Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Abulafia]

Abused children for instance will not be able to prove they were abused as children when they are adults. Not unless the perpetrator admits his or her abuse. Historic rape and child abuse are notoriously difficult to prove if the events are denied by the perpetrator. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

How did this turn into a JS court case??

I think it started with the post quoted by Tacenda here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70990-denson-interrupts-bishops-home-ward-testimony-meeting/?do=findComment&comment=1209854961

And then Scott issued a CFR  which led to much more discussion.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

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. 

You do realize she accused two of his sons of being sexual predators as well?  Her claim is Bishop admitted it to her in the transcript, but while he talked about two of his sons, there is nothing even approaching saying they have any morality issues.  It is a complete fabrication on her part.

Why should we assume she speaks the truth even when there is obvious evidence she does not? (Serious question, not a challenge)

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

That's a much more charitable characterization than I would have given.

Mine would have invariably included at least one reference to the logical fallacy of false equivalency. 

 

[Amulek]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

2 hours ago, juliann said:

How did this turn into a JS court case??

I think it started with the post quoted by Tacenda here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70990-denson-interrupts-bishops-home-ward-testimony-meeting/?do=findComment&comment=1209854961

And then Scott issued a CFR  which led to much more discussion.

Almost. I think you've actually got to go just bit farther back to where Abulafia brought up Joseph Smith and his purported criminal record in the first place. 

 

[ALarson]

Just now, Amulek said:

Almost. I think you've actually got to go just bit farther back to where Abulafia brought up Joseph Smith and his purported criminal record in the first place. 

 

She's the one in the quote, right?  Or did she comment before the one I posted?

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

She's the one in the quote, right?  Or did she comment before the one I posted?

You're totally right. I read right over the word "quoted" in your previous post. My apologies - we're in complete agreement.  

 

[Thinking]

On 9/5/2018 at 2:41 PM, Bernard Gui said:

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

Abuse has to be treated differently because there are victims whose wounds may never fully heal. I would place the protection of potential victims above the rights of the abuser.

While Jesus did save the adulterous woman, he also spake these words.

Quote

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:6

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

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. 

I will make a wild guess and say that you have never experienced a false accusation of abuse by you or someone close to you.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Abuse has to be treated differently because there are victims whose wounds may never fully heal. I would place the protection of potential victims above the rights of the abuser.

While Jesus did save the adulterous woman, he also spake these words.

 

I think any wrong may cause a wound that may never fully heal.

Fortunately many victims of abuse can fully heal. 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Abused children for instance will not be able to prove they were abused as children when they are adults. Not unless the perpetrator admits his or her abuse. Historic rape and child abuse are notoriously difficult to prove if the events are denied by the perpetrator. 

I think that is true for any crime that is reported many years after it occurred. 

 

[Abulafia]

42 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Almost. I think you've actually got to go just bit farther back to where Abulafia brought up Joseph Smith and his purported criminal record in the first place. 

 

I did. McKenna Denson has a criminal record. She has no doubt lied and done things that she now regrets, as we all have. Just because she has confessed to leaving out pertinent details or giving misleading information to the police (in the case of her past employment) does not mean she lied or is lying about Joseph Bishop.

Joseph Smith has a criminal record. Joseph Smith lied about a number of issues and also did things he later regretted, but I assume no one who is a faithful member would argue that that discredits all the good and positive things he accomplished, nor that he always lied about everything.  

 

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Abulafia

[Thinking]

18 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think any wrong may cause a wound that may never fully heal.

Fortunately many victims of abuse can fully heal. 

Do you think abuse should not be treated differently than other sins?

[Amulek]

15 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

McKenna Denson has a criminal record.

Agreed. 

 

Quote

She has no doubt lied and done things that she now regrets, as we all have.

Sure. Nobody's perfect. But what I think you're trying to do here is create a false equivalency between McKenna and us all. 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "we all" don't have a history of lying to the police in order to get money from lawsuits. 

 

Quote

Just because she has confessed to leaving out pertinent details or giving misleading information to the police does not mean she lied or is lying about Joseph Bishop.

That's true. Just because she has a long history of making wild accusations for attention and/or money doesn't mean that she is lying in this particular case. 

But that history is pretty dang relevant when it comes to judging her credibility. 

 

[Danzo]

45 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Do you think abuse should not be treated differently than other sins?

Not sure what you mean.

Are we talking crimes or sins?

