Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Abulafia]

38 minutes ago, Rain said:

Before I looked in on this thread I wondered if it would be another post of Smac replying to you with link after link. Many of these I have seen at least 1/2 a dozen times if not a dozen.  I don't always see things the way he does,  but one thing he did very well is linking those sources.   If you go back a page or 2 and more you will find these links.  If you find something he says without a reference I would be surprised. If you do then please list it because I think he would be happy to link it for you. 

Rain. I am referring specifically to McKenna's criminal background, which Smac has continuously pointed out, severely damaged her credibility. I have gone through all 18 pages (ugh). He refers to events..cancer, razor blades, but has provided no references that I can see.

I know the church lawyers compiled a dossier on her which I believe Bishop's son made public, and she and her lawyers responded and denied some of it.

"In a brief phone conversation, the accuser said LDS Church lawyers had prepared an extensive dossier on her background. She refused to address specific allegations but said, "Some of it's true. A lot of it isn't."
The woman referred further questions to her attorney, Craig Vernon, who said trauma from sexual abuse led, in part, to his client's troubles. He would not address particular events except to acknowledge that she had fabricated the alleged rape in Washington, D.C.
"Like many survivors of sexual assault, she has struggled her entire life," Vernon said. "She has cried out for help. She has done things she regrets ... This has been a big smear campaign against my client."
Vernon said he is preparing a lawsuit and urged other women to come forward if they were victimized. "

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2018/03/24/amid-quiet-life-chandler-explosive-sexual-assault-allegations-hit-mormon-leader/449975002/

What Smac appears to be referring to are allegations?

McKenna openly admits to the rape claim (no one named) while under duress as a missionary. She has also admitted to petty shoplifting and an ongoing case with an ex-boyfriend.
 

 

 

[Abulafia]

38 minutes ago, provoman said:

https://fox13now.com/2018/03/21/family-of-former-lds-mission-president-accused-of-sexual-assault-responds-to-allegations/
 

only addresses some, I did not know those things either 

European laws won't allow me to access the link. The best I can find is the one from Az Central..

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

European laws won't allow me to access the link. The best I can find is the one from Az Central..

iwill cut and paste later

[Amulek]

36 minutes ago, provoman said:

iwill cut and paste later

Here you go...

https://fox13now.com/2018/03/21/family-of-former-lds-mission-president-accused-of-sexual-assault-responds-to-allegations/

Quote

Bishop's family told Fox 13 they question the woman's claims because of her "long history of false accusations and criminal activity."

The family sent Fox 13 documents that list more than a half a dozen times the accuser claimed she was sexually or physically assaulted.

One of those incidents was in 1999, where the woman claimed she was assaulted in a parking lot by two men, then asserted legal claims against her place of work for failing to have proper security.

Police reports show the case was unfounded and states, "the complainant has confessed to providing misleading and incomplete information... "

There was another claim of sexual assault made 10 years earlier while on her mission. The accuser says she was struggling with what Bishop did to her and wanted to go home.

Woman: "Pretended somebody in the [expletive] parking lot tried to rape me, because I was having an anxiety attack and I didn't want to tell anybody."

Other incidents ranged from allegedly lying about cancer treatments for money, forging prescriptions, and DUI. Police documents show the woman also claimed a restaurant put razor blades in the icing of a chocolate cake—only for police, doctors and psychologists to say she did it intentionally.

 

[Abulafia]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

Here you go...

https://fox13now.com/2018/03/21/family-of-former-lds-mission-president-accused-of-sexual-assault-responds-to-allegations/

 

Thanks. So lots of *alleged*. I feel very uncomfortable  with the victim shaming here. The unwritten message is, *If you litigate against us, whether the claims are true or not, (and even Smac acknowledges that there is enough evidence for sexual assault) we will go after you, guns blazing*. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Abulafia

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Thanks. So lots of *alleged*. I feel very uncomfortable  with the victim shaming here.

And I am very uncomfortable with attempts to censor and stifle discussion.

Ms. Denson's checkered past and allegations against her are as open for discussion and analysis as are the checkered past and allegations against Joseph Bishop.  Perhaps even more so.  She is the plaintiff in the lawsuit, after all.  The evidentiary burden is on her, not on Joseph Bishop (or the Church).

