More drama from June Hughes/Mckenna Denson

[clwnuke]

On 9/12/2018 at 11:14 PM, pwrfrk said:

Is this information that we really need, here?  I mean, seriously.  Even someone like her has the right to some form of privacy. 

I really like this part in the manual- "If the person refuses to leave and continues to cause a disturbance at the pulpit, turn off the microphone and dismiss the meeting."  Very simple and keeps everyone safe.  So now with the congregation safe you can send in the Gestapo (tic).

I posted this information to serve at least two needs:

1. Long before Sister Hughes (Ms. Denson) "revealed" her identity I portrayed myself on these boards as someone who personally interacted with Sister Hughes in the MTC and people deserve to know if I am credible. Adding this information helps to confirm my statements.

2. The second is that the story being told by Ms. Denson and the media is incomplete. There is a virtual blackout of media coverage and interviews from people who interacted with her while in the MTC and mission. Ms. Denson went public to garner support and belief in her claims. I believe that same public deserves to know why many of us who knew her are highly skeptical of her overall story. Once you go public, ALL the details matter.

 

[OnePassenger]

On 9/4/2018 at 5:18 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, boy . . .

https://kutv.com/news/local/woman-who-alleges-mtc-president-raped-her-filmed-testifying-about-rape-in-church

Let me give some comments in general:

McKenna Denson, Christine Blasey Ford, Jessica Drake (one of about twelve women or more accusing i.e.Pres. Trump of sexual abuse) - just three examples out of hundreds for a seemingly new trend especially in the US (but also in Europe).  After more than three decades (!) it's suddenly occurring to them that someone had sexually harassed or "raped" them, but of course they didn't remember all the "details" any more and would ask for some time before reporting it to the authorities now etc. Good actresses they are presenting their accuses so theatrically, often supported and pushed up by ideologically poisoned leftist media and organisations. And they do it so effectively with the support of some mainstream media that one must get the impression these are controlled campaigns with the aim of publicly discrediting the accused person.

Are we living in a time of reversal proof giving? Does the publicly accused person have to prove his innocence first? What right is there that allows such women to make such heavy accusations in a public way? Isn't there any law in the US that forbids those offences of libel and defamation as long as the deed hasn't been proved? Leave me alone, but wouldn't a seemingly raped, decent woman report it to the police soonest? Would she remain silent for years or decades? Would she? And if she remained silent for some decades, would she ever report it publicly then if there wasn't a concealed intention behind all those undertakings...? In many of those cases criminal statues of limitations have long been exceeded. But it has become so normal pouring a bucket of crap on someone in public. Their credo: "First prove your innocence!"

Goodbye America. Welcome to the beginning of a new age of Inquisition. Let's open the hunt for the evil (old) white man.

Edited September 23, 2018 by OnePassenger

[Suzie]

My take is a little different. I feel very bad for all parties and families involved. Having said that, I didn't like the Church statement. I think Eric Hawkins could have done a better job at phrasing it.  It sounded like an angry statement to me which I think it was not necessarily given the nature of the allegation.

But what I am upset the most, is the fact that the Bishop allegedly made some sort of confession to the police and another woman came forward with more allegations.  And yet, even though this man confessed asking this missionary to expose her breasts to him no one bats an eye. If he has been living a lie for all these years, who is to say he did not in fact rape her? Of course, it is pure conjecture but you get my point.

I'm upset that all I see online about this case  is condemnation towards her,  people choosing to dig about her past,  condemnation at the fact that she recorded the public shaming in sacrament meeting, etc and YET I have NOT seen online the SAME amount of condemnation about the CONFESSION of this Bishop. Disappointing to say the least.

 

[lostinwater]

5 minutes ago, Suzie said:

My take is a little different. I feel very bad for all parties and families involved. Having said that, I didn't like the Church statement. I think Eric Hawkins could have done a better job at phrasing it.  It sounded like an angry statement to me which I think it was not necessarily given the nature of the allegation.

 But what I am upset the most, is the fact that the Bishop allegedly made some sort of confession to the police and another woman came forward with more allegations.  And yet, even though this man confessed asking this missionary to expose her breasts to him no one bats an eye. If he has been living a lie for all these years, who is to say he did not in fact rape her? Of course, it is pure conjecture but you get my point.

