Smac97 Gets Called Out On His Fabricated Tale On MD&D

[_moksha]

So let it be written:

Honorentheos will be banned in 3....2.....1....

So let it be done:

Honorentheos initially had 24 hours to answer the CFR before further action was considered. However, after having read other reports of misbehavior, he is banned for personal attacks.
- Hestia

Guess MD&D will go back to being Dullsville, where its citizens can be silenced on a whim.

The personal attacks come from the apologetics squadron at that forum.

[_Stem]

Smac says:

I think the idea is that the Church knew Joseph Bishop was a sexual predator before his calling to be president of the MTC. It is that purported knowledge that, if established, would inculpate the Church, since it called someone it knew to be a sexual predator into a position requiring tremendous trustworthiness.
The problem is that there is no competent evidence that the Church knew Joseph Bishop was a sexual predator before his calling to be president of the MTC. Lots of guesses. Lots of I-wouldn't-put-it-past-him surmises. But no evidence.

So, in the initial interview with McKenna, she reveals that she was a missionary. She starts to tell him that she's not mad at him and says he led her to the basement. He interrupts and says, "you should be". Alright so the Church didn't know. But as they get going on this, he also says he had confessed all this stuff to leaders previously. Smac and I went back and forth. I was taking the position that the context of his stated previous confessions is molestation, and offenses against women. He simply would not relent--there is no evidence or reason to think he confessed offenses towards women.

hah. Whatever. I'd say the most reasonable conclusion on that question is, he confessed offenses against women to many leaders at different times, previous to being called to be a mission president.

Oh and he also seemed to suggest his first offense was when he was a young full time missionary in Argentina.

[_Fence Sitter]

Calm has obsessed her way to this:

but the reality is only the two consensual acts of exposing breasts and the back rub took place.

So a back and butt rub from your Mission President superior, while you are a Sister Missionary recovering from a suicide attempt and living in his home with him and his wife, is now defined as a consensual act.

So absolutely revolting....consensual????

You have to remember that Calm is part of FAIR and FAIR defends Joseph Smith marrying Maria and Sarah Lawrence who were in orphan teenagers in his care . So Bishop is just following the example of Joseph Smith. I imagine that Joseph courted the Lawrence sisters by rubbing their backs and butts. So that makes it okay.

[_Lemmie]

Calm has obsessed her way to this:

but the reality is only the two consensual acts of exposing breasts and the back rub took place.

So a back and butt rub from your Mission President superior, while you are a Sister Missionary recovering from a suicide attempt and living in his home with him and his wife, is now defined as a consensual act.

So absolutely revolting....consensual????

You have to remember that Calm is part of FAIR and FAIR defends Joseph Smith marrying Maria and Sarah Lawrence who were in orphan teenagers in his care . So Bishop is just following the example of Joseph Smith. I imagine that Joseph courted the Lawrence sisters by rubbing their backs and butts. So that makes it okay.

You're killing me, FS! I am alternating between lmao and being thoroughly ashamed of myself, and then right back to lmao!!

Good thing my never-mo family is not here right now--I already can't explain the weirdness of Mormon stuff to them and this one is just beyond the pale. "Butt" was a swear word in my house growing up, akin to the F and S words not allowed in this forum, but now we have TBMs explaining that because the sister missionary behind-rubbing of the mission president can be construed as consensual, he is not to blame.

Never mind that his wife was probably in the house at the time, no doubt making doughnuts while waiting to be taught his priesthood session words of wisdom. After the butt-rubbing. omg.

[_Madison54]

I'm kind of digging this new thing of MADboard sportscasting. Madison54 is our Tony Romo calling out plays ahead time. She gets a Dundie for that one.

- Doc

Why thanks Doc!

That whole thread is such a cluster....

[_honorentheos]

So let it be written:

Honorentheos will be banned in 3....2.....1....

So let it be done:

Honorentheos initially had 24 hours to answer the CFR before further action was considered. However, after having read other reports of misbehavior, he is banned for personal attacks.
- Hestia

Heh. I just saw I was thread banned when I went to read what had been posted since this morning. In fairness, I knew I was pushing it when I posted what I did so no hard feelings on my part. Sometimes it's better to point out something as disgusting behavior in ones opinion knowing there will be repercussions for doing so and I felt given what was being said to discredit the victim in the story met that standard for me. I will say I think of Calm as being sincere in her claims she is trying to be fair. It's been a long while since I've looked at the world through Mormon-colored lenses but I think in her case she is being as fair as doing so allows. The caveat to that being I tend to think looking through Mormon-colored lenses messes up a person's ability to be a truly moral agent for reasons that the thread seems to demonstrate. But I also should expect saying so to a board where people are looking through said Mormon-colored lenses would be viewed by them as a personal attack. Oh well.

