Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pogi

Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Should she have stayed away from her religious community?

Only if she doesn't want to get stoned ;)

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Only if she doesn't want to get stoned ;)

Here in Washington, that is a desirable thing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or get a hook like the old vaudeville shows....or a big gong like The Gong Show.

Don't have to get a gong...surely there is a key on the organ that will work.  Love making use of available resources to solve problems.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think we should add a trap door right behind the pulpit that drops you into a tank full of ravenous piranhas and give the Bishop the button to open it. Problem solved.

Instead of piranhas, don't you mean the Rancor Beast?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I reckon there are a lot of things people have done that if they were exposed to the public would make ward members uncomfortable around them. Isn't that what repentance is all about? I'm thinking about a woman who was caught in the act of adultery and whose life was saved by Jesus. Should she have stayed away from her religious community?

She repented or so it seems to me.  There is good evidence that Bishop never did t least to a full extent, imo (his surgery was seen as God giving him absolution) in that he blamed his sins whatever they were on his first wife not loving him enough.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Don't have to get a gong...surely there is a key on the organ that will work.  Love making use of available resources to solve problems.

Yes I think th organs have pregrommed music

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I reckon there are a lot of things people have done that if they were exposed to the public would make ward members uncomfortable around them. Isn't that what repentance is all about? I'm thinking about a woman who was caught in the act of adultery and whose life was saved by Jesus. Should she have stayed away from her religious community?

When it comes to abuse of children, then parents have the right to be uncomfortable having a person in the ward.  But otherwise, I agree with you.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When it comes to abuse of children, then parents have the right to be uncomfortable having a person in the ward.  But otherwise, I agree with you.  

I don't think he should be required to stay away, but the question was who it would help if he did, not if it was right or wrong.

There could be those that do not currently have control over their emotional responses sufficiently to ignore or use his presence as a chancecto grow emotionally and spiritually.  Perhaps a recent victim of abuse whose feelings are still completely immediate and raw.  I don't think having to see a confessed abuser is helpful in such a case.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've seen claims that he resigned his membership but I don't know if that's true. It doesn't make sense to me that he would resign. IIRC- the church maintains the right to hold a DC even if the person resigns first as a way to avoid the DC.

Yes, but the Church also can just allow the individual to resign.  The end result is the same, after all.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I feel for the bishop too. It's a hard position to be in. I was in a situation when my ward was forewarned about a former member going through out the area claiming she was a prophet and making problems in nearby wards. So we developed a plan in anticipation of her showing up at our building and getting up in a meeting. Part of that plan was to NEVER lay hands on the woman. If she made it to the rostrum we planned to cut the mic, ask her to leave, call the police if she refused. We also planned to excuse the entire congregation if she (or any other person) attempted to hijack a meeting.

Yes, that would by my plan, too.  

Unless she represents an immediate physical threat, not touching her would have been better.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand why you think that may be problematic, but why keep the entire congregation in there to hear her rantings or see her removed by police? It diffuses the situation so that it impacts the fewest people possible. It turns out we never had to implement the plan, thank goodness. But the point is we were prepared with a plan based on our best understanding of handbook instructions. If we weren't prepared and hit with this kind of situation it would be very hard to do the wise thing on the fly.  I hate to say it, but ward leadership really should be prepared for disruptive individuals. This isn't a new thing, but I don't see it going away.

On balance, these incidents are very rare.  I could understand the bishop, in the moment, making a (relatively minor) error in making physical contact with her.

Your course of action is very sensible.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

. It doesn't make sense to me that he would resign. IIRC- the church maintains the right to hold a DC even if the person resigns first as a way to avoid the DC.

The claim was he did it to avoid an excommunication.  In his situation, I think an excommunication would be all the confirmation needed for members and I see it as highly unlikely it wouldn't get out...but who knows?  Otoh, resigning can be imagined for multiple reasons including offended that his leaders would accuse him of abuse.

However, if that was him and it certainly looked like him to me (though I am not good at facial recognition), it would be strange to be attending if he resigned for being in disagreement with the Church on their treatment, but I suppose he could just be caring about PR purposes in .Utah where the lawsuit was being tried, maybe he came back after the dismissal and wants to pretend like nothing happened.  Maybe his son who was first advising him and being such a poor representative (suffered badly from foot in mouth) told him to.

 It is also possible his name was removed from the ward directory and membership records to avoid harassment of ward members and inappropriate access by disaffected members with the right passwords.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IIRC- the church maintains the right to hold a DC even if the person resigns first as a way to avoid the DC.

I believe this has changed.  If the person wished to rejoin the church, however, whatever took place to would have necessitated a disciplinary council would need to be resolved first.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but the Church also can just allow the individual to resign.  The end result is the same, after all.

Yes, that would by my plan, too.  

Unless she represents an immediate physical threat, not touching her would have been better.

On balance, these incidents are very rare.  I could understand the bishop, in the moment, making a (relatively minor) error in making physical contact with her.

Your course of action is very sensible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, but I think the reason for holding a DC even if the person attempts to resign first, is to keep a paper trail for follow up should the person every try to rejoin the church.

The leaders involved in deciding whether or not to readmit someone for baptism might view resignation and excommunication differently. For example, if Joseph Bishop decided he wanted to be baptized and receive his priesthood/temple blessings back, I think he would have an easier time if he had resigned instead of being excommunicated as a sxual predator. With a DC there are all kinds of notes about the behavior/accusations against the person whereas resignation simply has a brief note from the individual with no explanation about why.

Quote

KSFisher- I  believe this has changed.  If the person wished to rejoin the church, however, whatever took place to would have necessitated a disciplinary council would need to be resolved first.