 I'm upset that all I see online about this case  is condemnation towards her,  people choosing to dig about her past,  condemnation at the fact that she recorded the public shaming in sacrament meeting, etc and YET I have NOT seen online the SAME amount of condemnation about the CONFESSION of this Bishop. Disappointing to say the least.

Personally, i agree.  

Denson and Bishop seem to have transformed from human beings into symbols of "church" and "not church".   And many/most are just advocating for their preferred symbol.  

i'm not sure that can be avoided.  Our whole legal system seems to have recognized that with very serious cases, no one person can see the situation objectively - so both sides have legal counsel and then a jury decides.  

Perhaps the bias is inevitable, given the nature of the case.  Though i dislike the message this sends to women who are abused (ie even if you have a taped confession, prepare to still not be believed).  And also - if you abuse someone - even a taped confession won't be enough to convict you, as long as you can dig up some dirt to call the morality of your victim into question.

i fully acknowledge there is a lot of unknowns about this whole thing, but i think those messages will be what most people hear.  

If anyone wants to know why most predators have multiple victims - you need look no further.  Well, that, and our statute of limitations.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

I'm upset that all I see online about this case  is condemnation towards her,  people choosing to dig about her past,  condemnation at the fact that she recorded the public shaming in sacrament meeting, etc and YET I have NOT seen online the SAME amount of condemnation about the CONFESSION of this Bishop. Disappointing to say the least.

There is an answer to this...and it is really simple.

Many people believe in the Rule of Law... That include peskily inconvenient things like "Presumption of Innocence until Proven Guilty" and "Statute of Limitations."

The people who complain about the limits of the Rule of Law usually do so right up to the point they get accused of some horrific crime then suddenly they find themselves very much wanting the protection they often derided.  That makes them raging hypocrites, but it is a very human thing to do.

How does this apply to the Bishop/Hughes Case?  The simple fact is that Bishop is beyond mortal justice for his actions.  It sucks and it means that now it is solely in the hands of God.  No mortal condemnation, no mortal outrage, nothing we can do will change his fate one bit.

And what is Hughes doing?... she is agitating for something she can't have anymore (Because of that peskily inconvenient Rule of Law)  And she is doing it in a matter that can harm innocent people who did nothing to deserve her attacks.  One might understand if she was trying to change the Law so that other might not share her fate, that could even be seen as a noble thing to do... but that is not the choice she is making.  Instead she is engaging and confessing/recording her engagement in criminal actions (Even if it is only trespassing and disturbing the peace)  She is not beyond mortal justice for her most current crimes (Even though the Church is unlikely to press charges against her)

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

I'm upset that all I see online about this case  is condemnation towards her,  people choosing to dig about her past,  condemnation at the fact that she recorded the public shaming in sacrament meeting, etc and YET I have NOT seen online the SAME amount of condemnation about the CONFESSION of this Bishop. Disappointing to say the least.

Ok, here you go.  It seems quite likely and probable that Joseph Bishop did something horrible to Denson at the MTC, while he was president and she was a missionary.  There is enough corroborating evidence, coupled with Bishop's statements, that would lead someone to think that something untoward went on.  What that horrible thing or things was/were, we don't know.  I think about all the things someone in Bishop's position of trust could do that would qualify as evil.  I can sit here and think them up all day.  I wonder if we'll ever know for certain.  

I'd like to, because I'd like to specifically and clearly denounce it.  But I don't.  And neither does anyone else. Just guesses and arguable possibilities.  We're handed vaguery and supposed to condemn something?  I condemn anyone in a position of trust, abusing that trust.  Doing horrible things is horrible.  I condemn them.  I hope what Bishop did comes to clear light of day, so we actually know what to denounce.

If anyone figures any of us peanut gallery folks can condemn more, or differently, I'd like to understand how.

 

[Suzie]

Quote

No mortal condemnation, no mortal outrage, nothing we can do will change his fate one bit.

