More drama from June Hughes/Mckenna Denson

[NightSG]

On 9/4/2018 at 11:51 AM, mirkwood said:

I've had these conversations with my leaders.  All they have to do is give me the nod and I will switch roles from congregant to officer.

Do you usually wear your balaclava and jackboots to church just in case?  😝

[nonamejones]

On 9/4/2018 at 11:56 AM, anatess2 said:

That makes her double-victim.  Victim of rape - if this proves true - and victim of exploitation by whoever set up that video for their socio-political purposes.

One of the people with her is a film maker, his name is Ethan Krok. Another person with her is associated with Parkway Studios. Mike N was also there.

[nonamejones]

On 9/4/2018 at 1:42 PM, anatess2 said:

I doubt she did it by herself.  That guy taking the video, at least, would be in on it.  I have a feeling her "supporters" are egging her on.

Edit:  I admit I have zero evidence for such a theory besides the presence of a well-mic'd video.

When you listen to her well mic'd recorded words, she says "Are you? Are you? Are you?" I believe the person she is speaking to, film maker Ethan Krok, is confused; then immediately the group discussion goes directly to no recording.

[NightSG]

As a lawyer friend pointed out, stupid sexual predators tend to die or go to prison relatively young.  Smart ones look for certain characteristics in a potential victim.  A woman with a reputation for promiscuity and already damaged credibility is pretty darn near perfect; even if someone believes something happened, they'll assume she consented and possibly even initiated it.  Psychological fragility is even better; overreactions further damage her credibility.

Makes for something of a catch-22; the ones most likely (in general perception) to lie are the ones a smart predator is most likely to target.

[carlimac]

15 hours ago, myrmidon said:

 

We are more worried about her, her credibility and her past. It matters not. There will be no rape charges or trial. What are they going to do with him?

I'm not too worried about it. I don't think he won't go unpunished if that's what needs to happen. Obviously all the authorities, from his ward all the way up to the Prophet, plus law enforcement and the courts know about this. Since the statute of limitations is passed and the case dismissed, now it's between Bro. Bishop, his stake leaders and the Lord. 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, carlimac said:

I'm not too worried about it. I don't think he won't go unpunished if that's what needs to happen. Obviously all the authorities, from his ward all the way up to the Prophet, plus law enforcement and the courts know about this. Since the statute of limitations is passed and the case dismissed, now it's between Bro. Bishop, his stake leaders and the Lord. 

I concur.  The appearance about this discussion being more worried about her than him, arises from the fact that virtually no one here here has any real doubt about what’s going to happen to him; whereas the outcome of Denson’s antics is still very much in doubt.   

Edited September 9, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

As a lawyer friend pointed out, stupid sexual predators tend to die or go to prison relatively young.  Smart ones look for certain characteristics in a potential victim.  A woman with a reputation for promiscuity and already damaged credibility is pretty darn near perfect; even if someone believes something happened, they'll assume she consented and possibly even initiated it.  Psychological fragility is even better; overreactions further damage her credibility.

Makes for something of a catch-22; the ones most likely (in general perception) to lie are the ones a smart predator is most likely to target.

And yet when we try to teach youth the importance of having a good character/reputation...  We are told we are old fashioned,  oppressive, part of the problem, and otherwise denying them the right to be "who they truly are" 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I concur.  The appearance about this discussion being more worried about her than him, arises from the fact that virtually no one here here has any real doubt about what’s going to happen to him; whereas the outcome of Denson’s antics is still very much in doubt.   

I was going to agree until I realized that I didn't, LOL.  What I mean is, yes, we know that the Lord will take care of this.  Any sexual predator that is not punished in this life will be punished in the next if he (or she) does not repent.  The Lord knows if Bishop is guilty or innocent and of how much...He will take care of it.  

BUT we can say the SAME of McKenna...the Lord knows if she is guilty or innocent and of how much...He will take care of this as well.  

Much justice that is needed does not happen in this life, and to be fair, much mercy that needs to be extended doesn't happen in this life either.  

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I was going to agree until I realized that I didn't, LOL.  What I mean is, yes, we know that the Lord will take care of this.  Any sexual predator that is not punished in this life will be punished in the next if he (or she) does not repent.  The Lord knows if Bishop is guilty or innocent and of how much...He will take care of it.  

BUT we can say the SAME of McKenna...the Lord knows if she is guilty or innocent and of how much...He will take care of this as well.  

Much justice that is needed does not happen in this life, and to be fair, much mercy that needs to be extended doesn't happen in this life either.  

Perhaps; but I was thinking in a more immediate sense.  It looks like there are now at least two women saying they had sexual relations with him while he was MTC president, one of whom got an admission on tape.  I don’t see how he skates with this from a church discipline standpoint.  I mean, in the past he could gamble on the fact that no one disciplinary council had access to his entire history and knowledge of both accusers . . . Sounds like that won’t fly this time.  

