Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JulieM

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

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess my preliminary assessment is that yes, "Christ knew in advance what Judas would do" 

So if you're insisting on comparing what Christ did to what the leaders of the church did regarding calling Joseph Bishop to be the MTC president, it appears you're reasoning is that the leaders "knew in advance" what Bishop would do.

Do you still want to continue using the two examples as being the same?  

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, ttribe said:
Quote

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.

Okay.  I'm not sure that was the intent, but I can see your POV.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:
Quote

I guess my preliminary assessment is that yes, "Christ knew in advance what Judas would do" 

So if you're insisting on comparing what Christ did to what the leaders of the church did regarding calling Joseph Bishop to be the MTC president, it appears you're reasoning is that the leaders "knew in advance" what Bishop would do.

Nope.  God is omniscient.  His servants are not.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you still want to continue using the two examples as being the same?  

Not "the same."  But they have some similarities which you seem bound and determined to ignore.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not "the same."  

You are the one who continues to try to make them the same and insisting one keeping it a part of the discussion.  Then, when I use your reasoning for why Christ called Judas to be his disciple and apply it to why the leaders called Bishop to serve as the MTC president, you disagree.

I'm done here with you on this part of this topic.  I keep forgetting why I don't engage with you on here expecting to have a honest discussion.  I'm reminded once again.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:
Quote

Not "the same."  

You are the one who continues to try to make them the same

No, I'm not.  The two items are comparable, not identical.

Just now, ALarson said:

and insisting one keeping it a part of the comparison. 

Yes.  Part of "the comparison."  "To compare" means "to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences."

Similarities.

Differences.

I've never said the two situations are identical.

Just now, ALarson said:

Then, when I use your reasoning for why Christ called Judas to be his disciple and apply it to why the leaders called Bishop to serve as the MTC president, you disagree.

Yes.  And I've explained why.  God is omniscient.  We are not.  That's one of the "differences."

Just now, ALarson said:

I'm done here with you on this part of this topic.  I keep forgetting why I don't engage with you on here expecting to have a honest discussion.  I'm reminded once again.

I thought our discussion was going somewhere.  But as you like.  No need for the grumpies.  I was not trying to anger you, but I apparently did.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You are the one who continues to try to make them the same and insisting one keeping it a part of the discussion.  Then, when I use your reasoning for why Christ called Judas to be his disciple and apply it to why the leaders called Bishop to serve as the MTC president, you disagree.

I'm done here with you on this part of this topic.  I keep forgetting why I don't engage with you on here expecting to have a honest discussion.  I'm reminded once again.

I have not read your and Smac's conversation on this issue so I don't know what arguments have been made or what has been said, but from my perspective, i think that Jesus calling Judas to the 12 can show that a calling of an unworthy or unrighteous person (or one that will become unworthy through the use of His agency) can still be of God.

And in that regard, I think that can apply to callings today (I'm not saying that it applies in Bishop's case).   

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I find you're questioning his motives completely unnecessary given this explanation.  We had all already heard of the story, if we read the transcript or listened to the recording.  That he knew the name doesn't mean anything other than, he learned the name from someone else.  I dont' see how anyone sees this as attempting to boost his own credibility.  he's speaking to people who already see him as highly credible, afterall.  

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

The big problem here is how did Greg Bishop get her name?  He should not have had it in the first place.  That he forwarded it on is problematic, but the larger problem was he had in the first place.  Jordan should not have even had it, which only shows the problem was much deeper.  

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

-----

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?

Denson is the alleged victim here.  That's why they acting as bully is problematic.  Vernon had to show that Bishop had a history of problems because they are the ones making claims.  
Desnon and Vernon's concern here is whether the Church should be trusted on these matters since it appears there were coverups.  They have to state and show their case.  

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.  

Respecting whose privacy? 

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have not read your and Smac's conversation on this issue so I don't know what arguments have been made or what has been said, but from my perspective, i think that Jesus calling Judas to the 12 can show that a calling of an unworthy or unrighteous person (or one that will become unworthy through the use of His agency) can still be of God.

I agree that many believe Christ called Judas because it was part of God's plan.

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

(I'm not saying that it applies in Bishop's case).  

