Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's funny, then why was he found guilty? Did you read the chronological list of his charges? 

Charges are accusations, not judgments.

What charges do you believe he was judged guilty on?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Found guilty? Of what?

It's right there in plain sight from the wiki article that you linked. Or I really do have dementia. Here it is... at the bottom of the c/p.

[Smith said] he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business. [...] And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68.^[7]

Edited September 21, 2018 by Tacenda

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's right there in plain sight from the wiki article that you linked. Of I really do have dementia

One guilty finding of illegal banking (and there is some debate on this), of which he paid the fine.

What other guilty findings do you see?  Remember charges are accusations, you need to look under the "outcome" to see if there was a judgment of guilty.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

One guilty finding of illegal banking (and there is some debate on this), of which he paid the fine.

What other guilty findings do you see?  Remember charges are accusations, you need to look under the "outcome" to see if there was a judgment of guilty.

[Smith said] he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business. [...] And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68.^[7]

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's right there in plain sight from the wiki article that you linked. Or I really do have dementia. Here it is... at the bottom of the c/p.

[Smith said] he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business. [...] And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68.^[7]

 I think you neglected this sentence in the Wikipedia entry:

Quote

However, other contradictory accounts of the trial have also been published^[9][10] which brings the authenticity of the accounts into question.^[8]

As Calm pointed out, you need to look under "Outcome" in the "Table of Events." There, you will find that the outcome in that hearing is "Disputed."

Footnote 8 in the above quotation refers to this article. Clicking on that link and reading the article, you will see this statement:

Quote

The matter of whether or not Joseph Smith was found guilty remains an open question. Fraser's recorded his guilt, but A. W. Benton indicated that, although he was "condemned," because of his youth "he was designedly allowed to escape." Purple contradicted them both, recalling that "the testimony of Deacon Stowell could not be impeached, the prisoner was discharged."²²

 

 

[Abulafia]

Okay, morning here in the UK. I am trying to convert the Church Amicus Brief, which Smac linked to so that I can copy paste.  My husband says I can't without software.

I appreciate exactness and am not opposed to being corrected where necessary, but I feel having read the amicus again, that the response by the groups opposed to the church position is entirely reasonable, so both should be read. I mean, has anyone actually read both the church  amicus brief and the response to it by child protection groups?  

Are we taking the position here that the church amicus is right and correct in all parts, because Kirton and McConkie and thus church leaders approved of it? I believe the child protection groups have it right. Children should be protected, legally, culturally and socially. 

Calm, in the Church amicus.. highlights..

Table of contents.. (that's scrolling down one page on Smac's link to the scribd copy)

Argument II

B. "Imposing a legal standard of care that clerics owe to congregants violates the first amendment" (p8)

C. "A person who is both a clergy member and a secular professional can be held liable for breach of fiduciary duties arising out of his role as a professional but not for duties allegedly arising out of his role as a clergy member"(p10)

Argument IV

A. "The first amendment bars a claim against a church for negligent hiring or retention of a clergy member or a volunteer who performs spiritual functions within a church" (p18)

B. " The first amendment bars a claim against a church for the negligent supervision of a clergy member or unpaid volunteer,  (my bold) but may permit a claim for intentional failure to supervise if the church disregards a known risk of harm" (p22)

So, as the lawyer here, Smac,  when can the church be realistically held to account?

They can claim some form of priest/penitent privilege. They can claim no records are kept (Elder Asay has died in the Denson case - if he were alive he would be claiming priest/penitent privilege) Leavitt says he disbelieved Denson. Their versions of what was discussed differ.  Will Elder Wells be claiming priest/penitent privilege? In historic cases, the church has extended the notion of priest/penitent privilege to cases where there was no confession by the alleged abuser (see Sins of Brother Curtis)

How can *intentional failure to supervise...disregarding  a known risk of harm* be proven in court?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Scott, in the 1826 event, when Joseph was just 20, he was found guilty under examination of being a disorderly person by a justice of the peace. He was bound over but took leg bail, probably at the suggestion of one of the JPs on account of his youth.

Under examination he was found guilty of being a disorderly person and imposter, so the key point is how a *disorderly person* was defined at the time the judgement was made. Disorderly persons were those involved in and making money from -  physiognomy, crafty science, palmistry, pretending to tell fortunes, looking for lost/buried treasures. All of which were illegal under New York Law.

From the records available Joseph was involved in the latter,  which included necromancy. (communicating with the dead to help find the treasure). Although many at the time believed in his abilities, many didn't and felt he was conning people out of money, thus the charges and finding of guilt.

See p340 onward

Volume 1 Family and Mormon Church Roots: Colonial Period to 1820.

By JOHN J HAMMOND

 

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

I mean, one can be kind to Joseph and put forward the suggestion that his family were impoverished through his father's bad business decisions, so he was just trying to make money the best he could.  We could then perhaps be more disposed to kindness towards McKenna, who has been abused by her step father, abused by the mtc president in some manner, got in a bad marriage, a husband who fails to pay child support...just doing the best she can under the circumstances. A flawed human, just like the rest of us.