But in a larger sense, it’s probably worth noting that I don’t see the imposition of “justice” as a primary function of a disciplinary council . . . 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

52 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Perhaps; but I was thinking in a more immediate sense.  It looks like there are now at least two women saying they had sexual relations with him while he was MTC president, one of whom got an admission on tape.  I don’t see how he skates with this from a church discipline standpoint.  I mean, in the past he could gamble on the fact that no one disciplinary council had access to his entire history and knowledge of both accusers . . . Sounds like that won’t fly this time.  

But in a larger sense, it’s probably worth noting that I don’t see the imposition of “justice” as a primary function of a disciplinary council . . . 

Okay, that makes sense.  About justice, I wasn't thinking of a disciplinary council, I agree with you that isn't the point of that meeting.  I was thinking of justice more in a legal sense for victims.  There are many rape victims that don't get legal justice in this life.  You might remember that I was abused as a child.  My abuser has never faced consequences for his actions, and for a long time it made me feel better to know that the Lord would take care of it...JUSTICE.  However, I have since forgiven him (it took years and I was only able to do so after considerable healing).  Now I realize that I don't know what happened in his life to make him act in such an abhorrent manner.  I still think what he did was vile and despicable, but I don't think HE is vile and despicable. He is a child of God, who made some horrific mistakes here on earth.  I am grateful that the Lord will give him both mercy and justice as the Lord sees fit.  I wish the same for Bishop and for McKenna....both who I view in the same manner.  

[NeuroTypical]

On 9/8/2018 at 9:53 PM, myrmidon said:

What is disturbing to me is few seem to really be all that concerned with the fact Bishop admitted to taking her by herself to a room and attempted anything with her.

Another reason why this stuff just does no good for anyone.  Something horrible happens, and we react by falling on each other like a pack of wild dogs.  We play the "you people aren't disturbed by the right things, and that disturbs me" card over and over.  It gets so easy to lose perspective about what's important, and start judging others' reactions.

I know (at least) eight people who have been molested at various times by various people.  Some suffer little to no apparent damage, some end up bearing lifelong burdens they can't seem to get rid of despite years of trying.  Earthly justice sometimes helps, but is rarely sufficient.  "Righteous judgment" is often elusive, misunderstood, and out of our grasp.

I forgot where I was going with this.  I don't mean to harp on you specifically myrmidon.  I'm just painfully aware that this sort of unrighteousness spreads ripples of misery and discontent out in every way.

[clwnuke]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm just painfully aware that this sort of unrighteousness spreads ripples of misery and discontent out in every way.

Amen to that statement!

[MarginOfError]

On 9/4/2018 at 3:15 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

Kudos to the bishopric. Now that I've seen it, I think they handled a horrible situation very well. 

Disclaimers: I am sympathetic to her plight and a major advocate for listening to those who bring such information forward.

That being said, I'm not a fan of this particular approach, and wouldn't tolerate it in my own ward.

And with "that being said" being said, I disagree that the bishopric handled it well.  Most importantly, they never should have touched her.  The better response would be to 1) turn off the microphone, 2) ask her to be seated, and 3) if she refuses to leave the pulpit, dismiss the meeting.  Nothing deflates a stunt like this more than literally taking away the audience.  After dismissing the meeting, you ask her to leave the premises.  If she refuses, you call the police.  But don't ever touch a person ranting at the pulpit unless they become the aggressor first.

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

[Jane_Doe]

12 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

And with "that being said" being said, I disagree that the bishopric handled it well.  Most importantly, they never should have touched her.  The better response would be to 1) turn off the microphone, 2) ask her to be seated, and 3) if she refuses to leave the pulpit, dismiss the meeting.  Nothing deflates a stunt like this more than literally taking away the audience.  After dismissing the meeting, you ask her to leave the premises.  If she refuses, you call the police.  But don't ever touch a person ranting at the pulpit unless they become the aggressor first.

All things considered I think the bishopric did decent in this case, especially considering the on-the-spotness.

However, the way you describe would have indeed been a better way of handling things.

[Just_A_Guy]

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 . . . 

 

Also:  In addition to the various response-emoticons the forum software now permits, we need a “Hmm . . .” emoticon.  As it is, “thanks” is the best I can do.  

Edited September 10, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

2 minutes ago, 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 pulpit and refusing to leave . . . 

I suspect anyone that views that as a viable strategy of putting a stop to Mormon worship services is going to quickly figure out that the repeated jail visits, bond payments, and legal fees associated with the disruptions are too big a burden for the goal.  