Nobody is attempting to "shame" or blame Ms. Denson for what Joseph Bishop apparently did to her (the scope of which is still very much in dispute).  But she put herself in the public sphere.  She filed a lawsuit.  She has put her allegations out there for public scrutiny.

Quote

The unwritten message is, *If you litigate against us, whether the claims are true or not, (and even Smac acknowledges that there is enough evidence for sexual assault) we will go after you, guns blazing*. 

First, I have not acknowledged that.  Person A showing Person B pornography is not, I think "sexual assault," which by definition involves "unwanted physical contact."  I have not acknowledged that Joseph Bishop committed an assault, and in fact have stated many, many times that my present assessment is that Joseph Bishop's misconduct - while extremely serious and offensive and wrong - was not rape or attempted rape.  Rather, my present assessment is that Leavitt's statement (that Ms. Denson reported that Bishop showed her and another missionary pornography) is likely accurate.  If that assessment is correct, then what Bishop did was vile and utterly reprehensible.  Evil.  But it was not "sexual assault."

Second, you are again attempting to stifle discussion.  You are attempting to put McKenna Denson's past shady behaviors outside the parameters of acceptable public discussion.  Well no, that simply will not do.  You don't get to do that.  She put her allegations out for public discussion.  She has based those allegations almost entirely on her personal credibility.  Her personal credibility is therefore open for public discussion and analysis.

Third, Ms. Denson's past behaviors are relevant.  Rule 404(b)(2) of the Utah Rules of Evidence provides that evidence of past misconduct "may be admissible ... [for] proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident."  McKenna Denson has a history of using deceit and lies for financial gain.  Identity theft.  False claim of being pistol-whipped in an attempted kidnapping.  False claim of razor blades in the icing on a cake.  Fake claims of cancer treatment.  These things are open to discussion when evaluating McKenna Denson's "motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge," etc.

Fourth, her other behaviors also bring her credibility into serious question.  She admits to a false rape claim.  Her ex-husband references a second false rape claim.  She went on a broadcast and laughed it up while she described, in loving detail, the many detailed lies she told so effectively to many people while arranging her "interview" with Joseph Bishop.  She laughed.  She took pleasure in publicly bragging about how skilled she is at deceiving people.  And yet here you are, trying to stifle legitimate discussion of these issues.

Fifth, you are infantalizing McKenna Denson.  Not cool.  She is an adult.  She has made public claims in a court of law.  Those claims are up for discussion.  And since she is basing those claims almost entirely on her personal credibility, her personal credibility is up for discussion, too.

Sixth, you will note that, AFAICS, nobody has been discussing McKenna Denson's sexual history.  And nobody has alleged that she "asked for it," or that she is somehow to blame for Joseph Bishop's misconduct.  So no "victim shaming" by any reasonable use of that term.  Instead, the discussion of her character has been almost entirely about her credibility and honesty, or the lack thereof.  This is a fair and legitimate area of inquiry.  And you are trying to stifle it.

Seventh, you and yours have been fine with assessing Joseph Bishop's character based mostly on or extrapoloated from generally unvetted/uncorroborated stories about his past.  So you'll understand if I am not much moved by your present Captain Renault impersonation about people using similar resources to assess the credibility of McKenna Denson.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Thanks.

No problem. Sorry it isn't easier for you to access directly. 

 

Quote

So lots of *alleged*.

Depends on how you read it. I count six incidents in that snippet: 

1. False claim of physical outside of restaurant
2. False claim of rape while on her mission
3. False claim of razor blades in cake
4. Lying about cancer treatments for money
5. Forging prescriptions
6. Driving Under the Influence

Of those six incidents, half are backed up either by her own statements or by official police reports in the article itself. 

The other three are a little trickier because it depends on how you read the sentence "Other incidents ranged from allegedly lying about cancer treatments for money, forging prescriptions, and DUI."

I read "allegedly" in this sentence as applying only to "lying about cancer treatments for money," but I suppose others could interpret it as applying to all three. I suspect that my reading is correct though because the document evidently included police reports, and it would be easy to include police reports for anything that she would have been busted on by law enforcement (i.e., the forgery and DUI incidents). 