[_Lemmie]

Heh. I just saw I was thread banned when I went to read what had been posted since this morning. In fairness, I knew I was pushing it when I posted what I did so no hard feelings on my part. Sometimes it's better to point out something as disgusting behavior in ones opinion knowing there will be repercussions for doing so and I felt given what was being said to discredit the victim in the story met that standard for me. I will say I think of Calm as being sincere in her claims she is trying to be fair. It's been a long while since I've looked at the world through Mormon-colored lenses but I think in her case she is being as fair as doing so allows. I tend to think looking through Mormon-colored lenses messes up a person's ability to be a truly moral agent for reasons that the thread seems to demonstrate. But I also should expect saying so to a board where people are looking through said Mormon-colored lenses would be viewed by them as a personal attack. Oh well.

I do see what you mean about Calm's attempts to be fair, she does seem to work through certain things that others won't even attempt. I was pretty flummoxed by her discussion of how the sister missionary could have voluntarily consented to the frisky back rub, but she did say she's in the middle of some medical stuff that might limit her capacity. I really think if she just looked at the power differential between a 50-something mission president and one of his 20-something missionaries, she would be hard pressed to support it as consensual, but then again, those 'Mormon-colored lenses' do distort.

As for a couple of the others, there was clearly a starting assumption that the church can't be wrong, and all arguments twisted from there. I'm glad you stood your ground about the CFRs, Smac just looked worse and worse as the thread went on. You may have been banned, but it was for a good cause!

[_Dr Exiled]

I was banned today from the thread about the puerto rican mission president being ousted, probably for pointing out that the story was a p.r. ploy or an attempt at jury manipulation for the Bishop case. I don't know if I want to post over there any more. It isn't worth dealing with the frustration caused by narrow-minded religious adherents that cannot consider how nonsensical it is to believe in seer stones or Book of Mormon historicity or Book of Abraham or .....

TBM lurkers beware of your church and what it really stands for ..... tithing receipts. They don't want to disclose the money and how much of it they have because they fear a revolt might happen. Real charities actually spend their money serving the people and don't exist to gain financial strength.

[_honorentheos]

I was pretty flummoxed by her discussion of how the sister missionary could have voluntarily consented to the frisky back rub, but she did say she's in the middle of some medical stuff that might limit her capacity. I really think if she just looked at the power differential between a 50-something mission president and one of his 20-something missionaries, she would be hard pressed to support it as consensual, but then again, those 'Mormon-colored lenses' do distort.

Describing both acts as consensual bothered me as well, and I can't say I recall the timeline for that part of the discussion exactly. I want to believe that when the discussion added that Bishop was clearly grooming vulnerable young women who has suffered from abuse as well as sexually harassing behavior given the evidence available Calm acknowledge that. But some of the comments this morning when she began to revisit the victim's interview with Bishop left it a little more murky as to whether or not she viewed it that way given it seemed she was describing the victim as leading Bishop in the discussion. I had hoped to come back to that but I guess can't.

The thing I got out of the interview was that the victim was shocked to learn Bishop didn't remember her when his rape of her was one of the most traumatic and formative events impacting her adult life. Watching that come to the surface and her trying to reason it out is painful, in my opinion, because it must be a devastating realization that the damage he did was so meaningless to him that he could forget that it happened. My impression is that this discovery adds to understanding the actions that have occurred since. I also find it frustrating that a person could be so small-minded as Smac to imagine that suffering childhood abuse and assault at the hands of male authority figures in her life wouldn't have impacts on her that get manifested in her living a challenging life. But I also have to remind myself that Mormonism espouses such a strong form of agency that the culture magnifies individual liberty to the point details such as one's income get imagined as reflecting one has earned blessing from God while someone that struggles in life must be suffering justly for some bad decisions they made and thus can be fairly judged accordingly.

It's a reminder of how much I appreciate being free of all that. And having got our daughter away from it before she was old enough for it to have made an impression.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words Lemmie. I value your opinion a lot, but especially on such sensitive topics where I'm sure growing up into adulthood steeped in Mormondom makes for it's own blind spots that I may not be aware I'm suffering from except for a trusted friend being willing to guide past them.

[_honorentheos]

I was banned today from the thread about the puerto rican mission president being ousted, probably for pointing out that the story was a p.r. ploy or an attempt at jury manipulation for the Bishop case. I don't know if I want to post over there any more. It isn't worth dealing with the frustration caused by narrow-minded religious adherents that cannot consider how nonsensical it is to believe in seer stones or Book of Mormon historicity or Book of Abraham or .....

TBM lurkers beware of your church and what it really stands for ..... tithing receipts. They don't want to disclose the money and how much of it they have because they fear a revolt might happen. Real charities actually spend their money serving the people and don't exist to gain financial strength.

That was also a weird thread. While the facts seem to have worked out differently than I anticipated, Scott's behavior was wildly and undeservedly dismissive towards you.