Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And it's pretentious every time

But I'm hardly "apoplectic" about it. Still, I'm glad I occupy so much space in your mind that you can't help but mention me whenever you see a latin phrase. It's kinda sweet. HAPPYJACKWAGON IS . IN . THE . HOUSE!!!

Well, to that I say quid pro quo, caveat emptor, carpe diem and e pluribus unum.

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Scott. I think it is settled. 

What is settled?

 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Quote

I think the suggestion is that you seem to be A) ignoring the impact of her past problematic behavior on her credibility, while also B) uncritically condemning Joseph Bishop based on allegations regarding his past problematic behavior.

So how is it that Joseph Bishop's (purported) past misconduct is probative in establishing his character, but McKenna Denson's (purported) past misconduct is not probative in establishing her character?

Thanks,

-Smac

Because most of it occurred after she spoke to Asay and Leavitt. 

She says she spoke with Elder Asay.  We have no record of it.  Elder Asay is dead.  And her bishop at the time (Leavitt) denies telling anyone about her allegations or setting up a meeting with Elder Asay.  And Ms. Denson herself states that she did not disclose the purported rape to Elder Asay.  And Leavitt also says that Ms. Denson's allegations against Joseph Bishop involved him showing her pornography, not committing rape or attempted rape.

So lots and lots and lots of problems here, which lead us back to a need to assess Ms. Denson's credibility.  We can't presently conclude that "she spoke to Asay" about rape or attempted rape.  We have to take her word for it.  To take her word for it, we have to gauge her present credibility and character.  Gauging her present credibility and character means looking at her past behavior.  Her past behavior appears to include many, many instances of patently dishonest conduct on her part (and these are just the ones that have been publicly disclosed).

McKenna Denson is making claims now.  It is her present credibility that matters, right?  Whether she is telling the truth now matters, surely.

We have seen allegations of misconduct attributed to Joseph Bishop.  These allegations of past misconduct are fairly relevant to our determination of his credibility/character.

We have also seen allegations of misconduct attributed to McKenna Denson.  These allegations of past misconduct should also be fairly relevant to our determination of her credibility/character.

And yet for you, you disregard (in even apparently resent and object to) any discussion of allegations regarding Ms. Denson's past misconduct, but you simultaneously appear to have no problem with condemning Joseph Bishop based on allegations regarding his past misconduct.

That seems quite inconsistent.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 21, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, to that I say quid pro quo, caveat emptor, carpe diem and e pluribus unum.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

In flagrante delicto.

In hoc signo, vinces.

Semper ubi sub ubi.

😀

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 21, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

In flagrante delicto.

In hoc signo, vinces.

Semper ubi sub ubi.

😀

Thanks,

-Smac

And, of course, that ever faithful idiom, semper fidelis. 

Our language is so much richer for the presence of stock Latin phrases. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

I find it interesting that we are having a public discussion about McKenna Denson's allegations in this thread, which pertain to decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct against a prominent person (Joseph Bishop, former president of the MTC) that have only recently been published to the world.  It also happens that the allegations arise in an environment that involves a heavy partisan divide (regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).  It also happens that Ms. Denson's claims appear to be getting a lot of attention specifically because of this partisan divide.  

More recently, there has been a public discussion about a person named Christine Blasey Ford and her decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct against a prominent person (Brett Kavanaugh, Pres. Trump's candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court) that have only recently been published to the world.  It also happens that the allegations arise in an environment that involves a heavy partisan divide (regarding the political differences between Republicans and Democrats).  It also happens that Dr. Blasey Ford claims appear to be getting a lot of attention specifically because of this partisan divide.  

With that context, I present the following article:

Quote

Do Democrats Really Believe Christine Blasey Ford Doesn’t Have to Prove Her Claims?
By DAVID FRENCH | September 20, 2018 3:05 PM

It sure seems that way.

Yep.  Similarly, to critics of the Church really believe that McKenna Denson doesn't have to prove her claims?  It sure seems that way.

Quote

There is something extremely curious about the course of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual-assault controversy thus far. At least based on the evidence and her conduct through today, Christine Blasey Ford seems to be making minimal effort to prove her case. In fact, with a strong assist from her Democratic allies, she seems to be making every effort not to prove her case. Absent an FBI investigation that’s not forthcoming and not necessary, she’s refusing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in essence asking that a single, unsworn letter be allowed to stand as the heart and soul of a claim that could alter history and destroy a man’s reputation.

Democrats are only too happy to play along.

Similarly, I think critics and opponents of the Church "are only too happy" to uncritically accept the entirety of Ms. Denson's allegations.  Primarily, I suspect, because her allegations damage the Church and its reputation.