 

Quote

I feel very uncomfortable  with the victim shaming here. The unwritten message is, *If you litigate against us, whether the claims are true or not, (and even Smac acknowledges that there is enough evidence for sexual assault) we will go after you, guns blazing*. 

I don't think it's fair to characterize investigating Denson's past in this case as victim shaming. You have a case here which largely depends on the credibility of the witness, and it turns out that this witness just happens to have a history of making false statements in order to make money. I hope you can see how that might be relevant here.

  

Edited September 19, 2018 by Amulek

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Thanks. So lots of *alleged*. I feel very uncomfortable  with the victim shaming here. The unwritten message is, *If you litigate against us, whether the claims are true or not, (and even Smac acknowledges that there is enough evidence for sexual assault) we will go after you, guns blazing*. 

If a case largely rests on the credibility of the victim, then investigating the victim's credibility is a relevant and reasonable thing to do.  It's not victim shaming.

[Abulafia]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If a case largely rests on the credibility of the victim, then investigating the victim's credibility is a relevant and reasonable thing to do.  It's not victim shaming.

Okay. I think it is victim shaming, her lawyer thinks it's victim shaming.  I don't have access to any criminal background records so I have little idea as to whether the *dossier* compiled on McKenna is rumour, gossip, allegation and whether she was found innocent or guilty in a court of law. 

Smac continues to list why he believes she is not a credible character without links to sources and court decisions.

I do feel uncomfortable  with what I believe to be victim shaming, and I believe we will find that a meeting with Asay did occur, and that Leavitt was lying for some unfathomable  reason.

 

If all this occurred before any criminal activity McKenna may or may not have engaged in, then her criminal activity is irrelevant imho.

 

[provoman]

14 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Okay. I think it is victim shaming, her lawyer thinks it's victim shaming.  I don't have access to any criminal background records so I have little idea as to whether the *dossier* compiled on McKenna is rumour, gossip, allegation and whether she was found innocent or guilty in a court of law. 

Smac continues to list why he believes she is not a credible character without links to sources and court decisions.

I do feel uncomfortable  with what I believe to be victim shaming, and I believe we will find that a meeting with Asay did occur, and that Leavitt was lying for some unfathomable  reason.

 

If all this occurred before any criminal activity McKenna may or may not have engaged in, then her criminal activity is irrelevant imho.

 

So a person who claims to be a victim cannot be questioned because questioning is victim shaming.

Have you heard of the REID interview style? In their traing videos they show actual interviews where alleged victims of sexual assault and crimes against the person confess to making a false claim.

As for unsourced claims:

"One of those incidents was in 1999, where the woman claimed she was assaulted in a parking lot by two men, then asserted legal claims against her place of work for failing to have proper security.

Police reports show the case was unfounded and states, "the complainant has confessed to providing misleading and incomplete information... "

.....

Other incidents ranged from allegedly lying about cancer treatments for money, forging prescriptions, and DUI. Police documents show the woman also claimed a restaurant put razor blades in the icing of a chocolate cake—only for police, doctors and psychologists to say she did it intentionally."

You even admit that Denson would likely make a false report, so if someone is likely to make a false report, why is it forbidden to question credibility or to show a history of false reports?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Okay. I think it is victim shaming, her lawyer thinks it's victim shaming. 

They are trying to censor and stifle discussion, that's all.

Just as you are trying to do here.

Again, nobody has been blaming or faulting McKenna Denson for what Bishop apparently did to her.  

But you are attempting to give Ms. Denson carte blanche to say pretty much anything she wants, and that anything other than uncritical acceptance of whatever she says is "victim shaming."

I reject that.  I find it unreasoned and unreasonable.  Ms. Denson put her claims out for public discussion.  She bases her claims almost entirely on her personal credibility, which therefore puts her credibility out for public discussion.  You are trying to stifle and censor such discussion by inaccurately and unfairly labeling it as "victim shaming."

It won't work.  Not here.

