ALarson Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 9 minutes ago, provoman said: she was up there to advocate a cause - not to give her testimony of the Restored Gospel, which is the purpose of testimony as explained to her in her "There will be no recording" recording. As for "legal right", well once she violated the purpose of the meeting she didnt have any "right" or priviledge. Mckenna Denson had a right to go up and speak. The leaders had the right to stop her once it turned inappropriate. Those are the facts here. I do not agree with what Denson did, but she had a right to go up to the microphone. 2 Link to comment
provoman Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Just now, ALarson said: Mckenna Denson had a right to go up and speak. The leaders had the right to stop her once it turned inappropriate. Those are the facts here. I do not agree with what Denson did, but she had a right to go up to the microphone. she did not have a right when her intent and purpose was to violate the intent and purpose of the meeting. 3 Link to comment
ALarson Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, provoman said: she did not have a right when her intent and purpose was to violate the intent and purpose of the meeting. Sorry, but she certainly did. And the leaders had a right to put a stop to it once they realized what she was saying. I agree, she was wrong to do what she did....but she had the right to go up and speak once the Bishop opened the mic. I'm not going to continue arguing that point. She very definitely had every right to go up (legally, etc.).....but I believe it was good the leaders stopped her (and were within their rights legally, etc.). How they chose to stop her is a bit unfortunate and not how we've been advised to handle these situations, but I'm not going to criticize them for having to act quickly and I think they did what they felt was right. Edited September 7, 2018 by ALarson 1 Link to comment
ksfisher Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 11 minutes ago, ALarson said: So yes, Mckenna Denson has every right to go up once the Bishop opened up the microphone. Is she a member of the church? Link to comment
JulieM Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Is she a member of the church? I don’t think we know for sure, do we? Just like we’re not sure if Bishop is still a member. But we often have had people go up and speak who weren’t members (mainly children or those planning on being baptized who are there with missionaries or who are just taking the discussions). Do they not have the right to go up or would you stop them from speaking? Edited September 7, 2018 by JulieM Link to comment
Popular Post Calm Posted September 7, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) If she wanted to bear a testimony of Christ she could have gone to any ward in the world. That she was in Bishop’s ward, when she lives in Colorado (I think a news article said she flew out) shows her purpose was confrontation. That she threw in a line about her belief that served as a premise to trash leadership does not, imo, qualify any of her talk as a testimony One only has to look at the previous section of the video to see her and Norton mocking to see there was no testimony there but only a setup Edited September 7, 2018 by Calm 6 Link to comment
ksfisher Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 1 minute ago, JulieM said: But we often have had people go up and speak who weren’t members (mainly children or those planning on being baptized who are there with missionaries or who are just taking the discussions). Do they not have the right to go up? It would not seem to do any harm to have them go up, especially as they have no intent to disrupt the meeting. But to say that someone has a "right" to go up seems to be going a bit too far. Where can I read about this "right"? 1 Link to comment
Rain Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 38 minutes ago, provoman said: Part of proving the fraud is showing that the Church had "duty" to inform Denson. The duty aspects raises the issue of if churches are required to disclose the sins of individuals in callings. Second, does the State get to place themselves in the posistion of Clergy and evaluate the repentance of the accused and then make the determination of if the accused should have been in X posistion - I would say such a reveiw is unConstititional as it unlawfully intertwins Goverment into Religious functions. Ahh. That makes sense. Thank you. And Smac, than you too. Link to comment
