Jump to content

toon

Members
  • Content Count

    495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

199 Excellent

1 Follower

About toon

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,513 profile views
  1. I don't disagree. The problem, however, is that many in the Church still do -- that if you're not a particular type of x son/daughter of God, you somehow count for less. Coming out and identifying with the qualifier can help dispel that notion. At a minimum, and so long as that notion exists, this act may help those who also identify as x feel that they are welcome, or at least welcome among a few.
  2. I'll have to look it up, but I vaguely remember reports of instances where a child of a divorced couple with joint custody, one parent being a faithful member and the other in a same-sex relationship, was either prevented from baptism or had the baptism delayed. I suspect that was the most likely and most obvious situation where a child of a same-sex couple would like to be baptized, but surprisingly, it appears not to have been one of the "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios" considered, through fasting and prayer and the seeking of the Lord's guidance. I also remember the Church issuing some after-the-fact clarification that the policy didn't apply to those situations, but they never formally changed the policy (so a local leader reading the policy would have to have been aware of the news release. If not, there was still a risk that the local leader would strictly apply the policy.) I get that there have been reversals in the past on policy that was presented as doctrine or as having been implemented through revelation. But has there ever been one reversed so quickly? Does God really say, "Oops! My bad."
  3. I'm not sure that would get them off the hook. It would seem odd that you could avoid disclosing an otherwise record that was otherwise subject to disclosure under an open records law simply by disbanding. If that record was created at a time when it was subject to disclosure, then it should still be disclosable. I understand BYUPD's argument with regard to GRAMA, but assuming GRAMA applies, my guess is that it would still apply. Regardless of what happens, during the time in question, there was a police department with officers granted certain powers and authority by the state. The public and especially impacted individuals need to be able to evaluate how those powers and authority were used, and that need doesn't go away simply because the department no longer exists.
  4. Will there still be fast and testimony meeting the first Sunday of each month? In the past, nearly every ward that I had been in struggled to finish F&T meeting on time. Seems a good percentage of the time (less than 50% but still significant), we went over. With sacrament meeting now 15 minutes shorter, will there be more pressure to extend in order to accommodate likely the same amount of people each week who will want to share their testimonies?
  5. I don't know about any current appeal process based on Title IX. There may or may not be one. (I think a student a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education if he or she thinks the school is not in compliance.) I was referring to a prior post here referencing a BYU appeal process that is available when a student loses an ecclesiastical endorsement. It's my understanding that that process does not currently have any special procedures with regard to the amnesty policy. I just think it would be real simple to incorporate the amnesty policy into the appeal process and close the loophole. I suspect, at the end of the day, something along these lines will happen, just as the schools made the change a year or so ago to implement the amnesty policy.
  6. While the original endorsement to get into BYU may come from the home ward, continuing endorsements may come from the student ward. I was at BYU when they implemented the continuing endorsement requirement. At or near the end of each academic year, the student ward bishop would schedule continuing-endorsement interviews with all the students in the ward who were planning on returning the next year. If that bishop doesn't issue the continuing endorsement, the student cannot return the next year. In addition, the student ward bishop has the ability to revoke an endorsement mid-semester, and if that happens the student doesn't even get to finish the semester, likely gets kicked our of housing, and probably gets no tuition refund. Seems like the solution here, given that there appears to be an appeal process to the school in the event an endorsement is revoked, would be to require whoever hears that appeal to consult with the Title IX office as well as the bishop when making a decision, in order to ensure that the amnesty policy is followed. So a discussion with the bishop in order to determine why he revoked the endorsement. If the related to conduct that occurred on or around the time of the assault, then there's a call to the Title IX office to see if this conduct, had it been reported to them, would have resulted in amnesty. If so, then the student remains in school notwithstanding the revocation of the endorsement.
  7. In this case, the two students were in the same ward. The perp met with the bishop, confessed, and presumably also provided him with the victim's name, claiming that she had been drinking. The bishop then met with her, and she refused to discuss it. It appears that, because of her refusal, the bishop then revoked her endorsement. Yes, she also could have refused to even meet with him. I suspect that also would have resulted in a revoked endorsement. I'm not sure the difference between a home a student ward bishop, as both have the ability to revoke an endorsement.
  8. The problem is when, while that investigation is still pending, the bishop asks to meet with the victim to discuss the incident. It's my understanding that that is what happened here. And based on what someone who claimed to have been the victim posted in another forum, her response was that she had been advised not to talk about it, including the drinking, while the investigation was pending. But because she refused to discuss the matter, the bishop apparently felt that she wasn't willing to deal with her issues (unrepentant?) and revoked the endorsement. Now I recognize that's just one side of the story, coming from someone posting relatively anonymously but claiming to be the victim. So that may not be how it played out. But if it was, it's problematic in the least.
  9. Seems like there's a real simple solution. In cases where a bishop revokes an endorsement under such circumstances, the school talks to the bishop and asks if the revocation was for conduct occurring at or near the time of the alleged sexual misconduct. Based on the bishop's explanation, the school decides whether the case falls within its amnesty rule. If it does, then the student stays in school. Since I imagine that these "loophole" cases are not all that common, it wouldn't require any significant resources or time to implement the solution. My guess is that something to close the so-called loophole will soon be implemented. Frankly, the whole idea of a continuing endorsement that can be revoked mid-semester has always bothered me. It incentivizes dishonesty and potentially places a barrier between a student and his or her bishop, where the student might not seek out needed help and counseling out of fear of losing the endorsement. In the student's mind, it might be better to put it off until the end of the semester or even graduation. Or simply lie to the bishop. When the continuing endorsement requirement was first implemented in the 80s, my BYU bishop was very vocal about his opposition for that very reason. In fact, when he had interviews with students, he would immediately sign the endorsement at the beginning of the interview, hand back, and then proceed with the interview and discuss any issues that may have been going on.
  10. I suspect that very few businesses in the "legal" manufacture, distribution, and sale of marijuana under state and local laws will be tempted to also trade in the black market. So long as the feds hold off, they will have too much to lose (basically their entire legal business plus jail time) if the branch out into the black market. Those who want to remain legal have a very strong incentive to operate legally. Kind of like how restaurants and stores have become increasingly strict about checking IDs when selling alcohol to someone who may even be remotely close to underage. Selling to a minor comes with huge penalties, including the potential loss of a liquor license, which in many cases can be a death sentence. Depending on the nature of the establishment, if you can't sell alcohol, you're out of business. Also like how manufacturers of alcohol (brewers, wineries, distilleries, etc.) strictly adhere to the manufacture and distribution laws. I have a friend whose son was hired as a checker in a grocery store. On his first or second day on the job, he made an innocent mistake of not analyzing closely someone's ID and misread the birth date. It was a sting. He was immediately fired. The matter was referred to the DA for misdemeanor prosecution (eventually dismissed). And the store was fined with a warning that a second violation in the next year would result in revocation of their license.
×
×
  • Create New...