Quote

I don't have access to any criminal background records so I have little idea as to whether the *dossier* compiled on McKenna is rumour, gossip, allegation and whether she was found innocent or guilty in a court of law. 

Ah.  Are you similarly clueless about the conduct of Joseph Bishop?  Or have you been relying on "rumour, gossip, allegation" and so on to make an assessment of him and his behavior?

Quote

Smac continues to list why he believes she is not a credible character without links to sources and court decisions.

I've provided tons of links in other threads and posts.  See, e.g., here and here and here and here.

Quote

I do feel uncomfortable  with what I believe to be victim shaming, and I believe we will find that a meeting with Asay did occur, and that Leavitt was lying for some unfathomable  reason.

I am curious as to why you believe these things.

I am open to these things coming out.  We'll have to see what the ex-husband has to say (whether he corroborates Ms. Denson's story about meeting with Elder Asay).  And if he corroborates her story, I'll revise my assessment.

Quote

If all this occurred before any criminal activity McKenna may or may not have engaged in, then her criminal activity is irrelevant imho.

Her "criminal activity" involve instances of deceit and dishonesty for financial gain (as well as her other misconduct, such has the multiple detailed lies she told to multiple people when setting up her meeting with Joseph Bishop, and her subsequent delight in publicly bragging about how skilled she was at deceiving people with these detailed lies).  Such things are very relevant to assessing her credibility.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[lostindc]

Denson's approach was inappropriate, but I can understand why she did what she did, especially if her claims are true.  Denson should ditch New Name Noah. 

I can understand why leadership is apprehensive to formally discipline Bishop.  I imagine they might want to see how everything plays out..BUT...If it's true that the Church made settlements with other victims of Bishop, then I don't even know what to say.  I am hoping there's no other victims, and likewise no settlements.  If there's other Bishop victims and the Church chose to excommunicate Sam Young over Bishop then I don't know what more we need to see to know that something is really messed in the COB.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Denson's approach was inappropriate, but I can understand why she did what she did, especially if her claims are true.  Denson should ditch New Name Noah. 

Sam Young should also ditch him.  "He who lies down with dogs..." and all that.

Ms. Denson and Sam Young have aligned themselves with one of the vilest anti-Mormons alive today.  The meaning and significance of these associations is not lost on the members of the Church.  We get it.

3 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I can understand why leadership is apprehensive to formally discipline Bishop.  

So can I.  Discipline is an unpleasant thing.  Unpleasant, but sometimes necessary.  This is why the Church has a portion of the Handbook that deals with when discipline is "mandatory."  When the local leaders are deprived of their otherwise broad discretionary authority, and are required to convene a council.

Nevertheless, church law appears to require that a council be convened against Bishop.  Frankly, we don't know that this hasn't happened (though on balance I suspect it has not, as word would probably have gotten out).  Moreover, I am not sure that a council would result in an excommunication.  Bishop has denied the misconduct, and we don't know if the purported victims are willing to appear and testify (or provide a written letter).  These are procedural requirements that cannot be overlooked.  

3 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I imagine they might want to see how everything plays out..

Perhaps so.  Disciplinary matters based on criminal misconduct are often delayed when a prosecution is pending.  

3 minutes ago, lostindc said:

BUT...If it's true that the Church made settlements with other victims of Bishop, then I don't even know what to say.  

Yes.  If the Church had knowledge of Bishop's misconduct prior to the MTC and then called him to be president of the MTC anyway, that would be very troubling.

3 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I am hoping there's no other victims, and likewise no settlements.  If there's other Bishop victims and the Church chose to excommunicate Sam Young over Bishop then I don't know what more we need to see to know that something is really messed in the COB.

Apples and oranges, I think.  "The COB" is generally not involved in disciplinary matters at the local level.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lostindc]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sam Young should also ditch him.  "He who lies down with dogs..." and all that.

Ms. Denson and Sam Young have aligned themselves with one of the vilest anti-Mormons alive today.  The meaning and significance of these associations is not lost on the members of the Church.  We get it.

So can I.  Discipline is an unpleasant thing.  Unpleasant, but sometimes necessary.  This is why the Church has a portion of the Handbook that deals with when discipline is "mandatory."  When the local leaders are deprived of their otherwise broad discretionary authority, and are required to convene a council.

