It isn't complicated or Orwellian. If you're being tried for your membership in the Church, and you've lost, on appeal do you want to complain about the bathroom and your phone, or do you want to launch into the merits. Doesn't that make sense?
From your answer above, I don’t believe you read the appeal. Which. You know. Is kind of your thing. Why do you comment from ignorance most of the time? Poor form.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
It isn't complicated or Orwellian. If you're being tried for your membership in the Church, and you've lost, on appeal do you want to complain about the bathroom and your phone, or do you want to launch into the merits. Doesn't that make sense?
On an appeal, you bring up both procedural and substantive issues of the case. Surely, if your client weren't allowed to attend his/her criminal trial or bring in notes he/she had or to have witnesses testify on his/her behalf, you would "whine" about it to the appellate court and not just limit your objections to substantive issues? Wouldn't it be malpractice to avoid clear procedural violatons on appeal?
And as Cam just said, Natasha does address the substance.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
It is interesting that, on the one hand, I am sympathetic to her merits argument and would like to see it pressed, whereas you and your buds here are focused on bathrooms, phones etc.
It is interesting that, on the one hand, I am sympathetic to her merits argument and would like to see it pressed, whereas you and your buds here are focused on bathrooms, phones etc.
No.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Yes you are. You in particular. The New Testament procedure for excommunication is no procedure at all.
The church has every right to define the exit procedure. If you insist upon bringing in a recording device you can't come in.
You clearly didn’t read the appeal. Why are you like this?
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
The husband has only been out since last April and his wife since last January. Their new Bishop (who does not even know them) shows up out of the blue with two options for them:
I've read the appeal. There's a reference to the merits argument pertaining to calling the brethren "pricks" but she justifies it. I see no significant reference to the state of the art of therapy dealing with, for instance, masturbation and pornography. Having said that, the last time I looked at the DSM manual regarding sexual problems, there was discussion about those two topics.
Instead in the appeal I see discussion about procedure. Such a waste of time. She had the world by the tail; everybody's watching. She could have filled her appeal with expert statements, interesting anecdotes, members' lives improved and saved, her efforts with members, etc. and etc. That would have brought down the house. Instead -- bathrooms, phones and friends. She writes like a high schooler.
I've read the appeal. There's a reference to the merits argument pertaining to calling the brethren "pricks" but she justifies it. I see no significant reference to the state of the art of therapy dealing with, for instance, masturbation and pornography. Having said that, the last time I looked at the DSM manual regarding sexual problems, there was discussion about those two topics.
Instead in the appeal I see discussion about procedure. Such a waste of time. She had the world by the tail; everybody's watching. She could have filled her appeal with expert statements, interesting anecdotes, members' lives improved and saved, her efforts with members, etc. and etc. That would have brought down the house. Instead -- bathrooms, phones and friends. She writes like a high schooler.
Surely hers was far more an emotional or Church-like appeal. I'd agree its kind of weak. The leaders could read it and be like, "ok...they handled it poorly. I agree. But, we'll leave it on those fools. That's what they're there for--take all the flack for our secreted decisions."
I'm guessing these appeals rarely get looked at by anyone other than a few filing clerks, of sorts, anyway.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
.