It is a terrible thing that sexual abuse happens in our society.  But it's here, and we need to deal with it as best we can.  But the uncritical acceptance of the entirety of Ms. Denson's claims appears to owe its existence to partisan hostility.

FWIW, I am persuaded that Ms. Denson was abused in some serious way by Joseph Bishop.  The present quantum of evidence is fairly clear that something very untoward happened.  However, I find substantial problems with many parts of Ms. Denson's narrative.  Her credibility is very poor.

Quote

At the foundation of our system of justice is the notion that accusers don’t just have to state a case against the accused, they have to prove their case. The burden of proof varies depending on the situation. At one end is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal trial. At the other is the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard of civil court. But in virtually any court, when a person first states their case against an accused, that is just the beginning of the process of proof.

Thus, when you hire an attorney as a plaintiff, it is to go on offense, to build your case, to substantiate your claims. What you cannot do — under any circumstances, in any competent court — is file your complaint, refuse to submit to questioning, fail to produce additional evidence or witnesses, and hope to prevail. In such circumstances, your case will be dismissed as a matter of law, tossed out of court for legal insufficiency — especially if, as in Ford’s case, not even the initial claim is submitted under oath.

Much of this can and should be applied to Ms. Denson and her claims.  She is obligated to "build {her} case," to "substantiate {her} claims."  What she (and her supporters) cannot do is to expect/demand everyone to uncritically Ms. Denson's say-so as the unvarnished truth.

Decades-old allegations presented in a hostile, partisan environment are inherently problematic.  Emotions are high.  Resentments are strong.  Biases and ulterior motives are perhaps in play.  All the more reason to be more circumspect, not less, when evaluating such claims.

Thanks,

-Smac 

Edited September 21, 2018 by smac97

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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.

Point well made on your "Ahem." I should have said, walloped.

The 1819 version of "A New Conductor Generalis" for the state of New York gives us the following information about disorderly persons on pages 108 and 109.

Quote

DISORDERLY PERSONS. By statute, all persons who threaten to run away and leave their wives and children to the town; All who unlawfully return to the town from whence they have been legally removed by order of two justices, without a certificate from the town where they belong; All idle persons not having wherewith to maintain themselves; All who go about or place themselves in the streets, to beg in th« town where they dwell; All jugglers; All who pretend to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretend to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found; All who run away and leave their wives or children whereby they become chargeable; All persons wandering abroad or lodging in taverns, beer-houses, out-houses, market places or barns, or in the open air, and not giving a good account of themselves;All persons wandering abroad and begging; All persons not having visible means of livelihood; And all common prostitutes, shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons. 1 H. L. 1813. p. 114.

I would assume that the "All who pretend to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretend to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found;" was the portion under which Joseph was arrested.

Glenn

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I would assume that the "All who pretend to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretend to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found;" was the portion under which Joseph was arrested.

And not juggling?

[Glenn101]

9 hours 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]

Tacenda, you are quoting from an account published in a couple of different magazines. This was supposedly from a page torn from Justice Neely's daybook by his niece, Emily Pearsall. However, the original is not available for inspection as to who actually wrote the account and where it came from. No way to check handwriting against the known handwriting of Justice Neely or anyone else.

A Doctor William D. Purple claims to have been a close friend of Justice Neely and that Justice Neely invited him to take notes. Joseph was brought up on charges of being a "disorderly person." According to New York Statues in force at the time, a person could be deemed disorderly for a variety of reasons, one of which included " ll who pretend to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretend to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found." That is probably the part upon which Joseph's arrest was based.

In any event, Doctor Purple claimed that Joseph was acquitted on the basis of Josiah Stowell's testimony. None of the others who have weighed in on that even claimed to have been present. But, since there is no official record of the verdict extant, a person can believe what they wish.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

36 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

And not juggling?

Would have to look up juggling. But I need to get off this because it is not on topic. Maybe need to open another thread (again) on that.

 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Would have to look up juggling. But I need to get off this because it is not on topic. Maybe need to open another thread (again) on that.

 

I was being facetious.

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re entitled to your opinion, but it ignores the historical record. 

No. It takes account of the historical record. Fair argues that with regard to the 1826 pre trial examination "Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts"

That's simply not true. YES they can, and they did. The cost of mitimus is also strong evidence in the case that Joseph was bound over for the special court session, but that he took leg bail.

Anyway, I don't share the evangelical vigour for seeing this account negatively. 