Nevertheless, church law appears to require that a council be convened against Bishop.  Frankly, we don't know that this hasn't happened (though on balance I suspect it has not, as word would probably have gotten out).  Moreover, I am not sure that a council would result in an excommunication.  Bishop has denied the misconduct, and we don't know if the purported victims are willing to appear and testify (or provide a written letter).  These are procedural requirements that cannot be overlooked.  

Perhaps so.  Disciplinary matters based on criminal misconduct are often delayed when a prosecution is pending.  

Yes.  If the Church had knowledge of Bishop's misconduct prior to the MTC and then called him to be president of the MTC anyway, that would be very troubling.

Apples and oranges, I think.  "The COB" is generally not involved in disciplinary matters at the local level.

Thanks,

-Smac

The COB is involved in several of the high profile disciplines.  When I get time, I can link evidence displaying COB helped guide the excommunication process of Kelly and Dehlin.  I suspect Sam Young had COB involvement.

From what I am hearing, the Church knew about the other claims against Bishop and settlements were reached with other victims.  I imagine the inappropriate behavior of the MTC president reached the COB.  I can't imagine a local bishop is left to handle the discipline of an MTC president.  

[Kenngo1969]

50 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Okay. I think it is victim shaming, her lawyer thinks it's victim shaming.  I don't have access to any criminal background records so I have little idea as to whether the *dossier* compiled on McKenna is rumour, gossip, allegation and whether she was found innocent or guilty in a court of law. 

Various news organizations have reported on the incidents detailed in the dossier.  Do you think those news organizations care so little about maintaining their credibility that they are willing to rely less on information contained in such official records as police reports (not to mention the prospect that officials who write police reports care so little about their credibility) and more on "rumour, gossip, and allegation"?

Quote

Smac continues to list why he believes she is not a credible character without links to sources and court decisions.

He wouldn't have access to official records such as police reports unless he were representing someone who is being prosecuted or unless, somehow, such reports were relevant to the case of someone he were representing in a civiI proceeding.  Otherwise, he's limited to the same sources of information to which anyone else has access.  You can continue to assert that he has, sans evidence, made (therefore unfounded) allegations against Ms. Denson if you wish.  However, it would seem that your problem with him is not that he doesn't have evidence to back up his claims, but, rather, that he interprets that evidence differently than you do.  

Quote

I do feel uncomfortable  with what I believe to be victim shaming, and I believe we will find that a meeting with Asay did occur, and that Leavitt was lying for some unfathomable  reason.

I see.  So, on the one hand, it seems that you feel completely at ease dismissing serious questions about Ms. Denson's credibility as mere "victim shaming" when, in a podcast, she herself has bragged about her ability as a liar, nonetheless, to win the credibility of others, on the one hand while, on the other hand, you also feel completely at ease without any evidence whatsoever dismissing Ron Leavitt as a liar.  Gotcha.  Thanks for clearing that up.  

Quote

If all this occurred before any criminal activity McKenna may or may not have engaged in, then her criminal activity is irrelevant imho.

Generally, prior criminal history of a witness or of a victim may or may not be admissible, depending upon the jurisdiction and on the purpose for which the information is sought to be used.  However, prior acts involving dishonesty  are nearly always relevant in determining a person's credibility in proceedings in a court of law. 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

 her lawyer thinks it's victim shaming. 

Quick tip.

Saying that someone's lawyer agrees with them doesn't really help the argument.

The Lawyer is paid to agree with, and advocate for their client.  That is the nature of the client attorney relationship. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

The COB is involved in several of the high profile disciplines.  When I get time, I can link evidence displaying COB helped guide the excommunication process of Kelly and Dehlin.  

And yet the disciplinary councils of both were handled at the local level.

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

I suspect Sam Young had COB involvement.

Not sure what "COB involvement" means.

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

From what I am hearing, the Church knew about the other claims against Bishop and settlements were reached with other victims.  I imagine the inappropriate behavior of the MTC president reached the COB.  I can't imagine a local bishop is left to handle the discipline of an MTC president.  