Of course, but it does not stop anyone from condemning the actions from Bishop (his own confession). However, I have read many cruel comments about the former sister missionary. The disparity is appalling.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Suzie

[Suzie]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok, here you go.  It seems quite likely and probable that Joseph Bishop did something horrible to Denson at the MTC, while he was president and she was a missionary.  There is enough corroborating evidence, coupled with Bishop's statements, that would lead someone to think that something untoward went on.  What that horrible thing or things was/were, we don't know.  I think about all the things someone in Bishop's position of trust could do that would qualify as evil.  I can sit here and think them up all day.  I wonder if we'll ever know for certain.  

I'd like to, because I'd like to specifically and clearly denounce it.  But I don't.  And neither does anyone else. Just guesses and arguable possibilities.  We're handed vaguery and supposed to condemn something?  I condemn anyone in a position of trust, abusing that trust.  Doing horrible things is horrible.  I condemn them.  I hope what Bishop did comes to clear light of day, so we actually know what to denounce.

If anyone figures any of us peanut gallery folks can condemn more, or differently, I'd like to understand how.

 

We don't know all the facts,  I agree but we DO know (according to him) that he asked her to expose her breasts. I haven't seen online many comments condemning that someone in a position of TRUST would do such a thing. Instead, MOST of the comments I have read are targeted towards her and her past. But no one bats an eye if Bishop asked a young missionary (who was serving the Lord!) to expose her breasts. Yes, I am a bit- tiny upset.

[lostinwater]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok, here you go.  It seems quite likely and probable that Joseph Bishop did something horrible to Denson at the MTC, while he was president and she was a missionary.  There is enough corroborating evidence, coupled with Bishop's statements, that would lead someone to think that something untoward went on.  What that horrible thing or things was/were, we don't know.  I think about all the things someone in Bishop's position of trust could do that would qualify as evil.  I can sit here and think them up all day.  I wonder if we'll ever know for certain.  

I'd like to, because I'd like to specifically and clearly denounce it.  But I don't.  And neither does anyone else. Just guesses and arguable possibilities.  We're handed vaguery and supposed to condemn something?  I condemn anyone in a position of trust, abusing that trust.  Doing horrible things is horrible.  I condemn them.  I hope what Bishop did comes to clear light of day, so we actually know what to denounce.

 If anyone figures any of us peanut gallery folks can condemn more, or differently, I'd like to understand how.

  

So here is an interesting question - or perhaps more a conversation starter, because the answer is so subjective and depending on the circumstance, i don't think there could ever be a single answer.  

But what's the standard at which we (us, ourselves) say something happened?  Do we need a judge in a courtroom to say it?  Do we need to have seen it ourselves?  Do we need to have a taped confession?  Or a confession in video?  Or a signed confession?  Or do we need 3 separate people videotaping them signing their confession so we know that one of them didn't photoshop the whole thing together?  

i mean, none of us saw Jesus' crucifixion.  There's actually some pretty crazy inconsistencies in the accounts of Jesus' life - gospels that never got included in the bible (for good reason).  Does that mean Jesus didn't exist?  Does that mean we need to withhold saying Pilate did anything wrong?  Or did Judas really betray Christ?  i mean, maybe one of the authors of the Gospel stole some figs, or forged some roman coinage.  Saul had a pretty colored life - so can we really trust anything that Paul wrote?

i mean, if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody was there, did it really make a sound.  Like really, did it?  

i'm not saying that we toss every person in jail that gets accused of anything - so please don't accuse me of that.

Just saying that both sides are definitely capable (and perhaps a bit culpable) of taking their point of view towards an illogical and extreme conclusion, or lack thereof.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 9/13/2018 at 12:14 AM, pwrfrk said:

Is this information that we really need, here?  I mean, seriously.  Even someone like her has the right to some form of privacy. 

No one's peeking in her bedroom windows at night. She had a form of privacy. If she didn't want public scrutiny...maybe she shouldn't have made this all so public for the whole world to scrutinize.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 9/10/2018 at 2:01 PM, MarginOfError said:

This topic is most certainly on the bishopric meeting agenda in my ward.

This last Sunday our bishop said at the pulpit something along the lines of, "We've been trained that if you come up and say [anti-whatever] to turn of the mic and etc..." I can't remember what he said exactly...but my point is that I think, perhaps, the topic may have ended up in every bishopric meeting agenda.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 9/10/2018 at 2:26 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I dunno, @MarginOfError.  Once word gets out that you can end a Mormon worship service by just stepping up to the lectern and refusing to leave . . . 

