Vernon's filing added more details, such as the Weber controversy.  If it is okay for Denson and Vernon to collect material to challenge the credibility of Bishop and church leaders, why is Jordan being a bully for doing the same thing essentially, just in a different format?

There was no need to include the details of Bishop's second wife's first marriage, whose name can be found in five seconds so any claim of respecting her privacy is full of it, imo.  It likely caused her a great deal of pain while it advanced Denson's claims zero.  Why has there been no criticism of Denson needlessly involving irrelevant innocent bystanders?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You just can't do it, can you?  

I can, but I choose to not let you dictate what I think or say.  Fair enough?

Quote

Ok....then, answer these questions:

Many believe that Christ knew of Judas's role prior to him calling him to be his disciple.

Probably so (see below).

Quote

Is that what you're saying went on here with Bishop? 

I'm saying that yours appears to be a reductionist argument.  Heavenly Father is all-knowing.  He knows what we have done, and what we will do.  For example, He knew that Judas would betray His Son, and yet He allowed Judas to be called as an apostle anyway.

God also knew that Corianton was going to sin with Isabel, and that his sin would have a very negative effect on the Zoramites.  And yet He allowed (inspired?) Corianton to be called as a missionary anyway.

God also knew that the Three Witnesses would apostatize, yet He allowed (commanded, even) them to be witnesses to The Book of Mormon.

And on and on and on.

Why do these things happen?  The short answer is pretty much what you said: "That's complicated" ... "We have no idea why."

Quote

The leaders knew he'd sexually abuse young sister missionaries in a secret room in the basement of the MTC prior to them calling him?

Huh?  No, I'm not saying that.

Quote

You seem to insist on saying these two are comparable.  So let's compare them.

Do you believe Christ knew in advance what Judas would do (as part of God's plan) or do you believe he was deceived by the spirit?

I am not totally sure what Christ "knew in advance."  "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man."  So I am not sure that Jesus was fully omniscient during his ministry.

On the other hand, in John 6:64, we read that "Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."  Is this a reference to Judas?  Apparently so, since verses 70-71 states:

Quote

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

I guess my preliminary assessment is that yes, "Christ knew in advance what Judas would do" (since he "knew from the beginning ... who should betray him," and "He spake of Judas . . . for he it was that should betray him").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  Do we know how long she served?

She did serve as a missionary, we know that much.  What is your concern on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

That they are using language intentionally designed to minimize her commitment to the Church and her mission at the time; to make her look less than others who served full-time missions and diminish her in the eyes of public.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...