NOM

In her lawsuit, Bottomly claimed Monson had become obsessed with her "personally and sexually" during her employment at AIB from 1990 to 1993. Bottomly said she was forced to listen to "stories of the most intimate facts of his sexual relations with his wife [and he] repeatedly asked about her sex life." Monson, the suit claimed, stalked her, tried to kiss her, searched her belongings, listened to her conversations and repeatedly propositioned her. He also wrote love notes and left "lewd" materials on her desk, including a drawing of two people having sex, according to court documents.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:04 am I mean, let that sink in for a minute - the Church’s go-to law firm hired a guy who was fired for sexual harassment, and hired him for no reason other than his father was in the First Presidency. This is the same law firm that answers the phone when a bishop calls the Church’s abuse hotline - does someone fired for sexual harassment seem like a good fit for the Church’s law firm?

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:33 am All members are not equal, and don’t ever think they are.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:04 am I mean, let that sink in for a minute - the Church’s go-to law firm hired a guy who was fired for sexual harassment, and hired him for no reason other than his father was in the First Presidency.

This is Corsair's entirely fake response and no one claims that any apologist actually wrote:"This is not necessarily some veiled nepotism. Young Brother Monson might have been eminently qualified and had planned this move for some time. We don't know if the charges against him may or may not be valid since harassment cases are always complicated. But since he was hired by Kirton McConkie, we have to assume that they would have done their due diligence on Brother Monson during the hiring process. Hiring a known abuser is dangerous and we have heard nothing since them. It could have been false accusations and Brother Monson simply chose discretion over valor in what would have been a time consuming and expensive process of litigation to stay in the same company with his accuser."

mooseman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:35 pm I'll attempt another apologetic angle...

Is your objection that he is again working, or who he is working for? Should a persons entire profession be derailed and destroyed because of a past alleged incident? Perhaps you feel he doesnt deserve a second chance, and should remain unemployed or under employed for the of rest of his life?

You assume he got the job simply because of his father -not the quality of his work, his interview skills, ect. Did you know it was the ONLY place he applied? Or interviewed? Nothing implies he was bad at his job, or incapable of doing it. Nothing implies he recieves special treatment, or perks because of his dad. He was hired to do a job, and he does it. KnM cared that much about who his father is, why didn't they hire him out of school? Clearly, he fit a need at that time he didnt before and it wouldn't be who his father is since that hadnt changed.

It seems everyone is upset because he did what we all do when looking for a new job, network with friends of friends and family to find an opening, sell himself, and take the best offer given. What standard are you proposing he be held to that is so different from what you home yourself to? He made a mistake, yes, but he still needs to work!

Apologist mode off

How was that?

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:24 am

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:04 am I mean, let that sink in for a minute - the Church’s go-to law firm hired a guy who was fired for sexual harassment, and hired him for no reason other than his father was in the First Presidency.

Could an apologist have a good explanation? Could anyone provide a faithful response? Hold my beer...

This is Corsair's entirely fake response and no one claims that any apologist actually wrote:"This is not necessarily some veiled nepotism. Young Brother Monson might have been eminently qualified and had planned this move for some time. We don't know if the charges against him may or may not be valid since harassment cases are always complicated. But since he was hired by Kirton McConkie, we have to assume that they would have done their due diligence on Brother Monson during the hiring process. Hiring a known abuser is dangerous and we have heard nothing since them. It could have been false accusations and Brother Monson simply chose discretion over valor in what would have been a time consuming and expensive process of litigation to stay in the same company with his accuser."

If apologetics was not bereft of objective truth and also paid so poorly, I'll bet I could have a lucrative career.

mooseman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:35 pmHow was that?

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:24 am
If apologetics was not bereft of objective truth and also paid so poorly, I'll bet I could have a lucrative career.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:37 am Wow - some of your LDS apologetic powers are truly impressive.

You know, it’s not that I don’t believe people should have second chances, it just bothers me when second chances aren’t distributed equitably. I know for a fact Kirton McConkie wouldn’t have been so generous with someone who wasn’t Thomas S. Monson’s son. The Church isn’t forgiving to those who go astray - unless you are well-connected.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:40 pm wow Corsair and Mooseman, you make it look easy.

Reuben wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:38 am

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:37 am Wow - some of your LDS apologetic powers are truly impressive.

You know, it’s not that I don’t believe people should have second chances, it just bothers me when second chances aren’t distributed equitably. I know for a fact Kirton McConkie wouldn’t have been so generous with someone who wasn’t Thomas S. Monson’s son. The Church isn’t forgiving to those who go astray - unless you are well-connected.

How do you know they're not distributed equitably?

As an apologist, I insist on holding you to a much higher standard of evidence than I hold my church.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:52 am

Reuben wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:38 am

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:37 am Wow - some of your LDS apologetic powers are truly impressive.

You know, it’s not that I don’t believe people should have second chances, it just bothers me when second chances aren’t distributed equitably. I know for a fact Kirton McConkie wouldn’t have been so generous with someone who wasn’t Thomas S. Monson’s son. The Church isn’t forgiving to those who go astray - unless you are well-connected.

How do you know they're not distributed equitably?

As an apologist, I insist on holding you to a much higher standard of evidence than I hold my church.

Well, Mr. Pretend Apologist, you have me there. Maybe it had nothing to do with who his Dad was, it may well be that Kirton McConkie makes a policy of hiring people who were fired for sexual harassment. Because that actually would make a tremendous amount of sense if you look at the Church's legal strategy in dealing with the Joseph Bishop fiasco.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:52 am

Reuben wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:38 am

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:37 am Wow - some of your LDS apologetic powers are truly impressive.

You know, it’s not that I don’t believe people should have second chances, it just bothers me when second chances aren’t distributed equitably. I know for a fact Kirton McConkie wouldn’t have been so generous with someone who wasn’t Thomas S. Monson’s son. The Church isn’t forgiving to those who go astray - unless you are well-connected.

How do you know they're not distributed equitably?

As an apologist, I insist on holding you to a much higher standard of evidence than I hold my church.

Well, Mr. Pretend Apologist, you have me there. Maybe it had nothing to do with who his Dad was, it may well be that Kirton McConkie makes a policy of hiring people who were fired for sexual harassment. Because that actually would make a tremendous amount of sense if you look at the Church's legal strategy in dealing with the Joseph Bishop fiasco.