First, he's a former MTC president, not a currently-acting one.  Hence the local leaders have jurisdiction.

Second, Bishop is a high priest, so it would be the stake president, not the bishop, that convenes a disciplinary council.

Third, I am not aware of any provision in church law that allows someone other than a stake president to convene a disciplinary council of a person situated like Joseph Bishop.  So I can't imagine a stake president not being left to handle the discipline of Joseph Bishop.

Now, it may be that the COB has made inquiries.  It may be that the COB has made efforts to ensure that the local leaders are complying with the guidelines in the Handbook.  These things aren't remotely problematic in my view.  

But I think you are insinuating that "the COB" was "involved" to the extent that it engineered a pre-determined outcome of the disciplinary councils for Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and Sam Young.  Is that what you are implying?  If so, I'd like to see your evidence of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lostindc]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet the disciplinary councils of both were handled at the local level.

Not sure what "COB involvement" means.

First, he's a former MTC president, not a currently-acting one.  Hence the local leaders have jurisdiction.

Second, Bishop is a high priest, so it would be the stake president, not the bishop, that convenes a disciplinary council.

Third, I am not aware of any provision in church law that allows someone other than a stake president to convene a disciplinary council of a person situated like Joseph Bishop.  So I can't imagine a stake president not being left to handle the discipline of Joseph Bishop.

Now, it may be that the COB has made inquiries.  It may be that the COB has made efforts to ensure that the local leaders are complying with the guidelines in the Handbook.  These things aren't remotely problematic in my view.  

But I think you are insinuating that "the COB" was "involved" to the extent that it engineered a pre-determined outcome of the disciplinary councils for Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and Sam Young.  Is that what you are implying?  If so, I'd like to see your evidence of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am exactly insinuating that the COB was involved.  Do you believe that the excommunications of figures such as Dehlin and Kelly had no involvement from higher-up leaders than the local leadership?  If you find out the COB was involved would that change anything?  For me, it didn't change much, except it shows the our leadership in SLC doesn't want involvement in these high profile cases for whatever reasons.

Also, we don't know the timeline of the Church first receiving the accusation(s) against Bishop and also when settlement occurred.  We will learn more in the future, but it may be that Bishop was already released prior to receipt of any accusation, and likewise, any settlement.  If the Church settled, and then allowed Bishop to continue on in various callings, especially leadership callings where he could be in one-on-one interviews, then the Church has a major problem.  

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I am exactly insinuating that the COB was involved.  

Again, I don't know what you mean by "the COB was involved."  Involved in an untoward, inappropriate, thumb-placed-on-the-scales kind of way?

Quote

Do you believe that the excommunications of figures such as Dehlin and Kelly had no involvement from higher-up leaders than the local leadership?  

As I said: "Now, it may be that the COB has made inquiries.  It may be that the COB has made efforts to ensure that the local leaders are complying with the guidelines in the Handbook.  These things aren't remotely problematic in my view."

Quote

If you find out the COB was involved would that change anything?  

Again, I don't know what "the COB was involved" means.

Quote

For me, it didn't change much, except it shows the our leadership in SLC doesn't want involvement in these high profile cases for whatever reasons.

I don't understand this.

Quote

Also, we don't know the timeline of the Church first receiving the accusation(s) against Bishop and also when settlement occurred.  

Yep.  In fact, the only evidence we have that "settlement{s}" even exist is a statement from McKenna Denson.

Quote

We will learn more in the future, but it may be that Bishop was already released prior to receipt of any accusation, and likewise, any settlement.  If the Church settled, and then allowed Bishop to continue on in various callings, especially leadership callings where he could be in one-on-one interviews, then the Church has a major problem.  

Yes.  "If."  I'm not going to lose much sleep over this.  Way too speculative at present.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[lostindc]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Again, I don't know what you mean by "the COB was involved."  Involved in an untoward, inappropriate, thumb-placed-on-the-scales kind of way?

As I said: "Now, it may be that the COB has made inquiries.  It may be that the COB has made efforts to ensure that the local leaders are complying with the guidelines in the Handbook.  These things aren't remotely problematic in my view."

Again, I don't know what "the COB was involved" means.