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Scott, in the 1826 event, when Joseph was just 20, he was found guilty under examination of being a disorderly person by a justice of the peace. He was bound over but took leg bail, probably at the suggestion of one of the JPs on account of his youth.

Under examination he was found guilty of being a disorderly person and imposter, so the key point is how a *disorderly person* was defined at the time the judgement was made. Disorderly persons were those involved in and making money from -  physiognomy, crafty science, palmistry, pretending to tell fortunes, looking for lost/buried treasures. All of which were illegal under New York Law.

From the records available Joseph was involved in the latter,  which included necromancy. (communicating with the dead to help find the treasure). Although many at the time believed in his abilities, many didn't and felt he was conning people out of money, thus the charges and finding of guilt.

See p340 onward

Volume 1 Family and Mormon Church Roots: Colonial Period to 1820.

By JOHN J HAMMOND

 

 

Read the Wikipedia entry and the article linked therein. You’ll find there are conflicting accounts. The result is by no means a settled matter. 

[Abulafia]

Scott. I think it is settled. 

[Abulafia]

And when did Joseph actually find buried treasure? Never. One could argue that the gold plates were buried treasure, but no one got to see them, so even they are not evidence of his abilities to actually find buried treasures, through necromancy or not.

[Abulafia]

I agree there were some confusion between the 1830 and 1826 trials, as I remember, but the overview I gave is pretty sound and kind to Joseph.

[Abulafia]

Joseph Bishop may be a good man in every other respect, but I will not be kind to his actions regarding vulnerable sister missionaries. He targeted damaged goods, if you like. Those that were particularly vulnerable. That's reprehensible in and of itself. 

 

[Abulafia]

Someone,asked if I was prepared to consider whether McKenna exaggerated or lied about her account.

In a sense, it's not relevant. The statute of limitations are such that he is now beyond the law, and the CHI gives wide leeway in how leaders punish historic sin committed many years ago. 

At the time, should and could the church authorities have done more to vet Joseph Bishop, who admits he was the last person who should have been overseeing the tender care of vulnerable sister missionaries? A resounding. YES.

But proving the church was guilty of "intentional failure to supervise...disregarding  a known risk of harm" 

That's going to be difficult to prove in a court of law even if they were in fact guilty.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

And thus, religious institutions of all types will unwittingly protect the abusers and punish victims.

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Digging for money was and is not a crime in New York. Joseph was never charged with that. He was charged with being a disorderly person in 1826 and 1829. The results of the 1826 examination are disputed. The only person who claimed to have been at the trial said that Joseph was acquitted.

There was one incident where Joseph got a bit physical with another person, went to a magistrate and admitted to the affair, then paid the fine. That is the only criminal offense that anyone could specifically point out where Joseph was found guilty, but this was not a case of someone hauling him into court.

Glenn

Ahem ... it's probably best to not use the word "affair" in connection with the clause "got a bit physical with another person."  Doing so causes the minds of some people (although we can certainly debate how weird this particular predisposition might be) to turn to polygamy (to polygyny, actually, if one wants to be a bit technical) and then to ... well, you know. 

And, while disorderly conduct in 2018 probably isn't the same thing that legislators had in mind when using the phrase "being a disorderly person" in the 1820s and 1830s, and while it's in no danger of being successfully challenged or of coming off of the books anytime soon in jurisdictions where it long has been an offense, I'll go on record (as someone who has been charged with it)* as saying that, at least in some cases, it's an unfair, vague, chicken-crap charge to which police and prosecutors resort** when they can't figure out any other reason to arrest somebody for, or to charge somebody with, a crime.  I'll wear this as a badge of pride; I have something in common with Joseph Smith: Both of us were charged with disorderly conduct.  

* Yes, that means I might simply have an axe to grind, so sue me.  I successfully completed a chicken-crap probation for that chicken-crap charge, after which the chicken-crap charge was dismissed with prejudice.  

**Which is not to diminish the respect I have for police and prosecutors generally.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Scott, in the 1826 event, when Joseph was just 20, he was found guilty under examination of being a disorderly person by a justice of the peace. He was bound over but took leg bail, probably at the suggestion of one of the JPs on account of his youth.

Under examination he was found guilty of being a disorderly person and imposter, so the key point is how a *disorderly person* was defined at the time the judgement was made. Disorderly persons were those involved in and making money from -  physiognomy, crafty science, palmistry, pretending to tell fortunes, looking for lost/buried treasures. All of which were illegal under New York Law.

From the records available Joseph was involved in the latter,  which included necromancy. (communicating with the dead to help find the treasure). Although many at the time believed in his abilities, many didn't and felt he was conning people out of money, thus the charges and finding of guilt.

See p340 onward

Volume 1 Family and Mormon Church Roots: Colonial Period to 1820.

