Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[clarkgoble]

22 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. 

I think there's a pretty big difference between what's legal and what's appropriate. I think the Bishop clearly didn't handle it terribly well. Given that these sorts of things are becoming more common - cameras and all - probably the Church should have an explicit policy and training on disruptions. In the past it's typically just been people with mental illness saying uncomfortable things. These days it's seeming like F&T meeting is being used by critics of the Church, much like sustaining in General Conference has been for some years.

Probably what we need is the Bishop to be prepared to cut off the mic and have a mic he can talk into to address the crowd. I'm not sure how many chapels are set up for that. That'd seem to solve much of the issue though. I'm sure the Church and their legal team can figure out a policy for what to do if people don't sit down and become even more agitated and disruptive.

[Calm]

According to a friend, in a podcast with Derek Clements, Denson states she barely believes in God, which would make her  "great confidence and love" for the Savior a sham, imo.  

Anyone here listened to it?

-----

edit:  I realized in rereading this, this is not what I meant to say....more accurate to my thought, this possibility underlines the impression I got when watching the whole video that the "testimony" was a staged piece, her expression of "great confidence, etc." sounds scripted to me.  The possible lack of belief in God has an impact on me because I would expect a more complicated belief to be presented in a less simplistic way if a sincere presentation of testimony.  So it instead comes across as a political statement, probably helped to get there by her finale of "I am McKenna Denson and I approve of this message".

Edited September 8, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

According to a friend, in a podcast with Derek Clements, Denson states she barely believes in God, which would make her  "great confidence and love" for the Savior a sham, imo.  

Anyone here listened to it?

Her character just keeps shining through.

Have not listened to the Derek Clements podcast.

[ALarson]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

According to a friend, in a podcast with Derek Clements, Denson states she barely believes in God, which would make her  "great confidence and love" for the Savior a sham, imo.  

Anyone here listened to it?

I know of many people who do not believe in "a God" or who some term "the Mormon God" (and can certainly understand if she does not believe that God leads and directs the leaders of the church), but who still believe in Jesus Christ.  Does that mean she does not have "great confidence and love" for the Savior (which is what she testified of, not a belief in God)?

I know of people who believe in "a creator" (not specifically "a God") who very definitely believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings.  I think it's not good for us to pass judgement regarding this with her unless she's been more specific than what you quote.  Are you really ready to call her belief in Jesus Christ "a sham"?  I'm not (especially not "according to a friend" who listened to a podcast that I've not listened to myself).

Edited September 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Prof]

17 hours ago, provoman said:

 

I wish I knew about procedural things. In Mckennas "There will be no recording of conversations" recording, she says "We are not going to settle" - context settlement instead of going to trial - yet it was David Jordan on behalf of the Church that filed for a jury trial

With respect to the recording of the conversation between her and Stake President Jones, does anyone know if Arizona is a one party consent or a two party consent of recording conversations? I know that it varies by state. Not sure what the law is there.

[Jeanne]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

According to a friend, in a podcast with Derek Clements, Denson states she barely believes in God, which would make her  "great confidence and love" for the Savior a sham, imo.  

Anyone here listened to it?

All this and her changes in life could have been avoided if someone had just done the right thing the first time.  We can all sit here and blame her for all kinds of things...but  don''t forget that she tried many times to make things right...to no avail..her life surely changed.  Some people dropped the ball on the very importance of said chastity and obedience to church leaders...she would have been better off if the CHI had been tossed to wind...and someone actually looked for evidence many years ago.  Whatever she does...should it even mean that she should shoot herself in her own foot...none of us will ever understand in church that is so understanding.

[provoman]

20 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

All this and her changes in life could have been avoided if someone had just done the right thing the first time.  We can all sit here and blame her for all kinds of things...but  don''t forget that she tried many times to make things right...to no avail..her life surely changed.  Some people dropped the ball on the very importance of said chastity and obedience to church leaders...she would have been better off if the CHI had been tossed to wind...and someone actually looked for evidence many years ago.  Whatever she does...should it even mean that she should shoot herself in her own foot...none of us will ever understand in church that is so understanding.

Lets say that in 1987 she did talkef to Asay and by 1988, Bishop was excommunicated, and rebaptized in 1995.

It is none of her business or right to know what happened.