 

 

[Abulafia]

42 minutes ago, Amulek said:

 

 

 

1.I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "we all" don't have a history of lying to the police in order to get money from lawsuits. 

 

2.That's true. Just because she has a long history of making wild accusations for attention and/or money doesn't mean that she is lying in this particular case. 

3.But that history is pretty dang relevant when it comes to judging her credibility. 

 

1.    I actually said we have all lied at one point or another in our lives, and we have all done things we regret. That's what I wrote, that's what I meant.

2.,  I'm not convinced she has a long history of making wild accusations for attention and/or money, and despite asking on numerous occasions for the sources of information, all I have is McKenna confessing in the employment case from a police report that she left out information and gave misleading responses. I have no way of weighing her credibility on such little information.

3. Do you judge Joseph Smith's credibility on the very worst or the very best of his behaviour?

Ps. Time for bed here in the UK, but I do feel this is flogging a dead horse. Maybe we should just agree to disagree in this instance. I will personally side with the victim, the powerless, the vulnerable whether they are Mormon, 7th Day Adventist, Catholic, Scientologist etc etc.. I'm admitting and acknowledging my bias.

Pps. McKenna's life. might have been a lot easier had her currently worthy and active ex husband paid child maintenance.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Abulafia

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

1.    I actually said we have all lied at one point or another in our lives, and we have all done things we regret. That's what I wrote, that's what I meant.

2.,  I'm not convinced she has a long history of making wild accusations for attention and/or money, and despite asking on numerous occasions for the sources of information, all I have is McKenna confessing in the employment case from a police report that she left out information and gave misleading responses. I have no way of weighing her credibility on such little information.

3. Do you judge Joseph Smith's credibility on the very worst or the very best of his behaviour?

Ps. Time for bed here in the UK, but I do feel this is flogging a dead horse. Maybe we should just agree to disagree in this instance. I will personally side with the victim, the powerless, the vulnerable whether they are Mormon, 7th Day Adventist, Catholic, Scientologist etc etc.. I'm admitting and acknowledging my bias.

Pps. McKenna's life. might have been a lot easier had her currently worthy and active ex husband paid child maintenance.

I dont think anyone has an issue with your stance on Denson; It appears to me that people take issue with is the double-standard you have presented.

Edited September 22, 2018 by provoman

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Fair enough Glenn. Can you put me right?

Did not want to continue that topic in this thread. But you asked. I will do my best. I am assuming from your remarks that you are pretty familiar with the tale. I can provide citaitions though if you CFR me.

Peter Bridgeman swears out a warrant against Joseph Smith.

Constable De Zeng serves the warrant on Joseph. His bill is for $1.25 which includes 19c for serving the warrant and his travel. Travel was only paid one way. That would have him traveling about eighteen miles. At 6c per mile and eighteen miles, that would add up to $1.27 total. Joseph was probably at the home of Isaac Hale when he was arrested as it was about that eighteen mile distance from Bainbridge while Josiah Stowell’s farm was about three miles from town.

De Zeng brings Joseph to town to appear before a magistrate, Neely, as it turns out. Here Joseph would have had to post bail or be committed to gaol until his trial or examination could be held.

The account by Charles Marshall published in Fraser’s Magazine in 1873 has an itemized list of costs for Justice Neely. In that list is one for a 19c mittimus. Just one. I have not been able to determine if there was a jail in South Bainbridge at the time, but that really does not matter. If there was a jail that is where Joseph would have most probably been held, if he had been convicted. If no jail, he would have had to be held elsewhere. Norwich, the county seat and site of the Chenango County jail is a bit over twenty miles away. Oxford is a bit over fifteen miles away. Whatever the case, De Zeng was not taking Joseph to a local jail. He was taking him to one sixteen miles away.

Most speculations that I have read argue that Joseph’s trial was held the next day after his arrest. Dan Vogel has argued that such probably was not the case as Neely’s record notes a date of March 20 for the start of the trial. That was on a Monday and Sunday apprehensions were prohibited except in some felony cases. Moreover, Constable De Zeng also bills the county for subpoenaing 12 witnesses and travel as well as noticing two justices. He could not have been attending to Joseph during those activities. The most logical conclusion is that Joseph was being held in a jail during that period of time.

Whatever the outcome, Neely’s itemized list of costs do not list a thirty seven and one half cent charge for drawing a conviction. As already noted, there is only one charge for a mittimus. Neely would also have needed to issue a second mittimus to have Joseph committed for any sentence, which sentence is not recorded.

