Why didn't they just make him wear a scarlet A?

[_karl61]

But Church Courts are so subjective.

Indeed they are. As they should be.

For quite a while, Congress imposed upon the Courts the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to impose a degree of objectivity and consistency upon the sentencing of convicts. The Supreme Court struck them down and re-entrusted the trial courts with subjectivity in sentencing.

For the very same reasons, the Spirit works in individual penitents and bishops in the way the Spirit dictates, not the way it would seem to be politically correct. It is highly subjective.

THESTYLEGUY: I believe that it's the spirit of the Bishop or Stake President not the other way around. You as Bishop either excommunicate single pregnant college students or you don't, where another Bishop in another ward may only disfellowship pregant girls. There are some Stakes that excommunicate more than other Stakes and some Bishops excommunicate more than other Bishops. I think that if you were an insider at Church Headquarters you could see that. I know that in the 70's in our Stake they were approaching inactive members and asking if you want to be part of the Church or not and were excommunicating the people sitting on the fence. as Deacons and Teachers we were asked to leave all the time at the beginning of Priesthood meeting for a few minutes. Mark E. Peterson came down and told the High Counsel to have a little more patience and love for people. Today I don't think they excommunicate people because they are inactive.

"You as Bishop": Why don't you give me your name and profession, and church standing [you are a member, right, in good standing?], so that I can berate you (I wouldn't actually) with those items as you do to me?

I guess you can rely upon your anecdotes all you want. However, as a matter of Church polity and procedure, the Bishops are required to rely upon the Spirit and the authority granted them by the Q12. See I Thess. 1:5 [gospel comes with not only the word, but with power and the Spirit]. Nowhere in the scriptures or authority granted priesthood leaders have I ever seen an exhortation to be guided by precedent, like some lawyer or some judge of the secular law.

rrocket

I'm not talking precendent, although there is a lot of precedent about excommunicating anyone who questions church leadership, but you as a Bishop (which is a fact and I don't berate people) likely handle all single LDS pregnant women the same. You say that it depends on pentitents but that is also a subjective call based on how the person is outwardly handling the situation and single pregnant females have a range of moods during the week. Based on my observation the Church excommunicates single pregnant females, and in some cases when the father is a priest, he is disfellowshiped. This is the way it was handled in western orange county in the early 1980's. But you could sleep with 30 differnt woman in 30 days and they were not your LEGAL wife who you were not LEGALLY and LAWFULLY wedded to and you could continue as the President of the Church. That's a fact. In fact you could get all 30 women pregnant and the Church would support you.

[_beastie]

One thing I hope you'll notice is that I don't hurl an insult at you with every post nor do I chestbeat about claims of victory.

Unbelievable. I don't think it's even been a week since you called me a sociopath, and you're trying to take some moral superior ground? That's remarkable behavior, even for an internet board.

I don't care anything about MAD pretense. I don't defend MAD, support it, agree with it and rarely ever read it. It is inane and antithetical to the mission of the Church for providing a platform for the inane. Those who host and moderate that board will probably burn in hell and should have their memberships suspended.

I didn't respond to your original post, or think I had to do so. Shades dragged you in, and my only response is -- it you think the facts are so important, then bring them to the stake president's attention.

And, if you say, the Church wishes to hide facts from its members, who are you to criticize that? You say you have resigned from the Church. You lack any standing to criticize church discliplinary procedure, as well as you lack standing to condemn the Elks for wearing funny hats as a condition for membership.

I don't care what the church demands of its members, except for a sympathy factor for my family members who would do their best to comply no matter what those demands were.

My point was always pretty clear - it was about the obvious contradiction between the MADdite insistence that the church doesn't hide its history, and this case which demonstrates the clear opposite.

You responded to the point I made (which Shades quoted), which led me to believe you had some interest in that particular matter. Since you don't, the conversation, as far as I'm concerned, is over.

[_rcrocket]

I pointed out that it is sociopathic behavior to not realize that there is a difference between public insults using your own name and public insults made anonymously. You say there is no moral or ethical difference.

It is like not knowing the difference between right and wrong, a lie and a truth. I never accused you of being a sociopath, but I did accuse you of adopting a sociopathic stance as I describe above. I apologize for any implication from my post that I believe that you are a sociopath.

My point was always pretty clear - it was about the obvious contradiction between the MADdite insistence that the church doesn't hide its history, and this case which demonstrates the clear opposite.

Assert your point against some person other than me. It's like trying to paint me with the views of Barbara Streisand or Mitt Romney and then demanding that I defend them.

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

I'm not talking precendent, although there is a lot of precedent about excommunicating anyone who questions church leadership, but you as a Bishop (which is a fact and I don't berate people) likely handle all single LDS pregnant women the same. You say that it depends on pentitents but that is also a subjective call based on how the person is outwardly handling the situation and single pregnant females have a range of moods during the week. Based on my observation the Church excommunicates single pregnant females, and in some cases when the father is a priest, he is disfellowshiped. This is the way it was handled in western orange county in the early 1980's. But you could sleep with 30 differnt woman in 30 days and they were not your LEGAL wife who you were not LEGALLY and LAWFULLY wedded to and you could continue as the President of the Church. That's a fact. In fact you could get all 30 women pregnant and the Church would support you.

