Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JulieM

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

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.)

Hope your work day goes well!

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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

I've been thinking that same question.

Quote

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

Same here.

Quote

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? 

Again, same here.  We are all operating from a position of profound ignorance.

Quote

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

Because there is a mob mentality at work here.  A rush to find fault.  A rush to accuse.  A rush to judge and condemn Joseph Bishop and the leaders of the LDS Church. 

And...because some critics and opponents of the Church will look at every issue through a how-can-I-use-this-as-a-weapon-against-the-LDS-Church lens.

I get the anger and the rage.  But it's not a healthy or reasonable way of assessing the Joseph Bishop matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So true!

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

How could calling Judas be of God?

How could calling Corianton be of God?

How could calling George P. Lee be of God?

Perhaps the calling of Bishop was not "of God."  Perhaps it was.  We are all operating from a position of profound ignorance, so declarations like "There's no way it was" seem a bit overwrought.

Quote

i expect that from smac, but not from you bluebell.  

Bluebell is declining to ignorantly rush to judgment.

So am I.

What is it you are doing?

Quote

He’d confessed and had prior problems before he was called.  

"Confessed" to what?

What "prior problems?"

Quote

Do you believe God couldn’t see what he was going to do as MTC president?  

I think God is omniscient.  But that same God that called Judas also called Corianton, and probably George P. Lee, and Amasa Lyman, and Richard Lyman, and so on.

Do you believe God couldn't see what Judas was going to do as an apostle?

Quote

Tell Mckenna Denson that what happened to her was of God!!!

Nobody is suggesting that.  Get a grip.  You should be ashamed.

Quote

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

Nobody is claiming to believe that.  It is a damnably false accusation of your own contrivance.  You are raving.

Quote

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.

Perhaps.  But there is plenty of room for principled disagreement as to God calling people into positions of authority who then commit serious sin.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, JulieM said:
Quote

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.

The abuse of sister missionaries "was not of God."  Nobody disputes that.  Nobody.  So no need to trot out false accusations to the contrary.  Okay?

How do you account for Judas?  Corianton?  Amasa Lyman?  Richard Lyman?  George P. Lee?  Were the callings of all these men necessarily "not of God?"

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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

I don't know.

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

For Christ, he knew God’s plan and was perfect.

And yet He called Judas to be an apostle.  How do you account for that?

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No decision necessary when he knew what to do. 

"No decision?"  He called Judas to be an apostle.  He made a decision.  He may well have known ahead of time that Judas was going to betray him.  And yet He nevertheless called Judas to be an apostle.

How do you account for that?

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But there was a decision process for the leaders who called Bishop.  

Yes, there was.  And I concede that this process includes the possibility, though not necessity, of error re: Bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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.

I honestly don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  

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

Confessed to what?

Confessed to what?

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?

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."

As I said, Smac, you and I have already discussed this.  As I recall you ended with a "that makes sense" when I described how the context of the conversation, in my estimation, demonstrates that Bishop was saying he had previously confessed to misdeeds with women.  I'm convinced enough to suggest the evidence is not so poor, even if in a court of law it may be determined as inadmissible.

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps.

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

I find it a terrible comparison on a number of levels, the main one being the NT story was told long after the players in it were said to have lived, Paul seems to not see Judas as having betrayed, as the story suggests, Judas dies in varying ways according to our gospels.  It should be not taken literally, I'd say.  

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

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

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

Well...and that's what I'm saying.  I'm surprised to see it, even astounded.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Jordan should not have even had it, which only shows the problem was much deeper.  

------

If Jordan was told by a family member/friend and did not have adoption agency records, do you see his own possession of the info as problematic?  If it is, shouldn't the family member/friend be held responsible rather than the Church?

While it is certainly possible that the info was from the FS files, after what toot stated about Utah's rules (and I find it likely most states have similar restrictions) it seems highly unlikely that Jordan would be sharing information from illegally obtained files.

We know her ex husband was contacted at least by the media, makes sense Jordan would also do so given the major accusation Denson made in regard to him in the recording.  He may have had contact with Denson through a daughter (don't know if he is the father or not) and thus known the history.  Or perhaps Jordan talked to her mother or stepfather or siblings if she has any.  "Failed relationships" are listed, this info is unlikely to have come from old FS records or police records, the most likely source for such info would be family.

"She said it took intense sleuthing on her part to find her birth mom."

That sounds like she went looking for family or old neighbours to find where Denson was currently.  Therefore it is likely some in the family, the same people Jordan would likely contact for info about Denson, would be aware of her name.