Probably unlikely to perpetuate if the church takes both legal and civic action against those who attempt said tactic.

[NeuroTypical]

11 hours ago, Suzie said:

I haven't seen online many comments condemning that someone in a position of TRUST would do such a thing. Instead, MOST of the comments I have read are targeted towards her and her past. But no one bats an eye if Bishop asked a young missionary (who was serving the Lord!) to expose her breasts. Yes, I am a bit- tiny upset.

You and I have no disagreement here, Suzie.  And you don't stand alone here.  If ever there was something that deserved some all-caps yelling, it would be a friggin PRESIDENT OF THE MTC doing something untoward with a young sister missionary.  You stand on your rooftop and shout, I'll stand on mine.  No really, on the list of betrayals, something like this is near the top.  Akin to being molested by your father.  

So yeah, let's print this out in a big 500 foot banner and have the plane that carries the space shuttle fly it around the country:

Church Statement About Alleged Sexual Assault by Former Mission President - 23 March 2018:

Quote

We share the anger and distress Church members and others feel to learn of incidents where those entrusted with sacred responsibilities violate God’s commandments and harm others. Such behavior is repulsive and sinful.
[...]
Sexual abuse cannot be tolerated in the Church. We continue to urge our leaders to take reports of abuse very seriously. Leaders should call the Church's abuse helpline, which has been established to assure that victims are cared for and that abuse reporting laws are strictly obeyed.

 

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You and I have no disagreement here, Suzie.  And you don't stand alone here.  If ever there was something that deserved some all-caps yelling, it would be a friggin PRESIDENT OF THE MTC doing something untoward with a young sister missionary.  You stand on your rooftop and shout, I'll stand on mine.  No really, on the list of betrayals, something like this is near the top.  Akin to being molested by your father.  

So yeah, let's print this out in a big 500 foot banner and have the plane that carries the space shuttle fly it around the country:

Church Statement About Alleged Sexual Assault by Former Mission President - 23 March 2018:

 

Funny... You love to quote Elder Oaks talk about Righteous Judgment.  And you quote the Church as it makes a Righteous Judgment in condemning a set of actions (but note they do not condemn a person) In support of Suzie's effort to condemn a person.  That is not a righteous judgment.  The only facts we have against Bishop is his own confession.  A confession that sounds bad but it otherwise kind of unclear.  There are so many people rushing to fill in the blanks of what he meant when we truly do not know.

Yet Hughes is video taping her crimes and sins for all to see...  And yet we are being demanded to treat the two exactly the same.  That is wrong and you know it.

 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

And you quote the Church as it makes a Righteous Judgment in condemning a set of actions (but note they do not condemn a person) In support of Suzie's effort to condemn a person.  That is not a righteous judgment. 

Not sure how that follows.  I'm joining Suzie in speaking out against behavior.  And I'm especially calling out behavior from someone in a position of trust, as an extra level of serious.  

Quote

The only facts we have against Bishop is his own confession.  A confession that sounds bad but it otherwise kind of unclear

Well, there are a few more facts than that.  A second accuser.   Denson's knowledge of the room with the bed.  Confirmation that the room with the bed did indeed exist at the timeframe in question.  Those lend credibility to claims that something untoward happened.  Yeah, we don't know what.  And Denson's credibility just seems to get worse and worse every time she opens her mouth.  But yeah, there's enough for the church to say something like "We share the anger and distress Church members and others feel to learn of incidents where those entrusted with sacred responsibilities violate God’s commandments and harm others. Such behavior is repulsive and sinful.", and there's enough for me to get all loud about betrayals from the hands of someone in a position of trust.  

Quote

Yet Hughes is video taping her crimes and sins for all to see...  And yet we are being demanded to treat the two exactly the same.  That is wrong and you know it.

Oookaayyyy... I don't get how you that follows from what I said either.  It's pretty clear at this stage that Bishop did something bad.  It's also pretty clear that Denson is troubled, unreliable, untrustworthy, and a liar.  This isn't an either-or thing.  It's possible for this to be a both-and thing.  