I also agree with this.  But that's what smac is attempting to do and that's what I disagree with.  He won't drop the comparison and it's not a good one in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:
Quote

I have not read your and Smac's conversation on this issue so I don't know what arguments have been made or what has been said, but from my perspective, i think that Jesus calling Judas to the 12 can show that a calling of an unworthy or unrighteous person (or one that will become unworthy through the use of His agency) can still be of God.

(I'm not saying that it applies in Bishop's case).  

I also agree with this.  But that's what smac is attempting to do

No, I'm not.  I am instead agreeing with something you said earlier ("That's complicated" ... "We have no idea why").

Just now, ALarson said:

and that's what I disagree with. 

Then you could ask me to clarify what I am saying, and I'd be happy to respond.

Just now, ALarson said:

He won't drop the comparison and it's not a good one in this case.

I think it's actually quite useful.  

Calm seems to agree to some extent ("I think that Jesus calling Judas to the 12 can show that a calling of an unworthy or unrighteous person (or one that will become unworthy through the use of His agency) can still be of God.").  I differ a bit because I am not sure if Judas was "an unworthy or unrighteous person" when he was called to be an apostle.  

Thanks,

-SMac

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have not read your and Smac's conversation on this issue so I don't know what arguments have been made or what has been said, but from my perspective, i think that Jesus calling Judas to the 12 can show that a calling of an unworthy or unrighteous person (or one that will become unworthy through the use of His agency) can still be of God.

And in that regard, I think that can apply to callings today (I'm not saying that it applies in Bishop's case).   

I would just caution, since there are discrepancies in the Judas story, it's a good idea to consider that the story itself is a bit more of a revisionist history than it is history.  Also many argue Paul, for instance, didn't know of Judas' betrayal suggesting it was made up after Paul's life to be included in the gospels to either fulfill assumed prophecies or to teach/scare people to stay in line.  Thus it's probably good to take it as non-literal rather than literal.  

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  God is omniscient.  His servants are not.

Not "the same."

Exactly.  And yet you keep trying to make a direct comparison to what Christ did vs. what the church leaders did.

Christ was perfect and made no mistakes.  We know our leaders make mistakes.  So no, that’s not a fair or equal comparison, but you keep insisting it is.  Why not just own up to the fact that in issuing this calling for Bishop, the leaders made a mistake? Or do you believe church leaders are infallible and perfect like Christ was?

Is it really that hard for you to admit a mistake was made by the leaders?

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Exactly.  And yet you keep trying to make a direct comparison to what Christ did vs. what the church leaders did.

Christ was perfect and made no mistakes.  We know our leaders make mistakes.  So no, that’s not a fair or equal comparison, but you keep insisting it is.  Why not just own up to the fact that in issuing this calling for Bishop, the leaders made a mistake? Or do you believe church leaders are infallible and perfect like Christ was?

Is it really that hard for you to admit a mistake was made by the leaders?

Great points.

Christ lived a perfect life and when he called Judas he was not making a mistake.

Our leaders are not perfect and made a mistake when they approved the calling for Joseph Bishop to serve as the president of the MTC.  Smac refuses to discuss what went wrong here regarding this calling and continues to use his fall back, dodge answer of:  Well, what about Christ calling Judas to be his Apostle?

And that's not a good comparison.....not even close, IMO.

But, I'm moving on....

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Exactly.  And yet you keep trying to make a direct comparison to what Christ did vs. what the church leaders did.

Christ was perfect and made no mistakes.  We know our leaders make mistakes.  So no, that’s not a fair or equal comparison, but you keep insisting it is.  Why not just own up to the fact that in issuing this calling for Bishop, the leaders made a mistake? Or do you believe church leaders are infallible and perfect like Christ was?

Is it really that hard for you to admit a mistake was made by the leaders?

Speaking only for myself, I don't know that they church made a mistake (and I do believe that Bishop is guilty of something and was not a righteous leader).  I think that's what the whole Judas Iscariot thing shows.  Just because someone does something evil while in a leadership position does not automatically mean they weren't called of God.

God's ways are not our ways.

As far as Bishop's case is concerned, I don't have a problem with the leaders having made a mistake, but I don't know that they did.  I don't have the information that would be necessary for me to determine that (and thankfully, there is no reason for me to try).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Exactly.  And yet you keep trying to make a direct comparison to what Christ did vs. what the church leaders did.

