DiscussMormonism.com

Jersey Girl wrote:Anyone in their right mind would have flipped their ____ good and proper. Would they have done so in a recorded phone call that contained threats? Who knows. I do think his response was understandable.

If folks can't understand that, they need to take a another look at the situation.

I have been there. My immediate reaction to our nutso neighbor minutes after he assaulted my husband was to yell in the direction of their house. From the neighbor, there had been death threats, harassment, libel, fraud, and attempts to intimidate us.

What became crystal clear to me when trying to advance the case was that calm, rational words and decisions were paramount to our safety, and to bringing the problem to light.

Venting anonymously, or privately to trusted confidantes was perfectly okay. Using a public platform to release all the anger and our worst would have been reckless and dangerous.

Jersey Girl wrote:Did I miss something in the reddit post or did you?

I said it helped addressed Kish's comments and was otherwise helpful. You said it wasn't helpful. I don't see why you said that when it clearly is helpful and, by the way documented. I didn't offer it as a panacea...did you think I did?

Kishkumen wrote:

A reminder that Denson's case once made public was never about people believing her no matter what. Arguably, her case was compelling only when she recorded admissions from the accused.

I can see this is frustrating for you, Meadowchik. I am sorry that June Hughes’ own behavior has undermined her accusation against Bishop because it sounds like the guy really was a creep. Why anyone would want to exonerate a guy who is pretty clearly a creep is beyond me. I am just reiterating the point that people can’t and should not ignore evidence undermining an accuser’s case just because victims regularly demonstrate these self-defeating behaviors.

I think we need more knowledge and understanding at all levels, in terms of what predation and victimisation looks like.

That's my short version, because it's midnight here and I'm old. Thanks for engaging.

Meadowchik wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:
Anyone in their right mind would have flipped their ____ good and proper. Would they have done so in a recorded phone call that contained threats? Who knows. I do think his response was understandable.

If folks can't understand that, they need to take a another look at the situation.

I have been there. My immediate reaction to our nutso neighbor minutes after he assaulted my husband was to yell in the direction of their house. From the neighbor, there had been death threats, harassment, libel, fraud, and attempts to intimidate us.

What became crystal clear to me when trying to advance the case was that calm, rational words and decisions were paramount to our safety, and to bringing the problem to light.

Venting anonymously, or privately to trusted confidantes was perfectly okay. Using a public platform to release all the anger and our worst would have been reckless and dangerous.

Okay. I was really not planning to get into this but here goes. One difference between your situation and Norton's is that Norton is a public figure. I think there was a certain amount of wisdom in his recording and making the phone call public. He was making it known publicly that Ms. Denson knew where he lived and had had contact with his family in their own home.

In other words, if anything fishy happens to me or my family, check this person out.

I am not saying that I think that MD would have aggressed against him or his family, or that I have any knowledge of violence behaviors on her part except alleged physical harm to herself. I am saying that he allowed for and prepared for that possibility (including potentially making false rape allegations against him) in publishing the recording and in his warnings to her.

There is some detail from his second video (still viewable) that I want to pull out possibly for the purpose of this thread or simply for my own interest and understanding.

People tend to focus on the allegations of sexual abuse and the Bishop case, and Mike's personality. There's more going on here than that.

Kishkumen wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:Disclaimer: I haven't watched this video yet. It's one of a couple or three I'm checking out today. But since he was mentioned...

Shawn McCraney with a response to McKenna Denson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT4fD9Mh1qQ

Great video. I generally agree with Shawn. Sounds like he runs a good show and tries to do right by everyone.

I hoped that someone might be interested. Good enough.

Craig Paxton wrote:

candygal wrote:Can anyone fill me in more on said book/movie of June?? Right now, candygal is eating crow for many Mormons...just quiet and thinking..then trying not to think. My trust again violated is shrinking me to nothing. I hate all of this!

by the way: Scott Lloyd is checking all your responses...and just loving it.

Scott Lioyd can kiss my a$$

I would have felt real bad if you hadn't responded like this!

Jersey Girl wrote:Anyone in their right mind would have flipped their crap good and proper.

Whatever it means to be in ones right mind, I don't think most people would be in the position Mike inserted himself into to begin with. I also disagree it's normal to let ones anger take over like he did in his call. Dude has issues. I am sure he deserves compassion but I wouldn't excuse Denson's lies nor his outburst out of compassion. It may be good to mitigate one's reactions but not ones acceptance of what was done or extension of unmitigated trust.

honorentheos wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:Anyone in their right mind would have flipped their crap good and proper.

Whatever it means to be in ones right mind, I don't think most people would be in the position Mike inserted himself into to begin with. I also disagree it's normal to let ones anger take over like he did in his call. Dude has issues. I am sure he deserves compassion but I wouldn't excuse Denson's lies nor his outburst out of compassion. It may be good to mitigate one's reactions but not ones acceptance of what was done or extension of unmitigated trust.

I wasn't referring to anger. I don't think Kish was referring to anger when he posted the following and I replied to it. I'll bold for you.

I don’t condone Mike Norton’s attack on Ms. Hughes, but then I am also not in the position of having discovered, to my abject horror, that the person I have been backing and supporting as an ally in our shared cause may be some kind of aggressive sociopath and con artist who makes false accusations and might threaten to blow up my family.

If I had been in Norton’s shoes, I definitely would have flipped my crap, but I doubt I would have done it in the way he did. I am a totally different kind of nut.

Consider what I posted later...

Okay. I was really not planning to get into this but here goes. One difference between your situation and Norton's is that Norton is a public figure. I think there was a certain amount of wisdom in his recording and making the phone call public. He was making it known publicly that Ms. Denson knew where he lived and had had contact with his family in their own home.

In other words, if anything fishy happens to me or my family, check this person out.

I am not saying that I think that MD would have aggressed against him or his family, or that I have any knowledge of violence behaviors on her part except alleged physical harm to herself. I am saying that he allowed for and prepared for that possibility (including potentially making false rape allegations against him) in publishing the recording and in his warnings to her.

There is some detail from his second video (still viewable) that I want to pull out possibly for the purpose of this thread or simply for my own interest and understanding.

I'm not referring to anger. I'm referring to horror and fear. Do you seriously not see the defensive underpinnings of his verbal assault on her? I'm saying that the sees her as potentially dangerous. I think that's what Kish was saying, too.

Jersey Girl wrote:Do you seriously not see the defensive underpinnings of his verbal assault on her? I'm saying that the sees her as potentially dangerous. I think that's what Kish was saying, too.

I'm saying what he said and how he acted is inexcusable for what they were. His blow up at her over the phone is not excusable. Just as you are also saying no one should overlook Denson's actions even if there are reasons for finding understanding for them. Maybe you think there are mitigating circumstances that contextualize Norton's explosive outburst, and that could be true. But that was the kind of thing people should get anger management help for rather than be told anyone would do that. Point being, no one should do that. Not in those conditions. Period.

Red Ryder wrote:Mike cooperating with the church is concerning considering Mike’s relationship with the church and vice verse.

Any chance Mike is getting paid by the church?

i see no reason to believe Norton is getting paid by the church. The church doesn't need his "cooperation" -- that was just grandstanding on his part. Most of the the information he referred to on the videotape was compiled by the church's lawyers.