 

[estradling75]

25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Not sure how that follows.  I'm joining Suzie in speaking out against behavior.  And I'm especially calling out behavior from someone in a position of trust, as an extra level of serious. 

 

Suzie explicitly stated state condemning Bishop... that is a person... not a behavior (Yes condemning him because of his behavior but it she is still asking for condemnation of him)

27 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oookaayyyy... I don't get how you that follows from what I said either.  It's pretty clear at this stage that Bishop did something bad.  It's also pretty clear that Denson is troubled, unreliable, untrustworthy, and a liar.  This isn't an either-or thing.  It's possible for this to be a both-and thing. 

Simple Suzie wants the condemnation of Bishop to match the condemnation that is give to Hughes (Go read her post again if you are unclear on this complaint note again a condemnation of a person)

Bishop has been held accountable as he is going to be by Mortal authority.  His judgement is now divine.  The Church has condemned the behavior, the Church has altered its policies and processes to try to stop such behavior and/or catch such sooner, and the Church has faced/is currently facing Mortal Authorities for whatever role it played.  Thus those that have been accused by Hughes have been held accountable as much as it is mortally possible to do so using the principles of Mortal Justice and Mortal Rule of Law.

Where is Hughes being held accountable for her actions?  Where is the Mortal Justice for her crimes and sin?  There is a mismatch... but it does not favor Bishop or the church.

   

[NeuroTypical]

39 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Where is Hughes being held accountable for her actions?  Where is the Mortal Justice for her crimes and sin?     

Well, if I remember correctly, she's had some run-ins with the law over time for ID theft and whatnot.  What other secular crimes do you believe she's committed?  Trespassing maybe?  Regardless, nothing I can do about it.  If I have some righteous yelling to do, I'm going to spend it on people in a position of sacred trust harming innocents in their care.  If someone is just trespassing, I'll call @mirkwood to handle it and go to my next class.

Mortal justice for sin?  I don't even get what that means. 

 

Anyway, I put myself to the Elder Oaks test to see if I'm doing good.  What do you think?

First, a righteous judgment must, by definition, be intermediate. 
- I'm not judging Bishop's (or Denson's) worth or value.  I'm speaking out against acts committed by folks in a sacred position of trust.

Second, a righteous judgment will be guided by the Spirit of the Lord, not by anger, revenge, jealousy, or self-interest. 
- I started being personally impacted by the evil actions of people in a position of trust as a teenager.  As I moved through my growing discipleship and testimony, learning about the subject, I began speaking publicly in my late '20's.  I know a lot of victims and perpetrators.  I have useful things to say, and yes indeed, I've felt the spirit as I've shared.  Right now, in fact.  There is a time and place for loud, righteous, condemnation of certain things.  And here, as we talk about the subject, I'm thinking this is one of those times.

Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. 
The church is big on urging us to speak out on important topics in our social circles and communities.  Mormonhub is one such place.  It is absolutely in my stewardship to have my voice be heard, as I stand up and loudly proclaim that if you're in a position of sacred trust, no really, it's extra horrible if you take some young female missionary aside and try to do something untoward.  Suzie is making a point that if you put all the stuff everyone is saying in two piles, comments against Denson's actions fills a swimming pool, comments against Bishop's actions fills a shot glass.  I don't think she's wrong, and I do think her point is important.

Fourth, we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts. 
The main point of contention here, I think.  Denson's court stuff has been mostly thrown out.  Bishop will probably never face trial.  If there's church discipline, we'll probably only hear about it through dirty tricks.  But all that said, it seems a reasonably righteous judgment that Bishop did something wrong.  We don't know what.  But to say he did nothing wrong, has been pretty dang hard to justify for a while now.   "Bishop probably did something wrong to Denson".  I think that's a righteous judgment at this stage in the game. 

A fifth principle of a righteous intermediate judgment is that whenever possible we will refrain from judging people and only judge situations. 
I'm specifically talking about the situation where a person in a position of sacred trust does something bad.  It's worse than a random person doing something bad.  That's the situation I'm judging.  I don't know what Bishop did, or why he did it.  I don't know what Denson did in response, or why she did it.  Situation - MTC President X probably did something bad.