By JOHN J HAMMOND

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Read the Wikipedia entry and the article linked therein. You’ll find there are conflicting accounts. The result is by no means a settled matter. 

 

44 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Scott. I think it is settled. 

Ipse dixit?  Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced.    

[Kenngo1969]

53 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

At the time, should and could the church authorities have done more to vet Joseph Bishop, who admits he was the last person who should have been overseeing the tender care of vulnerable sister missionaries?  A resounding YES.
 

 

"Tender care of vulnerable sister missionaries"?  I don't want to minimize anything Joseph Bishop did wrong, but this bit of rhetoric seems designed to paint every sister missionary as a McKenna Denson (though she didn't go by that name back then, from what I understand), but: (1) As bad as anything Bishop might have done was, not every sister missionary is a McKenna Denson; and (2) Many sister missionaries, both then and now, would dispute your infantilization of them by implicitly  characterizing them as vulnerable, defenseless waifs in dire need of protection (though I realize that intrudes on the "Joseph-Bishop-was-a-monster-and-the-Church-knew-it-the-whole-time!" narrative). 

Hindsight is always 20/20, which is why such legal disputes are never about what the parties know now; such disputes are about about what the parties knew then.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

55 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Someone,asked if I was prepared to consider whether McKenna exaggerated or lied about her account.

In a sense, it's not relevant. ...

It is relevant because she made it relevant by suing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now.  Again, I don't want to minimize anything Joseph Bishop did, but it doesn't seem as though any of Ms. Denson's defenders want to hold her accountable for waiting so long after the fact to sue, when evidence will have disappeared, memories will have faded, witnesses will have died, and so on.  Perhaps she has valid (or at least tenable) defenses for her own dishonesty; if so, I'll look forward to hearing them, depending on how far what's left of the case gets in court. 

A person may be a very sympathetic Plaintiff, and many believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by contrast, is a very unsympathetic defendant, but no matter how sympathetic she may be and no matter how unsympathetic her opponent might seem, she doesn't simply get to waltz into court and dismiss her own dishonesty (which, arguably, is a pattern, which is one of the things that makes it relevant) with an airy wave of the hand, as you do here.

 

[Abulafia]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"Tender care of vulnerable sister missionaries"?  I don't want to minimize anything Joseph Bishop did wrong, but this bit of rhetoric seems designed to paint every sister missionary as a McKenna Denson (though she didn't go by that name back then, from what I understand), but: (1) As bad as anything Bishop might have done was, not every sister missionary is a McKenna Denson; and (2) Many sister missionaries, both then and now, would dispute your infantilization of them by implicitly  characterizing them as vulnerable, defenseless waifs in dire need of protection (though I realize that intrudes on the "Joseph-Bishop-was-a-monster-and-the-Church-knew-it-the-whole-time!" narrative). 

Hindsight is always 20/20, which is why such legal disputes are never about what the parties know now; such disputes are about about what the parties knew then.

Kengo. All 4 sister missionaries who were initially interviewed together by Joseph Bishop were victims of childhood sexual abuse. All....4....

 

Bishop whittled it down to 2, and then saw each sister alone. One of the other sisters was sexually molested by Bishop on his own admittance.  She tried to kill herself.

 

That is targetting vulnerable and damaged sister missionaries by someone who was not mentally or physically equipped for the job, and was in fact a serious danger to them.

 

[Abulafia]

Kengo. Those claims against Bishop (rape) have been dismissed because of the statute of limitations.  Bishop is beyond the law whether he raped McKenna or not.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Abulafia

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

And when did Joseph actually find buried treasure? Never. One could argue that the gold plates were buried treasure, but no one got to see them, so even they are not evidence of his abilities to actually find buried treasures, through necromancy or not.

There were witnesses that got to see the plates.

[Abulafia]

Just now, bluebell said:

There were witnesses that got to see the plates.

With their *spiritual eyes* and in a glorious (for them) vision. 

Emma's account is scientifically impossible and I believe she was lying.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Someone,asked if I was prepared to consider whether McKenna exaggerated or lied about her account.

In a sense, it's not relevant. The statute of limitations are such that he is now beyond the law, and the CHI gives wide leeway in how leaders punish historic sin committed many years ago. 

At the time, should and could the church authorities have done more to vet Joseph Bishop, who admits he was the last person who should have been overseeing the tender care of vulnerable sister missionaries? A resounding. YES.

But proving the church was guilty of "intentional failure to supervise...disregarding  a known risk of harm" 

That's going to be difficult to prove in a court of law even if they were in fact guilty.

It is relevant to some because they are wanting to see if you are willing to look past your biases, just as it is important for those arguing for the church to look past biases.. It has nothing to do with the statue of limitations etc.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Rain

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

With their *spiritual eyes* and in a glorious (for them) vision. 

Emma's account is scientifically impossible and I believe she was lying.

and the 11 witnesses?