Out of interest, the Ashmolean in Oxford has a whole exhibition on magic in English history at the moment that deals with rural approaches to life and religion. The cunning men were widely respected even if vilified by the church.

https://www.ashmolean.org/spellbound?gclid=Cj0KCQjwrZLdBRCmARIsAFBZllHdFnvnRAJoGkoxE6vKELYnYG5X8HKJmobuykeJA2VxD4iSfHR25EwaAvt_EALw_wcB

[Abulafia]

*The exhibition asks us to examine our own beliefs and rituals, and aims to show how, even in this sceptical age, we still use magical thinking and why we might need a bit of magic in our lives.*

[Glenn101]

44 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I was being facetious.

Sorry, did not catch that. You maintain such a stoic face, hard to read your emotions. 😎

In any event, juggling was hardly the person we envision as performing in a circus or on stage. It evidently pertained to one who performed sleight of hand tricks designed to part one with some of their hard earned money.

Glenn

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Sorry, did not catch that. You maintain such a stoic face, hard to read your emotions. 😎

In any event, juggling was hardly the person we envision as performing in a circus or on stage. It evidently pertained to one who performed sleight of hand tricks designed to part one with some of their hard earned money.

Glenn

But it's funnier to imagine jugglers, with bowling pins in the air, having hand-cuffs slapped on them and hauled off to jail.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

No. It takes account of the historical record. Fair argues that with regard to the 1826 pre trial examination "Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts"

That's simply not true. YES they can, and they did.

I'd be interested in hearing how you arrive at this conclusion.

Quote

The cost of mitimus is also strong evidence in the case that Joseph was bound over for the special court session, but that he took leg bail.

Per FAIR: 

Quote

Wesley P. Walters has demonstrated that this is not a trial. The Constable's charges of "19 cents attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail' ...and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction, twenty-five cents." [4]

...

4.  Wesley P. Walters, "Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y. Court Trials," The Westminster Theological Journal 36:2 (1974), 140, note 36.

Not even Wes Walters - one of the most zealous critics of the Church in its history - agreed with you.

Interestingly, this 1972 article in BYU Studies quotes Wes Walters at reaching a contrary conclusion:

Quote

Walters's second find was a bill by the local constable, Philip DeZeng, dated 1826, which indicates taht not only was a warrant issued for Joseph Smith's arrest but also a mittimus, which Walters believes must have been issued after the trial ordering the sheriff to escort Joseph out of the county.  Walters contends that the mittimus thus proves that Joseph Smith was found guilty.

The footnotes associated with the above quote point to references published in 1971.  I wonder what happened between 1971 and 1974 (when Walters's above article in the Westminster Theological Journal was published).

7 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Anyway, I don't share the evangelical vigour for seeing this account negatively. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Glenn101]

21 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

That's simply not true. YES they can, and they did. The cost of mitimus is also strong evidence in the case that Joseph was bound over for the special court session, but that he took leg bail.

Please explain the part I bolded. I think that if you may be mistaken about the purpose of the mitimus.

Glenn

[Abulafia]

10 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

 

 

This is how I described the 1826 event Smac.  I even quoted the book from which I took the information.

As to whether JoP's could pronounce a guilty verdict..

"" In the Revised Statutes of the State of New-York, 1829, page 709, we read: "If it shall appear that an offence has been committed, and that there is probable cause to believe the prisoner to be guiltythereof, the magistrate shall bind by recognizance the prosecutor, and all the material witnesses against such prisoner, to appear and testify at the next court having cognizance of the offence, and in which the prisoner may be indicted."

I mean, we can be measly with words here, but Neeley appears to have found Joseph guilty and thus bound him over to face trial in a higher court, but on account of his youth (20) quietly advised him to make a run for it, which he did. 

[Abulafia]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Please explain the part I bolded. I think that if you may be mistaken about the purpose of the mitimus.

Glenn

Fair enough Glenn. Can you put me right?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

No. It takes account of the historical record.

There are conflicting records as to whether a guilty verdict was delivered, as noted in the Wikipedia entry. You are ignoring these conflicting sources (and ignoring what I already posted to Tacenda) and dogmatizing on one.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

How did this turn into a JS court case??

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

How did this turn into a JS court case??

From somebody posting the calumny about Joseph Smith having "a criminal record" and was "thrown into jail" and was "found guilty' of being a "money digger."

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sure.

Here is the link. And here was her question:

Abulifa, do you require the same standard of pronouncing guilt when it comes to Bishop, Leavitt, Church, leadership, and Joseph Smith?

It takes a jury, if enough evidence is available, to convict and pronounce innocence or guilt

  

This question has still not been answered. 

[Abulafia]

My approach is to believe the victim. That McKenna has a criminal background does not mean she is lying about Bishop. My sympathy lies with the abused, the vulnerable and the powerless.