But with a resignation there wouldn't be any record of what needed to be resolved because that process was bypassed. A person could request rebaptism without ever even admitting to the behavior that could have gotten him X'd

Edited by HappyJackWagon

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, but I think the reason for holding a DC even if the person attempts to resign first, is to keep a paper trail for follow up should the person every try to rejoin the church.

Yes, but this is a very prominent disciplinary matter.  And Joseph Bishop is 85 years old.  Not much need for a paper trail for this one.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The leaders involved in deciding whether or not to readmit someone for baptism might view resignation and excommunication differently. For example, if Joseph Bishop decided he wanted to be baptized and receive his priesthood/temple blessings back, I think he would have an easier time if he had resigned instead of being excommunicated as a sxual predator.

Frankly, I am not sure there is sufficient evidence for an excommunication.  All we have is Ms. Denson's say-so, and her say-so is poor.  Plus I doubt she would participate in a disciplinary council, and even if she was willing, I don't think the local leaders would be so foolhardy as to trust her to behave.

In the absence of a confession from Bishop, I don't know that an excommunication would happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

Quite possibly there are a number of persons in the ward who are extremely uncomfortable around a man who has confessed to asking a woman to expose herself and appears currently comfortable, even eager to talk about his former wives in disrespectful ways.  I imagine any survivors of sexual abuse risk being triggered by seeing him.

These may be able to focus better if he stays home and receives any ministering there.

I don't think shunning our fellow sinners is the solution.

We have a brother in our ward who was convicted of child sexual abuse (registered sex offender) who attends our ward.   Most people seem fine with it.  There were a few (some with a past history of abusive situations) that were a bit uncomfortable with the idea, but they seem to be fine with it  now.  (Bishop had a meeting to explain that this person could not be alone with children). I had a meeting recently with another person who is awaiting sentencing for a felony (Financial in nature, not sexual) and It went fine.

We need to be careful to follow the Saviour's council in third Nephi to not forbid people from attending our meetings just because they have sinned. 

Edited by Danzo
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've seen claims that he resigned his membership but I don't know if that's true. It doesn't make sense to me that he would resign. IIRC- the church maintains the right to hold a DC even if the person resigns first as a way to avoid the DC.

I feel for the bishop too. It's a hard position to be in. I was in a situation when my ward was forewarned about a former member going through out the area claiming she was a prophet and making problems in nearby wards. So we developed a plan in anticipation of her showing up at our building and getting up in a meeting. Part of that plan was to NEVER lay hands on the woman. If she made it to the rostrum we planned to cut the mic, ask her to leave, call the police if she refused. We also planned to excuse the entire congregation if she (or any other person) attempted to hijack a meeting. I understand why you think that may be problematic, but why keep the entire congregation in there to hear her rantings or see her removed by police? It diffuses the situation so that it impacts the fewest people possible. It turns out we never had to implement the plan, thank goodness. But the point is we were prepared with a plan based on our best understanding of handbook instructions. If we weren't prepared and hit with this kind of situation it would be very hard to do the wise thing on the fly.

I hate to say it, but ward leadership really should be prepared for disruptive individuals. This isn't a new thing, but I don't see it going away.

Another good plan would be to cut the mike and invite the chorister to lead the congregation in song (maybe Hope of Israel, or something like that) until the disrupter leaves and rejoicing ensues.  The louder she talks, the louder the organ gets, and the louder we sing!  That would have been the best YouTube video ever to see her voice drowned by united voices of the congregation, all on their feet, praising their God as she quietly slips away with her tail between her legs.     

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

When it comes to abuse of children, then parents have the right to be uncomfortable having a person in the ward.  But otherwise, I agree with you.  

Was he accused of child abuse?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

She repented or so it seems to me.  There is good evidence that Bishop never did t least to a full extent, imo (his surgery was seen as God giving him absolution) in that he blamed his sins whatever they were on his first wife not loving him enough.

We don’t know all that has gone on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Don't have to get a gong...surely there is a key on the organ that will work.  Love making use of available resources to solve problems.

The trumpet stop on our organ is really obnoxious. I could honk on that for a while....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Rising_Darkness said:

Curious - Do you have a reference for that?

The laws covering that differ from state to state, but the laws are usually similar in nature.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/disorderly-conduct.htm ,

"Disturbing an assembly: Interrupting a city council meeting, a public rally, or religious ceremony can be enough to qualify as disorderly conduct."  "Disorderly conduct is almost always punished as a misdemeanor offense."

In Utah, for example, "Disorderly conduct is a class C misdemeanor (punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $750) if the offense continues after someone has requested that the defendant stop doing whatever he or she is doing. Otherwise, it is an infraction."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Was he accused of child abuse?

No, I was speaking in generalities.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've seen claims that he resigned his membership but I don't know if that's true. It doesn't make sense to me that he would resign. IIRC- the church maintains the right to hold a DC even if the person resigns first as a way to avoid the DC.

 

I thought the church changed this policy?  Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Instead of piranhas, don't you mean the Rancor Beast?

No, those things have too high a failure rate. A piece of bone and a skull can kill them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, but I think the reason for holding a DC even if the person attempts to resign first, is to keep a paper trail for follow up should the person every try to rejoin the church.

The leaders involved in deciding whether or not to readmit someone for baptism might view resignation and excommunication differently. For example, if Joseph Bishop decided he wanted to be baptized and receive his priesthood/temple blessings back, I think he would have an easier time if he had resigned instead of being excommunicated as a sxual predator. With a DC there are all kinds of notes about the behavior/accusations against the person whereas resignation simply has a brief note from the individual with no explanation about why.

But with a resignation there wouldn't be any record of what needed to be resolved because that process was bypassed. A person could request rebaptism without ever even admitting to the behavior that could have gotten him X'd

Scary thought to me, to think someone could get away with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Here in Washington, that is a desirable thing.

Okay...I laughed.

  • Like 1

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...