 So come 2010 she still would have made the death threat, because in 2010 it was still not her right to know what if any action the Church had taken. Fast forward to Dec 2017, she still would have lied to get Bishops information, she would have lied to Bishop she would have recorded Bishop - he may or may not have told her he had been ex'd

She still would have filed a lawsuit. Her suit is about what happened in 1984 and what the Church about Bishop prior to her going to the MTC.

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by provoman

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

Lets say the in 1987 she did talj to Asay and by 1988, Bishop was excommunicated, snd rebaptized in 1995.

It is none of her business or right to know what happened.

None of her business?  He sexually abused (or allegedly raped) her when she was a sister missionary in the MTC and she has every right to follow up and know if he was held accountable for what he did.

Of course it is absolutely the abuse victim's  business to know what type of punishment her abuser received and it is very much a part of the healing process for most victims.

She may not be privy to everything that took place during the disciplinary court (as that is confidential).  But it's definitely her business regarding if or how he was held accountable for what he did to her after she reported it.

Do you believe he abused her?  (Honest question....you don't have to answer if you choose not to and I'll respect that too).

Edited September 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know of many people who do not believe in "a God" or who some term "the Mormon God" (and can certainly understand if she does not believe that God leads and directs the leaders of the church), but who still believe in Jesus Christ.  Does that mean she does not have "great confidence and love" for the Savior (which is what she testified of, not a belief in God)?

I know of people who believe in "a creator" (not specifically "a God") who very definitely believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings.  I think it's not good for us to pass judgement regarding this with her unless she's been more specific than what you quote.  Are you really ready to call her belief in Jesus Christ "a sham"?  I'm not (especially not "according to a friend" who listened to a podcast that I've not listened to myself).

I am not calling her belief a sham, but the performance.

However, she didn't say "Jesus Christ", she said "the Savior".  If you don't believe in divinity, how can Jesus be a Redeemer?  People don't always have consistent beliefs, so I am not going to make any global judgment on what she believes.

Maybe it was a habit of speech, but it seems unlikely given the entire context which puts the "testimony" into "performance" category for me.  

If she had said Jesus and his teachings, I would probably be looking at it differently.  But given the previous ten minutes commentary where the whole thing was treated as a joke and testimonies were specifically mocked, if she actually said she barely believed in God, I see no reason at this point to not assume the testimony bearing wasn't a sham to her.  What that says of her actual beliefs, I don't know.  I am just referring to what she was doing on the video.  

I am listening to the podcast in small bites.  While well done I am sure, not sure it is the right one and it is not providing any new material with a lot of filler, so annoying.  I am holding open the possibility her testimony bearing was authentic in the sense she sincerely felt those feelings in that moment, but the possibility was always low for me given the previous behaviour on the video she chose to film herself.  That is the video that got put out in public..  That it started with insistent mocking and her "testimony" ended with a "I am McKenna Denson and I approve of this message" translates the whole experience to propaganda and attention getting behaviour.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

54 minutes ago, provoman said:

Her character just keeps shining through.

Have not listened to the Derek Clements podcast.

I don't think that's fair. One of the clearest and easiest things for Satan to do to lead people away from the Gospel is to get leaders to do evil things. You see it throughout the Old Testament. You even see it in the Book of Mormon which was to be a warning for our day. I think what happened is that in the mid-20th century people forgot how that could happen. (Ignorance of history) They therefore had a hard time believing that someone who would portray themselves so well could be so evil. That led to a lot of problems. Not just this situation but the oft discussed financial fraud that was far too common in the 1970's and 80's where evil leaders would use their position and influence to bilk members. 

In this case, it's not at all hard to see how her faith in God would be completely undermined by having this happen by a leader and no one catching it. Exactly what Satan wants. Rather than condemning her, we should weep at how she was not only victimized sexually but convinced to break off her connection to God through the Church and even doubt God entirely.

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

According to a friend, in a podcast with Derek Clements, Denson states she barely believes in God, which would make her  "great confidence and love" for the Savior a sham, imo.  

Anyone here listened to it?

That's really too bad.  I wonder if she's had any life experiences that would cause her belief in God to diminish?

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not calling her belief a sham, but the performance.

However, she didn't say "Jesus Christ", she said "the Savior".  If you don't believe in divinity, how can Jesus be a Redeemer?  People don't always have consistent beliefs, so I am not going to make any global judgment on what she believes.

Maybe it was a habit of speech, but it seems unlikely given the entire context which puts the "testimony" into "performance" category for me.  