-------

Quote

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...

Respecting whose privacy

 But what does his second wife's (ex wife actually) first marriage have to do with Bishop's history of problems?  It could have easily been redacted without any impact on Denson's position.

Respecting Bishop's second wife (ex wife) privacy where her life experiences are irrelevant to Bishop's behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

If Jordan was told by a family member/friend and did not have adoption agency records, do you see his own possession of the info as problematic?  If it is, shouldn't the family member/friend be held responsible rather than the Church?

While it is certainly possible that the info was from the FS files, after what toot stated about Utah's rules (and I find it likely most states have similar restrictions) it seems highly unlikely that Jordan would be sharing information from illegally obtained files.

We know her ex husband was contacted at least by the media, makes sense Jordan would also do so given the major accusation Denson made in regard to him in the recording.  He may have had contact with Denson through a daughter (don't know if he is the father or not) and thus known the history.  Or perhaps Jordan talked to her mother or stepfather or siblings if she has any.  "Failed relationships" are listed, this info is unlikely to have come from old FS records or police records, the most likely source for such info would be family.

"She said it took intense sleuthing on her part to find her birth mom."

That sounds like she went looking for family or old neighbours to find where Denson was currently.  Therefore it is likely some in the family, the same people Jordan would likely contact for info about Denson, would be aware of her name.

What family members are you imagining were out there talking about McKenna's child that was put up for adoption?  The ex-husband?  He may not have known anything about her at all.  I think that thought incredible, when the most likely source of the info was otherwise possibly available.  

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

-------

 But what does his second wife's (ex wife actually) first marriage have to do with Bishop's history of problems?  It could have easily been redacted without any impact on Denson's position.

Respecting Bishop's second wife (ex wife) privacy where her life experiences are irrelevant to Bishop's behaviour.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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.

I'm not sure why you would be surprised that I would refuse to claim that I know something that I do not know and don't have any way of knowing.  God can always see what evil people are going to do.   Do good people still get harmed by evil people?  Yes.  What does that tell us?  That God does not always (usually?) intervene to stop it.

And I didn't say that what happened to Denson was of God.  That's a very uncharitable interpretation based on conjecture.  I said that I didn't know if our leaders failed in calling Bishop to his callings.  I don't know that the calling didn't come from God and you don't know it didn't either.  It's your opinion that it didn't come from God and I totally get that.  It's my opinion that mistakes probably were made.

But I will not claim to know the mind and will of God in this case.  I can barely claim to know the mind and will of God in my own life sometimes.  I'm sorry if that disappoints you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure why you would be surprised that I would refuse to claim that I know something that I do not know and don't have any way of knowing.  God can always see what evil people are going to do.   Do good people still get harmed by evil people?  Yes.  What does that tell us?  That God does not always (usually?) intervene to stop it.

And I didn't say that what happened to Denson was of God.  That's a very uncharitable interpretation based on conjecture.  I said that I didn't know if our leaders failed in calling Bishop to his callings.  I don't know that the calling didn't come from God and you don't know it didn't either.  It's your opinion that it didn't come from God and I totally get that.  It's my opinion that mistakes probably were made.

But I will not claim to know the mind and will of God in this case.  I can barely claim to know the mind and will of God in my own life sometimes.  I'm sorry if that disappoints you.

I'm sorry Bluebell to do this, but I am curious.

On the other thread you had said:

Quote

No one should ever think that having a calling or is on it's own God's personal stamp of approval.   I was never taught that growing up and I got the standard typical church upbringing.

Here it seems you are suggesting it's possible God did have influence in calling Bishop.  On the other thread it appears you are arguing that no one should ever think God personally approves of their callings.  Can you please help me make sense of these apparent contradictions?  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God can always see what evil people are going to do.  

Then doesn't it follow that God would not have wanted Joseph Bishop placed in the position of leadership where young girls could be abused by him?  If you believe God could see what was going to happen and it was still His will that Bishop be called, then logic would follow that you believe what happened to Mckenna Denson was God's will. 

I'm not saying that's what you believe (at least I hope you don't), but it's confusing to follow what you're saying here without drawing this conclusion (following through with the logic).  

This is why I firmly believe that Joseph Bishop's calling did not come from God, but was from fallible men who occasionally (and understandably) will make mistakes.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm sorry Bluebell to do this, but I am curious.

On the other thread you had said:

Quote

No one should ever think that having a calling or is on it's own God's personal stamp of approval.   I was never taught that growing up and I got the standard typical church upbringing.

