This must be evidence the church is true! Satan is organising his forces to pick on the church in the very last days before Jesus himself will return to declare Mormons his favourites.
Darren Steers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This must be evidence the church is true! Satan > is organising his forces to pick on the church in > the very last days before Jesus himself will > return to declare Mormons his favourites. Maybe the MORmONs are the #1 supporters of DJT #1, because he's rich = blessings from God and #2. Because he appeals to racist xenophobes and #3. Because he represents their best assurance of expediting their "Latter Day" (Doomsday) PRophecies.
I'm not sure how others here feel about this issue. I don't like what the old fart did even if he was telling the truth when he said the worst thing he did was ask his victim to expose himself to her, and odds are than if he copped to asking her to expose a part of her nude body to him, he was probably guilty of something much worse. I don't like the church covering up for him, either.
That being said, had I been present with young children when Ms. Denson chose to bear her "testimony," I would have been upset at having to explain what she said to my young children. I would have taken them out as soon as I saw where her "testimony" was headed, but it might have been too late. It wasn't an appropriate presentation for children. Had Ms. Denson found a way to address just adults and children over the age of twelve, I could get behind her.
I disagree with you.....I think this incident provided a real teaching moment. In discussing with children what Mckenna was talking about one only has to keep it age appropriate in answering their questions.
Here is something that is real, not dictated like so many of the F&T testimonies which I know as a teenager I was totally bored with.
scmd1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was still the wrong thing to do in the > particular venue she chose (in my opinion and > perhaps my opinion only).
I'm not disagreeing with you, I just wonder how you would have handled it had you been in her position.
jan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I'm not disagreeing with you, I just wonder how > you would have handled it had you been in her > position.
I don't know, but I would not have said what she said in a setting in which young children were present.
I understand your sensitivity regarding the children, but I also know that the church is trying to bury the case and Denson wants to keep it alive. Also, the sexual discussions and demonization will start between ages 8 and 12 with bishop's interviews, and this may occasion good conversations about what sorts of discussions authority figures may have with children. It is a learning opportunity.
It is awkward at best, I know, and I'm not sure what happened was good for Denson's legal case, but there is something positive in bringing into the open the sexual abuse that is part and parcel of Mormonism for young people.
I realize this is not an entirely satisfactory answer.
Lot's Wife Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > scmd1, > > I understand your sensitivity regarding the > children, but I also know that the church is > trying to bury the case and Denson wants to keep > it alive. Also, the sexual discussions and > demonization will start between ages 8 and 12 with > bishop's interviews, and this may occasion good > conversations about what sorts of discussions > authority figures may have with children. It is a > learning opportunity. > > It is awkward at best, I know, and I'm not sure > what happened was good for Denson's legal case, > but there is something positive in bringing into > the open the sexual abuse that is part and parcel > of Mormonism for young people. > > I realize this is not an entirely satisfactory > answer.
It's a good answer, though I probably will never think it was the best choice to cover the subject matter that was covered with young children present.
A woman in church using the word rape? Had they had just let her keep going 1/2 the ward would have slept through it. The bishop trying to pull her away perked up everyone there.
Is it ok to tell children what rape is? If theyre 3+ its quite possible some are already being raped or molested. Its something their parents ( not their bishop) should have taught or spoken about to their children already. He says hes a sexual addict. Who knows what hes up to now.
Correct me if I'm wrong. But originally, when she released the tapes of her "interview" with him, wasn't it that he'd taken her in the basement and asked her to take her shirt off? I just don't remember the rape part and I think I would have. Maybe I'm confused, but it seems the story has grown some legs.
Mind you, it was still sexual assault, a crime, and should absolutely be an excommunicable offense. Just wonderin.
> Do you remember . . .trying to rape > me? But you didn't, because you didn't have a full > erection. You don't remember that?
What happened here is she thought that it wasn't a rape if the penetration did not reach fruition. When she told the Provo police he had entered her with a weak erection but could not complete the coitus, they told her that all that was necessary for rape was unwanted penetration of any sort or degree. So she was raped.
To summarize, Denson complained that he took her to the basement, ripped her clothing, partially penetrated her, and failed to complete the assault. She never said he asked her to expose her breasts.
That story comes from what Bishop asked when trying to identify the victim, since there were several (he spoke of his "sexual addition" and said he was the "Harvey Weinstein" of Mormonism). He asked if she was the one whom he asked to expose her breasts. She said, no, that was someone else.
After the interview (actually his son, the lawyers, the church) have said that Bishop only asked to see her breasts. That account is not compatible with Bishop's statements in the original transcript.
As far as I know Mckenna is still a member, and if that is the case then she was censored by her own church as to what she cannot discuss in F&T Meeting.
So, are there official rules that regulate what the content can be in these meetings? Does the "holy" book, the Bishop's Handbook, cover this? She did talk about church things, and because the cult has cut her off time and time again previously, being the bullies-with-money they are, she got creative and came to this meeting - EVEN a meeting of a church she is a member of.
Good for her, and I hope she has a case for suing the cowards for manhandling her and throwing her out.
And, what is the cult so afraid of that they need to silence Mckenna if they are sooooo sure they are in the right and she is lying?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2018 01:24AM by presleynfactsrock.
Yes, they can cut off the mic and except them from the stand. Anyone who is an apostate is not allowed to bear their testimony. Those who are confessing sins for other people. Domestic violence, etc. But theyre supposed to turn off the mic, something that was not done.