Yes.  A comparison.  Between two things which have both similarities and differences between them.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Christ was perfect and made no mistakes.  

I agree.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

We know our leaders make mistakes.  

I agree.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

So no, that’s not a fair or equal comparison, but you keep insisting it is.  

Yes, it is.  I am comparing to issues which are not identical to each other, but which have both similarities and differences.

The "similarities" include Persons X and Y engaging in serious misconduct while acting in a sacred office.  Judas did it.  Joseph Bishop apparently did it.

The "similarities" include the possibility that Persons X and Y were both called by inspiration into a sacred office.

The "differences" include the possibility that Person X was called directly by the God Himself, whereas Person Y was called by God's servants.

Note that I am not "insisting."  I am providing argument and reasoning.  "Insisting" would be what you are doing ("No, that's not a fair or equal comparison...").

Feel free to disagree with my reasoning, but responding with better reasoning would probably be better than merely insisting.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Why not just own up to the fact that in issuing this calling for Bishop, the leaders made a mistake?

Because that is a presumption.  By you.

I don't know that is a "fact."  Neither do you.

It is possible that Joseph Bishop was sufficiently worthy to receive his calling as the president of the MTC.  It's also possible that he had some things in his life that should have been sorted out and disclosed to those extending his calling.  It's also possible that notwithstanding his weaknesses and flaws, God inspired those in authority to call him to be president of the MTC anyway (this is where the comparison to Judas becomes somewhat relevant).  It's also possible that "the leaders made a mistake."  Or it's possible that some combination of these conditions is what happened.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Or do you believe church leaders are infallible and perfect like Christ was?

No, I do not believe that.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Great points.

Christ lived a perfect life and when he called Judas he was not making a mistake.

I agree.  Even though Judas committed a sin so grievous that his very name has become synonymous with it, the Savior's calling of Judas to be an apostle was not a mistake.

Is is also possible that Joseph Bishop, despite having later committed a grievous sin, was also called by the Savior into a position of trust?  Are you really so presumptuous?  Do you really claim to have a measure of the life of Joseph Bishop?  Have you ever met him?  Ever spoke with him?  Spent time with him?

I don't think we know very much about Joseph Bishop.  I think your condemnation of him, from a position of overwhelming ignorance, is inappropriate.  I also think your apparent attempt to convert his apparent misconduct into an attack on the truth claims of the Church is unseemly.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Our leaders are not perfect

Yes.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

and made a mistake when they approved the calling for Joseph Bishop to serve as the president of the MTC. 

You don't know that.  Neither do I.  We are both speaking from profound ignorance.

But only one of us is, while speaking from said ignorance, nevertheless publicly finding fault with the Brethren.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Smac refuses to discuss what went wrong here

Bull.  What I am refusing to do is judge and condemn others from a position of profound ignorance.

That's your wheelhouse here, bub.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

regarding this calling and continues to use his fall back, dodge answer of:  Well, what about Christ calling Judas to be his Apostle?

And instead of responding to my reasoned point with a reasoned counterpoint of your own, you just complain about it and cut off the discussion.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And that's not a good comparison.....not even close, IMO.

This is an assertion, not a reasoned counter-argument.  

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, I'm moving on....

Apparently not.

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You don't know that. 

Yes, I do know that.  It was a mistake with tragic consequences.  I have to believe that the leaders of the church know it was a mistake to call Bishop to that position as well.  

Your comparison was set up to fail from the beginning here, smac.  You can't make a convincing comparison between a decision that was made by a perfect man to a decision made by imperfect men and expect them to be the same.  One decision absolutely cannot be wrong and the other decision can be a mistake.

Now, I'm truly done here and moving on (regarding this portion of the topic).  You can have the last word if you choose, but I won't be responding as I've said all I intend to on this.

 

Share this post


Link to post

So we have Joseph Bishop telling us that he confessed some misdeeds he did with/to women to multiple Church leaders previous to being called a mission Pres of the MTC.  And we aren't to assume the Church made a mistake in calling him as pres of the MTC?  We are to assume (in order to save face for the Church's process?) that Christ was in favor of calling Bishop as MTC pres?  