According to the “leg bail” theory Joseph was “designedly” allowed to escape with the understanding that Joseph would get out of town. Yet, Dr. Purple says that Joseph hung around for a few more weeks. Then less than a year later Joseph was standing before another Justice of the Peace in South Bainbridge getting married to Emma.

Of course, you do not have to be persuaded by this. You are free to believe as you wish. I do believe that my scenario is a bit more realistic than the leg bail idea.

Glenn

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I will personally side with the victim, the powerless, the vulnerable

Of course we will all say we side with the victim, the powerless, the vulnerable, just as you say. But the question is what if that someone is not a victim, or powerless, or vulnerable?

It's kind of a straw men. No one will disagree with what you said, but the issue is whether what you said applies to the current situation. And when you frame it this way -- either you agree with me and are with victims, or you disagree and are with perpetrators, you are not only creating a false dichotomy but are also poisoning the well.

At least that's what my formal training in logic says (and here, for everyone's pleasure, I commit a logical fallacy  )

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Of course we will all say we side with the victim, the powerless, the vulnerable, just as you say. But the question is what if that someone is not a victim, or powerless, or vulnerable?

It's kind of a straw men. No one will disagree with what you said, but the issue is whether what you said applies to the current situation. And when you frame it this way -- either you agree with me and are with victims, or you disagree and are with perpetrators, you are not only creating a false dichotomy but are also poisoning the well.

At least that's what my formal training in logic says (and here, for everyone's pleasure, I commit a logical fallacy  )

 

So well said.

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

Not sure what you mean.

I am talking about abuse.

If a member is found to have abused children and has repented as far as the church is concerned, do you think that the bishop should allow that member to work with the primary children?

Should the auxiliary leaders be made enough aware to make sure that member is never alone with children?

Is the privacy of the abuser more important than the protection of the children?

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

Are we talking crimes or sins?

I don't think it matters.

[Calm]

“ I'm not convinced she has a long history of making wild accusations for attention and/or money, and despite asking on numerous occasions for the sources of information, all I have is McKenna confessing in the employment case from a police report that she left out information and gave misleading responses. I have no way of weighing her credibility on such little information”

You have the information of her current false accusations of Bishop’s sons.  You can check the transcript itself to see if there is any evidence of this as she claims.

If not there, what does that say about her credibility to you?

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

1.    I actually said we have all lied at one point or another in our lives, and we have all done things we regret. That's what I wrote, that's what I meant.

I’m pretty sure I understood what you were getting at the first time.

 

Quote

2.,  I'm not convinced she has a long history of making wild accusations for attention and/or money, and despite asking on numerous occasions for the sources of information, all I have is McKenna confessing in the employment case from a police report that she left out information and gave misleading responses. I have no way of weighing her credibility on such little information.

Don’t forget about the time she lied about a “restaurant put[ting] razor blades in the icing of a chocolate cake – only for police, doctors and psychologists to say she did it intentionally.” That one is pretty relevant too, and it was in the same article which was referenced earlier. 

So that’s at least two cases (that we know of) which involve her making wild accusations for attention and/or money. And that is ignoring all of the other situations we know about where she has publicly admitted to lying. But I believe you when you say you aren’t convinced. 

Convinced or not though – Denson has a serious credibility problem. 

 

Quote

3. Do you judge Joseph Smith's credibility on the very worst or the very best of his behaviour?

False equivalency. Sorry, but I’m not taking the bait. If someone else wants to go down that rabbit hole with you, they are more than welcome to do so. 

I’ll say this for the record though: If my life was on the line and I had to choose between McKenna Denson and Joseph Smith based solely on trustworthiness, I can say with perfect confidence that I would choose Brother Joseph without hesitation.  

 

Quote

Ps. Time for bed here in the UK, but I do feel this is flogging a dead horse. Maybe we should just agree to disagree in this instance. I will personally side with the victim, the powerless, the vulnerable whether they are Mormon, 7th Day Adventist, Catholic, Scientologist etc etc.. I'm admitting and acknowledging my bias.

I don’t think “sid[ing] with the victim” means that we must just accept everything the victim says as being unquestionably true. 

Just to be clear though: I do believe something inappropriate happened to McKenna Denson. However, based on the evidence currently available, I don’t believe that that “something” was rape. If additional evidence becomes available in the future (e.g., other victims coming forward with evidence of rape or attempted rape) I would be willing to reconsider my opinion. 