LoudmouthMormon Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 ALarson, perhaps you could cite some sort of source that backs up your claim that Denson had the right to speak at sacrament meeting? Because common sense, as well as the church's stated security policy, buttressed by private property rights enshrined in our laws, all seem to be conspiring against you... 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 37 minutes ago, ALarson said: Which she did, iirc. Are you claiming she does not have a testimony of Jesus Christ? I'm saying she didn't go there to share her testimony. She went to disrupt the meeting with public accusations of rape. 37 minutes ago, ALarson said: Do you believe one has to believe the Mormon church is true in order to have a true testimony of their Savior, Jesus Christ? That's quite an accusation if that's what you're claiming here, IMO. Meh. There was no good faith in what she did. 37 minutes ago, ALarson said: You're wrong regarding her not having a right to go up to the microphone and speak. She had no right to disrupt the meeting with public accusations of rape, which is why she went to that meeting in that ward building. 37 minutes ago, ALarson said: Once the Bishop opened up the mic, she had as much a right to go up as others in the audience, IMO. Legally, she had every right to go up there. Actually no, she didn't. If you really want to get into the technicalities of the law, she was probably an "invitee," the scope of which she clearly violated. 37 minutes ago, ALarson said: But, when she started speaking too explicitly, the leaders had a right to stop her (and they did). The entirety of her presence was inappropriate. There was no good faith. Her entire and sole purpose was to disrupt the meeting with public accusations against Joseph Bishop. 37 minutes ago, ALarson said: I feel they shouldn't have touched her or handled her like they did, but I think they did what they felt was right at the time. Agree. Heat of the moment error. As opposed to the deliberate and calculated and pre-planned objective of Ms. Denson, which was to disrupt the meeting with public accusations against Joseph Bishop. Thanks, -Smac 3 Link to comment
Calm Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) She makes it clear she is not there to bear testimony of Christ but to confront: Quote NORTON and MCKENNA (Singing): It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood. A beautiful day for a neighbor. Would you be mine? NORTON: Unless you’re Joseph Bishop. We don’t really want you to be our neighbor. NORTON: Look at that! Oh, look at that! Whose church is it? MCKENNA: It’s Joseph Bishop’s ward! NORTON: Oh..my..gosh. Well, we’re gonna have to go say hi to Joseph Bishop. It’s Fast Sunday, isn’t it? MCKENNA: It is Fast Sunday! NORTON: Oh, fantastic! NORTON: This should be fun! MCKENNA: So, if it’s Fast Sunday Mike, should we be…maybe…fasting? And, preparing to … bear our testimony? That we know that the Church protects sexual predators? NORTON: Oh, absolutely. MCKENNA: And pedophiles? And what about Sam Young? And those terrible, terrible bishop’s interviews. So, Mike, when we get in there, I kind of need to use the ladies’ room, and get a little bit of water, if you don’t mind, cause I really want to bear my testimony. MCKENNA: Oh, look! Mike, look! Visitors welcome! Does that mean you too Mike? I guess it means you can come in. NORTON: Could be wrong. I don’t think that includes me. 5 minutes later MCKENNA: Good morning. I'm a visitor. I don't live here, I live in Colorado. I'm really grateful though to be able to stand up and bear my testimony today because I have great confidence and love for the Savior. Edmund Burke said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. The First Presidency and the quorum of the Twelve Apostles are covering a sexual predator that lives in your ward. His name is Joseph Bishop. He was the MTC president in 1984 when he raped me in the basement of the MTC. If you're not aware of this… Edited September 7, 2018 by Calm 1 Link to comment
JulieM Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: It would not seem to do any harm to have them go up, especially as they have no intent to disrupt the meeting. But to say that someone has a "right" to go up seems to be going a bit too far. Where can I read about this "right"? I guess that’s why there’s disagreement here. I think she had the right to go up to the microphone, but agree she should have been stopped once she started saying things not appropriate for kids or for that meeting. 1 Link to comment
JulieM Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm saying she didn't go there to share her testimony. You don’t know that wasn’t part of what she wanted to express. She did open with that, so it was probably at least something she planned on baring testimony of. However, I agree it was mainly to speak about Bishop. 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 12 minutes ago, JulieM said: I don’t think we know for sure, do we? Just like we’re not sure if Bishop is still a member. But we often have had people go up and speak who weren’t members (mainly children or those planning on being baptized who are there with missionaries or who are just taking the discussions). Do they not have the right to go up or would you stop them from speaking? The MormonNewsroom press release describes her as a "former member". Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, JulieM said: You don’t know that wasn’t part of what she wanted to express. Meh. She didn't go there in good faith. She targeted that ward. She went there to disrupt the meeting. She coordinated with others to record her disruption. She went there to publicly accuse one of its congregants of rape. 6 minutes ago, JulieM said: She did open with that, so it was probably at least something she planned on baring testimony of. Pretext. That's all. 6 minutes ago, JulieM said: However, I agree it was mainly to speak about Bishop. Yep. Thanks, -Smac 3 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, ALarson said: Sorry, but she certainly did. And the leaders had a right to put a stop to it once they realized what she was saying. I agree, she was wrong to do what she did....but she had the right to go up and speak once the Bishop opened the mic. I'm not going to continue arguing that point. She very definitely had every right to go up (legally, etc.).....but I believe it was good the leaders stopped her (and were within their rights legally, etc.). How they chose to stop her is a bit unfortunate and not how we've been advised to handle these situations, but I'm not going to criticize them for having to act quickly and I think they did what they felt was right. Speaking to the congregation in any worship service of the Church of Jesus Christ is a privilege, not an entitlement. And “a legal right”? Where do you get this stuff? Even in a city council meeting, there is no unfettered legal right to speak. And this was no government meeting or public hearing. Edited September 7, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 3 Link to comment
ksfisher Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, JulieM said: I think she had the right to go up to the microphone Ok, so from where is this right that you and ALarson allege she has derived? Edited September 7, 2018 by ksfisher 1 Link to comment
ALarson Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: She had no right to disrupt the meeting with public accusations of rape, which is why she went to that meeting in that ward building. And that's when the leaders had the right to stop her (which they did). But that does not change the fact that she had a right to go up. I'm not changing my opinion here....so let's agree to disagree on that. Link to comment
smac97 Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: And that's when the leaders had the right to stop her (which they did). But that does not change the fact that she had a right to go up. No, she didn't. She had no right to disrupt the meeting. That she preceded her inflammatory remarks with some pretext of religiosity doesn't work. 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: I'm not changing my opinion here....so let's agree to disagree on that. I'm good with that. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
JulieM Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: ALarson, perhaps you could cite some sort of source that backs up your claim that Denson had the right to speak at sacrament meeting? It was a fast and testimony meeting that was opened up to the audience to come up and speak. I really hate what she did and I’m glad they cut her off and removed her. But I think legally she had the right to go up once it was an open mic and the invitation went out. Too bad we don’t really know what the bishopric member specifically stated because then we may know if she was outside who he invited up. I’ve heard some be quite specific and others just say something like “the time is now yours...” Edited September 7, 2018 by JulieM 1 Link to comment
ALarson Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, JulieM said: It was a fast and testimony meeting that was opened up to the audience to come up and speak. I really hate what she did and I’m glad they cut her off and removed her. But I think legally she had the right to go up once it was an open mic and the invitation went out. Too bad we don’t really know what the bishopric member specifically stated because then we may know if she was outside who he invited up. I’ve heard some be quite specific and others just say something like “the time is now yours...” All very true. But even when we do specify "baptized members of the church", we still get others who come up and we allow them to speak, of course....unless it turns disruptive as it did in the case with Denson. We also try to specify how important it is to bare testimony, but nearly every month we get those come up who speak without really baring a testimony. We've even given lessons on what it actually means to bare testimony! I'm off of here now....but think I've expressed how I feel regarding all of this anyway I'll try to check back in later.... Link to comment
ksfisher Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, JulieM said: Too bad we don’t really know what the bishopric member specifically stated because then we may know if she was outside who he invited up. So the bishopric is supposed to announce that anyone is welcome to share their testimony as long as they don't have the intent of disrupting the meeting? Really? 2 Link to comment
JulieM Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Speaking to the congregation in any worship service of the Church of Jesus Christ is a privilege, not an entitlement. And “a legal right”? Where do you get this stuff? Even in a city council meeting, there is no unfettered legal right to speak. I think you do if the person in charge invites people up to speak and makes it an open mic meeting. I’d imagine they can stop anyone from being disruptive though (as was done here too) Link to comment
provoman Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: Is she a member of the church? No she is not. Link to comment
ksfisher Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, provoman said: No she is not. Exactly Link to comment
Recommended Posts