Fewf! smac and bluebell.  I can't say I approve of your rationale but the extents in which you'll go on this astounds me a bit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:
Quote

You don't know that. 

Yes, I do know that. 

No, you don't.

Just now, ALarson said:

It was a mistake with tragic consequences. 

Mistake?  Maybe.  "Tragic consequences?"  Certainly.

Just now, ALarson said:

I have to believe that the leaders of the church know it was a mistake to call Bishop to that position as well.  

I won't dispute what you believe.

Just now, ALarson said:

Your comparison was set up to fail from the beginning here, smac. 

I think it has some value.

Just now, ALarson said:

You can't make a convincing comparison between a decision that was made by a perfect man to a decision made by imperfect men and expect them to be the same. 

I think I can.

Just now, ALarson said:

One decision absolutely cannot be wrong and the other decision can be a mistake.

That is my point.  Calling Joseph Bishop to be president of the MTC might have been a mistake ("can be a mistake"), or it might have been inspired (like the calling of Judas to the apostleship was inspired).

Just now, ALarson said:

Now, I'm truly done here and moving on (regarding this portion of the topic). 

We'll see, I suppose.

Just now, ALarson said:

You can have the last word if you choose, but I won't be responding as I've said all I intend to on this.

As you like.  But if you continue to address (and/or misrepresent) my position, I'll keep responding.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So we have Joseph Bishop telling us that he confessed some misdeeds he did with/to women to multiple Church leaders previous to being called a mission Pres of the MTC. 

We do?  CFR, please.

Quote

And we aren't to assume the Church made a mistake in calling him as pres of the MTC? 

Well, let's address the quantum of evidence about Joseph Bishop first.

Quote

We are to assume (in order to save face for the Church's process?) that Christ was in favor of calling Bishop as MTC pres?  

Nope.  I'm not calling for assumptions.  I'm also not calling for condemnations.

Rather, I ratify and recommend that ALarson said earlier: "That's complicated" ... "We have no idea why."

I don't think we know very much about Joseph Bishop.

Quote

Fewf! smac and bluebell.  I can't say I approve of your rationale but the extents in which you'll go on this astounds me a bit.  

It would be nice if you understand my position before complaining about it.

Meanwhile, I am astounded at the depths to which critics and opponents of the LDS Church will go to weaponize events against the Church.  Joseph Bishop apparently betrayed the trust of the LDS Church and abused sister missionaries under his care.  People like you take that betrayal and convert it into a talking about against the Church.  

No matter what the Church does or does not do, faultfinders will always be able to find . . . find fault.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We do?  CFR, please.

Do you see the orginal recording and transcript that started this?  I know we've been over this.  I'm not sure we'll agree, but I'm still astounded how far you'll take this.  The context of what was being said in the original recording suggests Joseph Bishop said he confessed to bishop's before he was MTC pres, and he confessed to his friend who was also his reported leader when he was mission pres in SA.  I realize you think there was no clear ifno given about what he confessed, but I disagree; thus, the extent it seems you'll go on this.  

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, let's address the quantum of evidence about Joseph Bishop first.

Nope.  I'm not calling for assumptions.  I'm also not calling for condemnations.

Rather, I ratify and recommend that ALarson said earlier: "That's complicated" ... "We have no idea why."

I don't think we know very much about Joseph Bishop.

It would be nice if you understand my position before complaining about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Bishop should have never been called.  For one, it obvious he already confessed some previous misdeeds.  For another, the leaders were unable to discern the bad stuff he already did.  There's no reason to assume Christ was behind the call.  

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Exactly.  And yet you keep trying to make a direct comparison to what Christ did vs. what the church leaders did.

Christ was perfect and made no mistakes.  We know our leaders make mistakes.  So no, that’s not a fair or equal comparison, but you keep insisting it is.  Why not just own up to the fact that in issuing this calling for Bishop, the leaders made a mistake? Or do you believe church leaders are infallible and perfect like Christ was?

Is it really that hard for you to admit a mistake was made by the leaders?

This is so black and white. Why are those the only two options you can see?

I have no problem admitting a mistake was made, if one was. I have a huge problem with all of the people who want to make that judgement without any of the facts. Do you know what God did or did not communicate to them? Do you know whether they disregarded or misunderstood that message? 