 

Quote

Pps. McKenna's life. might have been a lot easier had her currently worthy and active ex husband paid child maintenance.

You’ve mentioned this before, but I don’t see how it’s especially relevant. Are you trying to point out that McKenna might hold some sort of special resentment towards the church because of how her husband was treated – resentment which could, in turn, be construed as motivation for why she might want to sue the organization?

 

[Abulafia]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Of course we will all say we side with the victim, the powerless, the vulnerable, just as you say. But the question is what if that someone is not a victim, or powerless, or vulnerable?

It's kind of a straw men. No one will disagree with what you said, but the issue is whether what you said applies to the current situation. And when you frame it this way -- either you agree with me and are with victims, or you disagree and are with perpetrators, you are not only creating a false dichotomy but are also poisoning the well.

At least that's what my formal training in logic says (and here, for everyone's pleasure, I commit a logical fallacy  )

 

Well. Even Smac believes she is a victim of something untoward with Joseph Bishop. I've already clearly pointed out that I believe her in this instance. I believe her because her behaviour is consistent with someone who has been sexually traumatised in childhood and adulthood. I believe her because there are other victims. Victims who can corroborate her story of inappropriate behaviour by Bishop towards them. 

The way she has been scrutinized both here and in the press because Joseph Bishop's son maliciously releases private and personal information on her. Some true, some not, but even including the name of the daughter she gave away through  LDS social services...highly confidential information...  Information that never should have been put in the public domain because Bishop's son doesn't believe her... Pretty awful..

What does this very thread say to those children or adults who have been sexually abused within Mormonism? If you come forward, if you make it public...we re going to come after you with all guns blazing.  We will analyse every minute detail of your life and in defence of the church we will destroy your credibility.

I'm not arguing that false claims can't be made. Not one bit, but I'm 100% certain Joseph Bishop behaved reprehensibly towards vulnerable and already sexually traumatized women.  He did so as a spiritual leader in a position of trust, put there by men ...men...who should have known better..  particularly if they were in the least aware of his sexual issues..and Elder Wells appears to have been aware of at least some of Bishop's sexual issues. 

I side with Denson on this issue because if there are women lurking out there, or men, who were sexually abused in childhood by church leaders or by, God forbid, parents, that someone will believe them, protect them and support them. They won't be alone. The small percentage of adults who lie about abuse in childhood or in their early youth, are the price I'm willing to pay, if I am wrong.  The majority are not lying.

The fact is that religious organisations, large and small, have been a haven for abusers. A haven. And those institutions have for a number of reasons not dealt effectively with the perpetrators. Those institutions do a lot of good.  Those institutions hold a lot of good people.  That goes without saying, but perhaps I should say it more often personally, no matter the validity of their truth claims.. Hinduism, Judaism..Islam and the great number of Christian communities. 

IICSA was set up in the UK to respond to societal failures in dealing with organisational sex abuse. They covered larger religious organisations but not smaller...(JWs. Mormons. etc)  

Here's their interim report.

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports/interim/foreword

Of those who came forward to the enquiry and who identified the setting, the third largest group where abuse was perpetrated were religious organisations, after the school and home. It's a significant problem.

Here's a quick summary of the issues within the JWs. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/25/jehovahs-witnesses-accused-of-silencing-victims-of-child-abuse-uk

And the thing is, most victims never report.  So we are talking tip of iceberg. 

So forgive me if a commit a 100 logical fallacies. I'm prepared to be mistaken in one case, but would rather be mistaken than give any indication that I will hound a possible abuse victim.

And by the way, those who think I will unquestionably accept any and all accounts...I had to leave a facebook group (basically I was hounded out) because I questioned Kristy Knight/Kristy Allen's claims. Her story was so outlandish that I have difficulty with it.  I may be wrong on Kristy, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

And as for the dossier that smac continuously refers to. I think, reprehensibly (sorry Smac, I know my opinion won't be of any import to you in that sense anyway!), not one of those claims was ever prosecuted. She was never prosecuted. Maybe she was drunk, maybe she was depressed and on medication, maybe she was hurting, I don't know the context..and as the good wiki says *Jordan's dossier says that Denson later retracted her initial accusations on certain occasions as having been false. None of these accusations have been prosecuted*

 

So, it appears she quickly felt bad and came to her senses and owned up. Whatever.  She seems to have got her act together now. She seems empowered. I hope things go right for her.