That is just an awful post, as in "wondering awe." I certainly cannot refute your anecdotal information. But, my statement of procedure remains unrefuted.

rcrocket

[Tator]

I pointed out that it is sociopathic behavior to not realize that there is a difference between public insults using your own name and public insults made anonymously. You say there is no moral or ethical difference.

Oh really? Care to quote my post wherein I made this assertion?

It is like not knowing the difference between right and wrong, a lie and a truth. I never accused you of being a sociopath, but I did accuse you of adopting a sociopathic stance as I describe above. I apologize for any implication from my post that I believe that you are a sociopath.

Oh, I see. So I just "adopt a sociopathic stance", but I'm not a sociopath.

Assert your point against some person other than me. It's like trying to paint me with the views of Barbara Streisand or Mitt Romney and then demanding that I defend them.

No, it's like assuming that someone you responding to your point was actually, you know, responding to your point.

[_rcrocket]

Instead of parsing through all the old posts, riddle me this:

Is there any moral or ethical difference between publicly insulting a person using one's own name versus insulting a person anonymously?

Is it sociopathic behavior to not know the difference between the two?

Again, my profuse apologies for posting an email which could be read to say that you are a sociopath. You're not.

rcrocket

[_beastie]

Instead of parsing through all the old posts, riddle me this:

Is there any moral or ethical difference between publicly insulting a person using one's own name versus insulting a person anonymously?

Is it sociopathic behavior to not know the difference between the two?

Again, my profuse apologies for posting an email which could be read to say that you are a sociopath. You're not.

Yes, there is a moral and ethical difference.

No, it is not sociopathic behavior to not know the difference, particularly when I know you're using the conversations on this board to insist that people don't know the difference.

Yes, you attributed a statement to me I never made. No, you cannot find an old post in which I made the statement you attributed to me. I know we all look alike to you.

[_guy sajer]

[ You say you have resigned from the Church. You lack any standing to criticize church discliplinary procedure, as well as you lack standing to condemn the Elks for wearing funny hats as a condition for membership.

Why?

So, if I switch parties from Republican to Democrat, I lack standing to criticize Republicans?

So, if I quit the KKK, I lack standing to criticize it?

Etc.

No offense, Robert, but this is really an inane argument.

Political parties are not a good example because there are elements of government compulsion. One must be a member of a political party to engage in certain required gov't functions, like voting in primaries.

Suppose you are a member of the Elks Club. You leave the Elks Club and become a Moose. The Elks change their conditions of membership and require its members to wear a five-spiked antler instead of a four-spiked antler.

You, as a Moose, can complain about the condition of membership but your complaint is without standing because you eschew membership. Focus, please.

The complaint is without standing in the sense that the Elks have no duty to consider your complaint.

This issue also has absolutely no moral implications.

If, however, the Elks instituted practices that had moral implications, the issue of standing, in this narrow context, changes. If they are, for example, denying membership to blacks, damn straight I have standing to criticize it, even in this context, as do other members of society.

But your post appeared to imply that if one disassociates him/her self from an organization, he/she has no legitimate basis to criticize it (this also appears to be what Jason Bourne has argued elsewhere). This argument is just plain silly.

Can we not just dispense with this argument here and now and get on with things?

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't care anything about MAD pretense. I don't defend MAD, support it, agree with it and rarely ever read it. It is inane and antithetical to the mission of the Church for providing a platform for the inane. Those who host and moderate that board will probably burn in hell and should have their memberships suspended.

Quite possibly the most hilarious thing I have ever read from you, Bob. This is def. going in my signature line. Thanks!

[_beastie]

Is there any moral or ethical difference between publicly insulting a person using one's own name versus insulting a person anonymously?

Is it sociopathic behavior to not know the difference between the two?

I want to briefly clarify my earlier comments.

As with most things in life, context is crucial in determining the morality of behaviors. There are simply times when safety issues overtake the preferable action of attaching your real name to criticisms. There are times when people are living in oppressive societies, when action will be taken against the author of any criticism. In that case, it is morally legitimate to criticize anonymously, particularly when the best interest of other people are concerned.

On internet boards, where, for practical purposes, most people's real names mean nothing to others, I see no moral difference in insulting someone using a moniker and insulting someone using your real name.

If your real name actually means something in the conversation, such as you're the author of an article being discussed, or you, in some way, are known in the field, then it is preferable to use one's real name.

Your name means nothing to me, Bob. We don't live in the same community. I don't know you, I don't know your family, so anything you say to me might as well be anonymous, in regards to the possible consequences of social disapproval to your behavior.