If she had said Jesus and his teachings, I would probably be looking at it differently.  But given the previous ten minutes commentary where the whole thing was treated as a joke and testimonies were specifically mocked, if she actually said she barely believed in God, I see no reason at this point to not assume the testimony bearing wasn't a sham to her.  What that says of her actual beliefs, I don't know.  I am just referring to what she was doing on the video.  

I am listening to the podcast in small bites.  While well done I am sure, not sure it is the right one and it is not providing any new material with a lot of filler, so annoying.  I am holding open the possibility her testimony bearing was authentic in the sense she sincerely felt those feelings in that moment, but the possibility was always low for me given the previous behaviour on the video she chose to film herself.  That is the video that got put out in public.  That is started with insistent mocking and her "testimony" ended with a "I am McKenna Denson and I approved of this message" translates the whole experience to propaganda and attention getting behaviour.

I'm just not going to start judging or claiming to know what she actually believes.  You and others can if you choose and that's up to you.

I personally know of people who simply believe in a creator (not a God), but do believe in Jesus Christ or a Savior.  She didn't say that she absolutely had no believe in God anyway (according to your friend who listened to the podcast).  So her testimony of God may be hanging by a thread after what she's been through, but she still believes in a Savior

I just wouldn't want someone doing to me what's being done to her regarding my beliefs.  I'd want to use my own words and speak for myself.  I'll reserve having an opinion on her beliefs until I hear them from her.

However, we can judge her actions and I believe what she did in that testimony meeting was very wrong to do.  But that doesn't mean I think it was a "sham" for her to state she believes in a Savior or Jesus Christ.

Edited September 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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)

That doesn't make it an entitlement. It is an invitation that, by definition can be rescinded at any time for any reason.

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is an invitation that, by definition can be rescinded at any time for any reason.

Correct.  Which is what the bishopric members did when they removed her from the stand.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's fair. One of the clearest and easiest things for Satan to do to lead people away from the Gospel is to get leaders to do evil things. You see it throughout the Old Testament. You even see it in the Book of Mormon which was to be a warning for our day. I think what happened is that in the mid-20th century people forgot how that could happen. (Ignorance of history) They therefore had a hard time believing that someone who would portray themselves so well could be so evil. That led to a lot of problems. Not just this situation but the oft discussed financial fraud that was far too common in the 1970's and 80's where evil leaders would use their position and influence to bilk members. 

In this case, it's not at all hard to see how her faith in God would be completely undermined by having this happen by a leader and no one catching it. Exactly what Satan wants. Rather than condemning her, we should weep at how she was not only victimized sexually but convinced to break off her connection to God through the Church and even doubt God entirely.

 

I agree with this.  One section in the podcast I did listen to talks about her initial reaction to the Gospel as this wonderful light in her life and the Church as a home, iirc.  I believe that is what it was like for her.

This is a woman who was a convert in high school (iirc), who after conversion had a child out of wedlock (possibly due to assault, I can't remember, but not her stepfather), but was still given permission to go on a mission...which I understand would have involved some significant discussion with Church leaders.  There is no reason to assume she didn't pay for it completely herself. And this was not a time where women were the least expected to go, though it had moved past the only those who couldn't get married went stage.

That is a lot of hoops to jump through that someone of lesser commitment or weak belief likely wouldn't have lasted.

I have no doubt she was in love with the Gospel and the Church in her youth, that she later became disillusioned is not the least bit surprising to me even if all Bishop did was have grossly inappropriate private 'counseling' sessions with her (I believe there was more abuse than that though).

Edited September 7, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm just not going to start judging or claiming to know what she actually believes.  You and others can if you choose and that's up to you.

I personally know of people who simply believe in a creator (not a God), but do believe in Jesus Christ or a Savior.  She didn't say that she absolutely had no believe in God anyway (according to your friend who listened to the podcast).  So her testimony of God may be hanging by a thread after what she's been through, but she still believes in a Savior

I just wouldn't want someone doing to me what's being done to her regarding my beliefs.  I'd want to use my own words and speak for myself.  I'll reserve having an opinion on her beliefs until I hear them from her.

However, we can judge her actions and I believe what she did in that testimony meeting was very wrong to do.  But that doesn't mean I think it was a "sham" for her to state she believes in a Savior or Jesus Christ.