Why is acknowledging that we aren't in the position to make a fair judgement, suddenly claiming infallibility?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So we have Joseph Bishop telling us that he confessed some misdeeds he did with/to women to multiple Church leaders previous to being called a mission Pres of the MTC.  And we aren't to assume the Church made a mistake in calling him as pres of the MTC?  We are to assume (in order to save face for the Church's process?) that Christ was in favor of calling Bishop as MTC pres?  

Fewf! smac and bluebell.  I can't say I approve of your rationale but the extents in which you'll go on this astounds me a bit.  

So true!

How could calling Bishop be of God?  There’s no way it was, IMO.

i expect that from smac, but not from you bluebell.  He’d confessed and had prior problems before he was called.  Do you believe God couldn’t see what he was going to do as MTC president?  Tell Mckenna Denson that what happened to her was of God!!!

Sorry, but this is alarming to hear anyone believe that.

I agree that the leaders didn’t do this on purpose, but yes, it was a mistake on their part to put him in that position.  It didn’t come from God.

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This is so black and white. Why are those the only two options you can see?

I have no problem admitting a mistake was made, if one was. 

It was not of God.  I think that’s the point here.

Do you believe the spirit told the leaders it was God’s will to call Bishop to be over all these young women?  

For Christ, he knew God’s plan and was perfect. No decision necessary when he knew what to do.  But there was a decision process for the leaders who called Bishop.  

—- (I’ve got to get to work now, so can’t respond more until later this evening.)

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Do you see the orginal recording and transcript that started this? 

Yes.  

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I know we've been over this.  I'm not sure we'll agree, but I'm still astounded how far you'll take this. 

Let's set aside the "astounded" silliness and talk about the evidence.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

The context of what was being said in the original recording suggests Joseph Bishop said he confessed to bishop's before he was MTC pres,

Confessed to what?

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

and he confessed to his friend who was also his reported leader when he was mission pres in SA. 

Confessed to what?

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I realize you think there was no clear ifno given about what he confessed, but I disagree;

Strange that the "info" is so "clear," yet you cannot or will not present it.

Meanwhile, what are we to make of Bishop's mental state during the recording?  Denson extracted at least one false confession from him.  And there are several instances of him being obviously confused as to events, persons, dates, etc.  And he was two days out from a heart surgery when he was recorded.  Was he under medication at the time?

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

thus, the extent it seems you'll go on this.  

Hilarious.  I am withholding judgment, noting that the evidence is poor.

You are rushing to judgment, and faulting me for not rushing along with you.

I guess it's my turn to be "astounded."

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Bishop should have never been called. 

Perhaps.

And perhaps Judas "should have never been called," either.  And yet he was.

And perhaps Corianton "should have never been called."  And George P. Lee.  And Amasa Lyman.  And Richard R. Lyman.  

When speaking from ignorance, as you clearly are, you can make all sorts of assertions like this.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

For one, it obvious he already confessed some previous misdeeds. 

"Misdeeds?"  What does that mean?  Murder?  Rape?  Adultery?  Inappropriate touching/talking?  Looking at porn?  Lustful thoughts?

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

For another, the leaders were unable to discern the bad stuff he already did. 

"Bad stuff he already did?"  What is that?

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

There's no reason to assume Christ was behind the call.  

The same could be said about Judas.  And Corianton.  And George P. Lee.  And so on.

The difference is that I am not assuming.  Or judging.  Or condemning.

You are.

I am withholding judgment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Speaking only for myself, I don't know that they church made a mistake (and I do believe that Bishop is guilty of something and was not a righteous leader).  I think that's what the whole Judas Iscariot thing shows.  Just because someone does something evil while in a leadership position does not automatically mean they weren't called of God.

God's ways are not our ways.

As far as Bishop's case is concerned, I don't have a problem with the leaders having made a mistake, but I don't know that they did.  I don't have the information that would be necessary for me to determine that (and thankfully, there is no reason for me to try).

These leaders were constantly called and sustained over and over leading up to these positions, speaking of both the missionary president and MTC presidencies. How can the leaders who called them, continually get it wrong? 

I guess it could be like my mom would say to me, Satan works hardest on the leaders of the church, or the most righteous. Maybe this helped her in her testimony or something.

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...