Sixth, forgiveness is a companion principle 
Very, very important.  I remember struggling for a year on this one.  When I was finally able to pray for the people who had damaged and hurt someone I loved, when I could pray for their healing, pray that they might be able to get past this stuff in this life... When I could pray for them out of love - well - I think of my life as what happened before that forgiveness/Mount Everest moment, and my life after that moment.  Yes, a thousand times yes - we all must forgive.

Seventh, a final ingredient or principle of a righteous judgment is that it will apply righteous standards. 
You tell me - which standard here is not righteous?  1. Sexual immorality is bad.   2. Someone in a position of sacred trust doing anything involving sexual immorality is bad.  

I'm thinking righteous judgments here.  I'm also thinking it's important to see what I'm actually saying, and not saying.

Edited September 25, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

13 hours ago, Suzie said:

I haven't seen online many comments condemning that someone in a position of TRUST would do such a thing.

Maybe you haven't been reading in the right places. Even at backward old ultraconservative MormonHub, condemnation of Bishop has been pretty much universal.

13 hours ago, Suzie said:

Instead, MOST of the comments I have read are targeted towards her and her past.

Perhaps that's because Bishop has admitted he was a scumbag and an embarrassment to the Church, to his family, and to himself. But nothing he has admitted to doing (that I know of -- I'm not a lawyer) is criminal. Convincing an adult woman to bare her breasts, even if she's young and vulnerable and he's middle-aged and scummy, is not against the law. But this now has gone well beyond that sordid history. Lately, Hughes has been accusing Bishop of a tremendously grave crime -- forcible rape -- of which there is no evidence beyond her word (and she is a demonstrated liar). Most on this forum are willing and even happy to see a man condemned for the evils he committed, so Bishop's late-life humiliation, the destruction of his reputation, and possible excommunication is seen as appropriate and his just desserts. But we are not so keen on seeing a guy, even a scumbag, strung up based solely on the testimony of a mentally ill liar.

Bishop confessed to abusing his position. His reputation is destroyed for whatever is left of his miserable life, and his children and grandchildren will forever share in his shame (unless they change their name). If he forcibly raped Hughes, as she now claims, what would he gain from not coming clean? His name is already worse than mud. He won't go to jail for the rape, because the statute of limitations has long passed. Sure, a man who abused his position as Bishop did is capable of lying about it, but to what end? To spare himself the shame and embarrassment of it all? Way too late for that.

Meanwhile, Hughes is a known liar who started out saying that Bishop molested her and then changed her story to forcible rape. Is there any reason beyond blind compassion for Hughes that we might believe her changed account?

Accusing a man of rape is a grave charge. If it's true, the man deserves a far greater punishment than the law is likely to give him. If it is not true, the false accuser deserves a punishment which the law most certainly will never give her. When you're pointing out disparities, keep that one in mind.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Seventh, a final ingredient or principle of a righteous judgment is that it will apply righteous standards. 

I would suggest that a righteous standard includes a measure of evenhandedness. I'm with you 100% on condemning Bishop's abuse of his position. But when an accuser's cry of "he slapped me" mutates into "he broke my jaw", evenhandedness demands a critical examination of that charge before just nodding one's head in agreement and judging the accused as guilty.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

his children and grandchildren will forever share in his shame

It's clear that the true innocent victim is any women he went full pervert on, but his family members are also innocent victims in this. Very sad. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Maybe we shouldn't be condemning others -- especially those who show remorse.

Just a thought.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

First, a righteous judgment must, by definition, be intermediate. 
- I'm not judging Bishop's (or Denson's) worth or value.  I'm speaking out against acts committed by folks in a sacred position of trust.

 

Which totally ignores Suzy's condemnation of the man... A condemnation you supported explicitly "without disagreement" in your response to her...  You should have explicitly disagreed with her desire to see Bishop condemned because he is  man of worth and value...  (While holding to the condemnation of the actions) You did not and you still have not...  You are simply trying to claim innocent while supporting without disagreement those that are.

 

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Which totally ignores Suzy's condemnation of the man... 

 

Hmmmm...

18 hours ago, Suzie said:

Of course, but it does not stop anyone from condemning the actions from Bishop (his own confession).