I am not going to what she "actually" believes here. (Those aren't meant to be scare quotes, but precision about what I am responding to)

To be clear, whether or not she actually sees Christ as a Savior is irrelevant to me in terms of the "testimony" because I see that as pure performance.  I think she only said it then and there because it fit her agenda to confront and make a useful video.  I make this judgment based on her behaviour before and after that one sentence.  To suggest she switched in and out of spiritual witnessing (which is what testimonies are supposed to be) that quickly is too improbable for me.

-----

Would you explain to me what you mean by "Savior" because .I am wondering if we are using it differently.  Me, it is someone who saves us from the afterlife's hell (in short, lot more complicated than that in nuances).  

Edited September 7, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Maybe it would help if I said I called the testimony bearing (the process, not her stated beliefs...I have no reason to believe she lied about those, though I wonder what she means by them) a sham because I see it not as an expression of testimony, but pretty much equivalent to her press conference.  Its purpose in my view was pretty much the same, to be publicly persuasive Joseph Bishop had raped her and the Church leadership shares responsibility for that.

add-on:  I go to the extreme label of "sham" because of the ridicule attached to the process as shown in the video and the anger I feel with her being willing to subject young children to sexual content for her personal agenda.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Calm

[Nacho2dope]

This whole thing has me very frustrated. I fell so bad for her and this burden she has had to carry all these years. I don't feel that the testimony meeting is the place for her to discuss rape in front of everyone. You can throw a rock and hit a thread on any social media site and see how many are outraged with chastity questions being asked to the youth, but no one bats an eye when rape is discussed in a testimony meeting in front of the same children being asked those questions. Other say well this gets us talking about the issue. I have not read anything about how to fix this. I have only heard 3 things 1-She has the right to say what she wants. 2- She doesn't have the right to say what she wants. 3-Dont blame her. Again I feel so bad for her and hope she can find peace one day; however, her actions show she is not concerned with fixing the issue or helping others she is only interested in contention. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

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)

When anyone speaks, it is an implicit privilege, not an entitlement or “right.”  Excommunicated or disfellowshiped persons are routinely disallowed from speaking in Church meetings, even though, in the case of the disfellowshiped, they may still be in the records of the Church. 

[Calm]

ALarson, I just went back and reread my own original comment about it being a sham...so get why you have been focusing on judging her beliefs because that is exactly what I did in that post.  Don't know how my thought came out that way.  I have been posting between chores, so maybe I interrupted myself.  Didn't even remember the post that way, but thought .I had specified her speaking presentation, not actual belief.  I edited it to explain what my thought process was, though I would not be surprised if it came out that way because it was a gut reaction to reading that info...but now the thought process of my own has digested it, I can say I neither think nor feel that her stated belief is a sham if I originally felt that way.  I don't believe I have enough info or the reason to judge her beliefs.

Very sorry for the confusion.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Correct.  Which is what the bishopric members did when they removed her from the stand.

The invitation can be rescinded at any time, even beforehand. And it can be selective. See my point about disfellowshiped and excommunicated persons. 

Again, it is a privilege, not a universal right. 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

According to a friend, in a podcast with Derek Clements, Denson states she barely believes in God, which would make her  "great confidence and love" for the Savior a sham, imo.  

Anyone here listened to it?

As much as I want to believe her sincerity, it did come off as sorta shallow. I do want her to succeed if her story is true, which I believe is pretty true, but I hate how she is handling this, especially if it will thwart the people who need to be held accountable. And the church settling out of court and possibly averting some members in the church that abused from getting the full penalty of the law. It's time abusers pay for abusing by serving time in prison, not just going through the repentance process and calling that good. I know you'll probably not like what I have to say here, but I feel the church has handled some or a lot of cases badly, thinking they were helping someone through repentance. It's time the church doesn't have bishops call the hotline only but the police or urge the abused to call the police.

[katherine the great]

I just think this is totally inappropriate. Does Bishop deserve this? Probably. Do his children and grandchildren deserve this? No. Do all the families in his ward deserve this? No. I'm sure she is hurt and suffering but visiting her pain on a bunch of people who have nothing to do with his actions is just bizarre. The appropriate audience for her are the people who have joined her circle and who are interested in her experience. These people just wanted to be at church and worship in peace. I hope she will get the help she needs to cope with  her pain in a productive and healing way. I can't think of a single counselor who would recommend this method.

[Duncan]

I can only his family has or would want to get a restraining order or something like that-heck I would. Now they have video evidence to support their reason to get it

[Calm]

“ I can't think of a single counselor who would recommend this method.“

Excellent point.