I don't understand this.

Yep.  In fact, the only evidence we have that "settlement{s}" even exist is a statement from McKenna Denson.

Yes.  "If."

Thanks,

-Smac

You need to understand that when I respond to you, it's only for others to see that some members will do what you're doing to defend the Church no matter the situation, and this includes implementing rhetorical devices.  I am using you as an example, for lurkers, to get a chance to see what it's like to discuss very serious issues with some LDS members, only to have games played and messengers attacked.  I hope you get that.  I hope you understand that these posts you make will be viewed years from now.  I hope you're proud of these posts and you feel like you approached the situation of one-on-one worthiness interviews with integrity and your eye on keeping the youth safe.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, lostindc said:

You need to understand that when I respond to you, it's only for others to see that some members will do what you're doing to defend the Church no matter the situation,

I haven't defended the Church "no matter the situation."

Quote

and this includes implementing rhetorical devices.  

I don't know what this means.

Quote

I am using you as an example, for lurkers, to get a chance to see what it's like to discuss very serious issues with some LDS members, only to have games played and messengers attacked.  

I am not playing games, nor am I attacking messengers.

We're having, or attempting to have, a rational and reasoned discussion about a controversial topic.

Quote

I hope you get that.  

I don't.  You seem to be trying to personalize this thread.  

Quote

I hope you understand that these posts you make will be viewed years from now.  

Yes, I understand that.  I'm comfortable with that.

This is not to say that I am without regrets as to things I have said here.  That happens.  I admit that I sometimes struggle to maintain civility when I see my religion under relentless attack.  That struggle is augmented when I see people who claim to be members of the Church join hands with its critics and opponents in relentless faultfinding against the Church, in endlessly assuming the worst about the Church, in imputing the worst possible motives onto the leaders and members of the Church, in vilifying the Church, in disregarding all the good and wonderful things it does.  And I really struggle with seeing these things done by purported members of the Church who do these things while hiding behind pseudonyms.

I need to work on this.  I really do.  I need to exercise more patience with this behavior, no matter how execrable it is.

And sometimes I write things that I later regret that arise from immaturity or pique on my part.  Nothing noble or justifiable.  Again, I need to work on such things.

Quote

I hope you're proud of these posts and you feel like you approached the situation of one-on-one worthiness interviews with integrity and your eye on keeping the youth safe.

Meh.  You're just trying to personalize this thread.  Not cool.

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[lostindc]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't defended the Church "no matter the situation."

I don't know what thismeans.

I am not playing games, nor am I attacking messengers.

We're having, or attempting to have, a rational and reasoned discussion about a controversial topic.

I don't.  You seem to be trying to personalize this thread.  

Yes, I understand that.  I'm comfortable with that.

Meh.  You're just trying to personalize this thread.  Not cool.

-Smac

It's not personalizing, as much as saying, are you happy with your posts?  Do you like your posting approach to worthiness interviews?

I don't know who you are, but your posting approach is a good example of a version of apologetics (I have no label to stamp on this version), that's not just within Mormonism, but within so many other realms.  Very much reminds of the Phaedrus.  

[smac97]

Just now, lostindc said:

It's not personalizing, as much as saying, are you happy with your posts?  

Um, yes, you are personalizing.  You are talking about me, not about the subject of this thread.

Just now, lostindc said:

Do you like your posting approach to worthiness interviews?

Again, you are talking about me, not about the topic.  

Just now, lostindc said:

I don't know who you are, but your posting approach is a good example of a version of apologetics (I have no label to stamp on this version), that's not just within Mormonism, but within so many other realms.  Very much reminds of the Phaedrus.  

Again, you are talking about me, not about the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lostindc]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Um, yes, you are personalizing.  You are talking about me, not about the subject of this thread.

Again, you are talking about me, not about the topic.  

Again, you are talking about me, not about the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is New Name Noah the topic of this thread?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

Is New Name Noah the topic of this thread?

He's affiliated with McKenna Denson and Sam Young, and so has been referenced in that context.

In contrast, you have now devoted several threads specifically about me.  You are trying to personalize this thread.  Let's not do that.

Thanks,

-Smac