I condemn Bishop's confessed actions.

19 hours ago, Suzie said:

YET I have NOT seen online the SAME amount of condemnation about the CONFESSION of this Bishop

I condemn the actions to which Bishop confessed.

18 hours ago, Suzie said:

I haven't seen online many comments condemning that someone in a position of TRUST would do such a thing.

I condemn actions of this stripe even more, doubly so, when committed by someone in a position of trust.

I'm failing to see where Suzie is calling for us to unrighteously judge the worth or value of Bishop. If she did it and I appear to be doing it, hopefully my last few posts will have made it clear that I ain't.

All better?

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Maybe you haven't been reading in the right places. Even at backward old ultraconservative MormonHub, condemnation of Bishop has been pretty much universal.

Perhaps that's because Bishop has admitted he was a scumbag and an embarrassment to the Church, to his family, and to himself. But nothing he has admitted to doing (that I know of -- I'm not a lawyer) is criminal. Convincing an adult woman to bare her breasts, even if she's young and vulnerable and he's middle-aged and scummy, is not against the law. But this now has gone well beyond that sordid history. Lately, Hughes has been accusing Bishop of a tremendously grave crime -- forcible rape -- of which there is no evidence beyond her word (and she is a demonstrated liar). Most on this forum are willing and even happy to see a man condemned for the evils he committed, so Bishop's late-life humiliation, the destruction of his reputation, and possible excommunication is seen as appropriate and his just desserts. But we are not so keen on seeing a guy, even a scumbag, strung up based solely on the testimony of a mentally ill liar.

Bishop confessed to abusing his position. His reputation is destroyed for whatever is left of his miserable life, and his children and grandchildren will forever share in his shame (unless they change their name). If he forcibly raped Hughes, as she now claims, what would he gain from not coming clean? His name is already worse than mud. He won't go to jail for the rape, because the statute of limitations has long passed. Sure, a man who abused his position as Bishop did is capable of lying about it, but to what end? To spare himself the shame and embarrassment of it all? Way too late for that.

Meanwhile, Hughes is a known liar who started out saying that Bishop molested her and then changed her story to forcible rape. Is there any reason beyond blind compassion for Hughes that we might believe her changed account?

Accusing a man of rape is a grave charge. If it's true, the man deserves a far greater punishment than the law is likely to give him. If it is not true, the false accuser deserves a punishment which the law most certainly will never give her. When you're pointing out disparities, keep that one in mind.

I’m not as charitable as Vort is.  I’m happy to let Bishop twist in the wind in the face of Denson’s allegations of rape—his betrayals towards his community are too predatory and too deep for me to muster compassion for him; and in that context I don’t particularly care for his sake if the accusations (specifically, the rape accusations) are false or not.

But Denson isn’t really attacking Bishop at this point.  She’s attacking tithepayers, whose donations she is trying to garnish in order to be supported in the lifestyle she thinks she deserves.  She is attacking rank-and-file Mormons who just want to make it through another testimony meeting in peace.  She is attacking penitent transgressors of the Law of Chastity by having her lawyers argue that someone who has been to their bishop for porn use, or going too far as a teenager, or even adultery; is a potential rapist that must never be trusted with any lacuna of priesthood authority or responsibility.  She has been making false rape accusations for years, has been trying to get money through fraud for years, and was apparently trying to entice other elders into compromising situations at the same time her situation with Bishop was happening.  In her recent activities she has made alliance with Mike Norton, an execrable little troll whose claims to fame are 1) secretly recording Mormons in temple prayer circles and posting the videos on YouTube, and 2) obtaining baptism multiple times under false pretenses and then publicly accusing his Stake Presidents of unchastity for failing to have sufficient discernment to catch him.

Denson is attacking us.  She’s attacking me. And you can bet your boots I’m going to respond.  

People can have terrible things happen to them, and still be thoroughly rotten liars deserving of a full and public rebuttal.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t particularly care for his sake if the accusations are false or not.

Remind me not to hire you as my lawyer next time I need one.

Er....actually....wait....

Remind me that I want you as my lawyer next time I need one!

Wait.... NEXT TIME? 

Edited September 25, 2018 by The Folk Prophet