Here it seems you are suggesting it's possible God did have influence in calling Bishop.  On the other thread it appears you are arguing that no one should ever think God personally approves of their callings.  Can you please help me make sense of these apparent contradictions?  Thanks.

I had understood that Bluebell was saying that a person having a calling is not equivalent to having "God's personal stamp of approval" as to that person's spiritual state.

My calling in the Church is X.  Having that calling, however, does not mean all is well with me.  I still need to have faith, repent, serve others, and so on.

I hope Bluebell clarifies.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ALarson said:
Quote

God can always see what evil people are going to do.  

Then doesn't it follow that God would not have wanted Joseph Bishop placed in the position of leadership where young girls could be abused by him? 

Perhaps.  Grappling with omniscience is a tricky thing.

God is omniscient.  He knew Corianton was going to go after Isabel, which would in turn cause harm to the Zoramites (by alienating them from the Gospel message).  Does that mean that Corianton was necessarily not called of God?  Not to me.  It just means . . . that Corianton messed up.  His misused his agency while serving in a sacred office.  That God, being omniscient, knew ahead of time what he would do does not mean that God necessarily did not call Corianton as a missionary.  

You are not accounting for the role of agency in all of this.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If you believe God could see what was going to happen and it was still His will that Bishop be called, then logic would follow that you believe what happened to Mckenna Denson was God's will. 

Nope.  God likewise knew that Judas would betray His Son, but that doesn't mean that Judas' misconduct "was God's will."

The same can be said of Amasa Lyman.  Or Richard Lyman.  And on and on and on.

Again, the role of agency is important here. 

Foreknowledge of X does not equate with approval of X.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not saying that's what you believe (at least I hope you don't), but it's confusing to follow what you're saying here without drawing this conclusion (following through with the logic).  

This is why I firmly believe that Joseph Bishop's calling did not come from God, but was from fallible men who occasionally (and understandably) will make mistakes.

I am open to that possibility.  I am also open to the possibilty that Joseph Bishop's calling did come from God, but that he thereafter materially misused his agency and (apparently) abused some sister missionaries under his care.  Nothing in that requires us to believe that God wanted him to do such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours 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).

That provides zero consolation to the victims.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I had understood that Bluebell was saying that a person having a calling is not equivalent to having "God's personal stamp of approval" as to that person's spiritual state.

I'm not sure I see the difference.  if someone gets a call to be a SS teacher is that person not to take that as a message from God that he/she is "worthy" and in such a spiritual state to fulfill the calling?  I'm perplexed, if you are correct, for her claim that she had never heard it taught that way in Church.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My calling in the Church is X.  Having that calling, however, does not mean all is well with me.  I still need to have faith, repent, serve others, and so on.

I hope Bluebell clarifies.

Thanks,

-Smac

uh...well sure..that goes without saying.  We have to continue to repent and have faith, yes.  

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What family members are you imagining were out there talking about McKenna's child that was put up for adoption?  The ex-husband?  He may not have known anything about her at all.  I think that thought incredible, when the most likely source of the info was otherwise possibly available.  

 

 

The daughter in the quote I provided did not say she had to deal with a bunch of bureaucrats to finout who her mother was, but that she had to do incredible sleuthing to find her.

What do you think that sleuthing entailed?

------

Have you listened to or read the entire transcript?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That provides zero consolation to the victims.

Though the Balm of Gilead provides complete consolation and healing, No?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

Thanks stem!  Rep point right back at ya (wish I could actually give you one!).

Share this post


Link to post

All I want to know is if she met with Pres. Monson many moons ago...why are we and why is she...still dealing with all of this?

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then doesn't it follow that God would not have wanted Joseph Bishop placed in the position of leadership where young girls could be abused by him?  If you believe God could see what was going to happen and it was still His will that Bishop be called, then logic would follow that you believe what happened to Mckenna Denson was God's will. 

I'm not saying that's what you believe (at least I hope you don't), but it's confusing to follow what you're saying here without drawing this conclusion (following through with the logic).  

This is why I firmly believe that Joseph Bishop's calling did not come from God, but was from fallible men who occasionally (and understandably) will make mistakes.

What I believe we can say for absolute certain is that God would not have wanted Bishop to abuse young girls.  What we also know (if we believe the doctrine of the gospel) is that God allows things to happen all the time that He would not want to happen.  But whether or not God would allow Bishop to be put into a position where he could choose betray the trust put in him, I don't know.