I'd love to see the angry blog post afterward, too.  "I went to a Mormon service and tried to interrupt it with my socio-political message.  And you know what they did?  They walked out on me!"  That isn't particularly newsworthy, and won't gather much sympathy from anyone with even a hint of rational intelligence.

Edited September 10, 2018 by MarginOfError

[NeuroTypical]

2 minutes ago, 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 pulpit and refusing to leave . . . 

I believe that this was exactly one of the goals of Denson and her camera crew - to see how much she could talk before getting the meeting dismissed.  Church security policy has been pretty much what MOE suggests since at least 2016.   The bishop confronting Denson didn't really follow it, and physically moved her away from the podium.

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Church security policy has been pretty much what MOE suggests since at least 2016.   The bishop confronting Denson didn't really follow it, and physically moved her away from the podium.

Really?  Do tell. . . I hadn’t heard this.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

Yep.  "Responding to a Disruptive Person" guidelines - sent to all bishoprics and branch presidencies in 2016.  It's of course, available all around the internet:

Quote

If a person becomes disruptive during a Church meeting, be respectful, speak calmly and with self-control, and respect his or her personal space.

Whether the person causing the disturbance remains seated in the congregation, approaches the stand, or stands at the pulpit, approach the person and ask him or her to stop or to leave, or invite the person to meet with a priesthood leader in the foyer. Tell the person that his or her behavior or comments are inappropriate. If the person has been asked to leave but refuses, inform him or her that the police may be notified and he or she may be arrested for trespassing. If the person refuses to leave and continues to cause a disturbance at the pulpit, turn off the microphone and dismiss the meeting. Do not attempt to physically restrain the person unless it is absolutely necessary. (Adapt these guidelines as needed for auxiliary meetings, classes, or other Church events or activities.)

If a serious or dangerous disruption is occurring on Church property, call the police. When the situation is under control, notify your priesthood leader and the Church Security Department.

I was also glad to hear that they subscribe to the "run, hide, fight" philosophy of reacting to an active shooter situation.  It's been my almost-favorite for a long time.

[SpiritDragon]

22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I was also glad to hear that they subscribe to the "run, hide, fight" philosophy of reacting to an active shooter situation.  It's been my almost-favorite for a long time.

I, too, am a fan of run, hide, fight. I didn't know the church subscribed to the idea. We should almost have a combined fifth Sunday training on it.

You mention "almost" in conjunction with favourite, is your preferred method, "draw, point, shoot?" Perhaps, just a traditional "ready, aim, fire?"

Edited September 10, 2018 by SpiritDragon

[zil]

11 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

We should almost have a combined fifth Sunday training on it.

They give instructions to those in leadership callings (at least, they gave me instructions).  Maybe they don't want to put the "someone dangerous might show up" idea into people's heads unnecessarily.

[NeuroTypical]

24 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

You mention "almost" in conjunction with favourite, is your preferred method, "draw, point, shoot?" Perhaps, just a traditional "ready, aim, fire?"

I forget who came up with it, but instead of "run/hide/fight", they push "Avoid/Deny/Defend".   It's still three words and simple to remember, but it's for folks who have done a bit more thinking and training on the subject, and might be capable of a bit more than the random scared person. 

[clwnuke]

Hindsight is 20/20, but in that situation I think it would have been prudent to turn the MIC off before she ever got to the stand. Perhaps they didn't realize who she was, but they didn't need to wait to see what she would say. However, then she probably would have accused them of un-Christlike attitudes instead of assault.

I also need to update some information that I posted earlier. I have gone back and added the corrections as edit notes in my posts. Sister Hughes was assigned to the Columbia Cali mission in the MTC, was then sent to Washington DC while waiting for a visa. She had an incident there and went back to Provo where she lived with a family that I know. The name of the family is redacted in police reports and I will leave it that way. Eventually, Sister Hughes was allowed to return to the field and went to the Wisconsin mission, not the Indianapolis mission like I had posted. It is my understanding that her mission eventually ended there.

Sorry for the confusion.

Edited September 11, 2018 by clwnuke

[pwrfrk]

On 9/11/2018 at 3:41 PM, clwnuke said:

I also need to update some information that I posted earlier. I have gone back and added the corrections as edit notes in my posts. Sister Hughes was assigned to the Columbia Cali mission in the MTC, was then sent to Washington DC while waiting for a visa. She had an incident there and went back to Provo where she lived with a family that I know. The name of the family is redacted in police reports and I will leave it that way. Eventually, Sister Hughes was allowed to return to the field and went to the Wisconsin mission, not the Indianapolis mission like I had posted. It is my understanding that her mission eventually ended there.

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).

[carlimac]

8 hours ago, 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 don't believe she has that right to privacy after what she has done. She has proven to be a menace and it behooves people to be aware of her and her past. That being said, if she is truly a victim she deserves justice, too.