Besides that, it sounds like you are talking about the philosophical Problem of Evil-

The existence of evil and suffering in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect God. If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it. And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering.  These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist claim that there exists a perfectly good God. The challenged posed by this apparent conflict has come to be known as the problem of evil.

Here are a couple of logical answers to that problem (these are answers that philosophers find logical and therefore valid.  That doesn't mean that all philosopher's agree with them though)--

Plantinga's Free Will Defense has been the most famous theistic response to the logical problem of evil because he did more to clarify the issues surrounding the logical problem than anyone else. It has not, however, been the only such response. Other solutions to the problem include John Hick's (1977) soul-making theodicy. Hick rejects the traditional view of the Fall, which pictures humans as being created in a finitely perfect and finished state from which they disastrously fell away. Instead, Hick claims that human beings are unfinished and in the midst of being made all that God intended them to be. The long evolutionary process made humans into a distinguishable species capable of reasoning and responsibility, but they must now (as individuals) go through a second process of "spiritualization" or “soul-making,” during which they become “children of God.” According to Hick, the suffering and travails of this life are part of the divine plan of soul-making. A world full of suffering, trials and temptations is more conducive to the process of soul-making than a world full of constant pleasure and the complete absence of pain. Hick (1977, pp. 255-256) writes,

The value-judgment that is implicitly being invoked here is that one who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptations, and thus by rightly making responsible choices in concrete situations, is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virtue…. I suggest, then, that it is an ethically reasonable judgment… that human goodness slowly built up through personal histories of moral effort has a value in the eyes of the Creator which justifies even the long travail of the soul-making process.

Unlike Plantinga's response to the logical problem of evil, which is merely a "defense" (that is, a negative attempt to undermine a certain atheological argument without offering a positive account of why God allows evil and suffering), Hick's response is a "theodicy" (that is, a more comprehensive attempt to account for why God is justified in allowing evil and suffering).

Eleonore Stump (1985) offers another response to the problem of evil that brings a range of distinctively Christian theological commitments to bear on the issue. She claims that a world full of evil and suffering is "conducive to bringing about both the initial human [receipt of God's gift of salvation] and also the subsequent process of sanctification" (Stump 1985, p. 409). She writes,

Natural evil—the pain of disease, the intermittent and unpredictable destruction of natural disasters, the decay of old age, the imminence of death—takes away a person's satisfaction with himself. It tends to humble him, show him his frailty, make him reflect on the transience of temporal goods, and turn his affections towards other-worldly things, away from the things of this world. No amount of moral or natural evil, of course, can guarantee that a man will [place his faith in God].... But evil of this sort is the best hope, I think, and maybe the only effective means, for bringing men to such a state. (Stump 1985, p. 409)

Stump claims that, although the sin of Adam—and not any act of God—first brought moral and natural evil into this world, God providentially uses both kinds of evil in order to bring about the greatest good that a fallen, sinful human being can experience: a repaired will and eternal union with God.

The responses of both Hick and Stump are intended to cover not only the logical problem of evil but also any other formulation of the problem as well. Thus, some of those dissatisfied with Plantinga's merely defensive response to the problem of evil may find these more constructive, alternative responses more attractive. Regardless of the details of these alternatives, the fact remains that all they need to do in order to rebut the logical problem of evil is to describe a logically possible way that God and evil can co-exist. A variety of morally sufficient reasons can be proposed as possible explanations of why a perfect God might allow evil and suffering to exist. Because the suggestions of Hick and Stump are clearly logically possible, they, too, succeed in undermining the logical problem of evil.

So, I don't think that your conclusions about where the logic of my statements must lead are necessarily correct. There are other logical conclusions as well. (I hate how this is suddenly in a large font like the pasted stuff above, but I can't figure out how to change it back.)
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

All I want to know is if she met with Pres. Monson many moons ago...why are we and why is she...still dealing with all of this?

Did she tell Pres. Monson about her abuse?

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That provides zero consolation to the victims.

That comes from the Atonement.  (but I think that you are wrong.  I have known victims who have found great comfort in the above).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did she tell Pres. Monson about her abuse?

I would think so...wouldn't you???   Bluebell,,I love and respect you so much..but sometimes common sense can be your friend!!☺️

Edited by Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Denson personally said that she didn't tell anyone until a few years after it happen and that the first person she told was her YSA bishop.  Are you saying that we should believe that she told Monson despite her claiming that she didn't?

Is that common sense?

Not really..but if you met with an apostle..would you not disclose those thing that most concern you...? 

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...