Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MorningStar

Ny Times Article: Kate Kelly And John Dehlin Threatened With Excommunication

Recommended Posts

Except that we start our "niceness" with an expression of love.  We even call our most vicious action -- a "court of love."

Wrong on two counts.

 

  1. That expression is a descriptor, not a title.
  2. Church discipline is not "vicious."

 

Apart from that, you were 100% right.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

It's Time Out for Women, not Women in Time Out!  :lol:

 

You're right.

 

Men in time out happens all the time...

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

You do mean "until you humble yourself before Church authorities", right? Or have our leaders now become Gods, in and of themselves? If so, then someone probably owes Ed Decker an apology ;)

 

Whose calling it is to judge.  I wonder why you have such a hard time believing Church authorities act through divine guidance.

Share this post


Link to post

You do mean "until you humble yourself before Church authorities", right? Or have our leaders now become Gods, in and of themselves? If so, then someone probably owes Ed Decker an apology ;)

 

You are still clinging to your Baptist heritage and ideas.

Share this post


Link to post

No, let's not consider fabricated statements. Let us instead consider what actually happened....

 

If you don't want to address my arguments, that is certainly your perrogative. 

So let's go ahead and consider what did in fact happen:

 

1- The Church never claimed it was the victim of criminal tresspass

2- The D.A. never brought charges against anybody for criminal tresspass

 

You've already stated that the Church could have any number of reasons not to file a complaint about this alleged crime, but what is the D.A.'s excuse? If a heinous crime has in fact been committed, doesn’t the D.A. have the responsibility to bring the perpetrators to justice?  According to you he could easily make the case without the cooperation of the alleged victim—the evidence is all out there.

 

But he didn't.  Is that because he knows it would be hard to win this case without the support of the alleged victim?  That's what I would guess.  That, and the fact that it just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

 

Anyway, I affirm your right to hold O.W., me, and whomever else you want in as much contempt as you want. 

Share this post


Link to post

It's Time Out for Women, not Women in Time Out!  :lol:

 

 

well, whatever!!!!! hahahahhahahhaha!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Whose calling it is to judge.  I wonder why you have such a hard time believing Church authorities act through divine guidance.

Not at all. I wholeheartedly agree that they act with divine GUIDANCE. However, that isn't the same as saying they always act in accordance with God's will. My phone has a GPS GUIDANCE program that will give me the "right" directions to travel just about anywhere, but it does not take over the controls of my car. I still have the AGENCY to miss a turn, take too sharp of a right, etc. In the same way, I don't just assume that because the prophets have taken one route or another, it means that God chose that route for the Church. I believe that as MEN, they are capable of missing turns (eg, civil rights) and turning to far to the right (eg, Prop 8).

Is my understanding not correct?

Share this post


Link to post

If you don't want to address my arguments, that is certainly your perrogative. 

So let's go ahead and consider what did in fact happen:

 

1- The Church never claimed it was the victim of criminal tresspass

2- The D.A. never brought charges against anybody for criminal tresspass

 

You've already stated that the Church could have any number of reasons not to file a complaint about this alleged crime, but what is the D.A.'s excuse? If a heinous crime has in fact been committed, doesn’t the D.A. have the responsibility to bring the perpetrators to justice?  According to you he could easily make the case without the cooperation of the alleged victim—the evidence is all out there.

 

But he didn't.  Is that because he knows it would be hard to win this case without the support of the alleged victim?  That's what I would guess.  That, and the fact that it just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

 

Anyway, I affirm your right to hold O.W., me, and whomever else you want in as much contempt as you want. 

 

"Heinous crime?"  I seem to have missed where smac97 said the criminal trespass was "heinous."  Would you care to point out where he said that?

 

The fact is that the OW crowd entered Church property, knowing that they had been expressly and repeatedly asked not to.  Any reasonable person would regard that as trespass.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

exactley! women have Women in Time Out thing and BYU Women's Conference, in addition to everything else. There aren't any Men in Time Out or BYU Men's conference! seriously

They are open for men to attend.  It is BYU Education Week, usually held at the end of summer.  In the past I've seen them televised and men are in attendance.  You ought to come out to Utah for one of these Duncan!  Btw, Happy Canada Day!  Actually my son has an authentic Canada shirt from a former missionary companion that lived there.  I hope to visit sometime.   

Share this post


Link to post

They are open for men to attend.  It is BYU Education Week, usually held at the end of summer.  In the past I've seen them televised and men are in attendance.  You ought to come out to Utah for one of these Duncan!  Btw, Happy Canada Day!  Actually my son has an authentic Canada shirt from a former missionary companion that lived there.  I hope to visit sometime.   

 

 

i know, I know I should get to Utah!!!! I want to!!!! they don't have typhoid or anything do they? Where did your son serve his mission?

Share this post


Link to post

i know, I know I should get to Utah!!!! I want to!!!! they don't have typhoid or anything do they? Where did your son serve his mission?

Northern California, you served in the southern part of Cali right? 

 

Btw, I'm done being negative about the church.  It might creep up if it needs to but basically done, I'm not getting anywhere with it.  Also, I wanted to ask if many members who are totally inactive ever get excommunicated or if they are off the radar enough that they get a "get out of jail free card".  Have you or anyone here heard this happening much?  Just curious.   

Share this post


Link to post

Northern California, you served in the southern part of Cali right? 

 

Btw, I'm done being negative about the church.  It might creep up if it needs to but basically done, I'm not getting anywhere with it.  Also, I wanted to ask if many members who are totally inactive ever get excommunicated or if they are off the radar enough that they get a "get out of jail free card".  Have you or anyone here heard this happening much?  Just curious.   

 

 

I did! California Arcadia Mission. In my experience I haven't ever heard of anyone inactive getting excommunicated. it only really happens when they are active. I suppose it could happen to an inactive but it would be a really weird situation!

Share this post


Link to post

I did! California Arcadia Mission. In my experience I haven't ever heard of anyone inactive getting excommunicated. it only really happens when they are active. I suppose it could happen to an inactive but it would be a really weird situation!

Sorry Mods, to derail for a sec.  Just need to link Duncan to some BYU Ed week.  There are a zillion classes, they look pretty interesting.  http://ce.byu.edu/edweek/schedule.php#2030

Share this post


Link to post

Let me ask you this, what should the Church do this upcoming conference?

I hope that no special measures will be necessary. The OW group has said they will not be protesting during General Conference again.

I know OW said they weren't going to try again. But lets say they changed their minds. If you were the church would you still issue a warning not to enter Church grounds? If they did would you have them arrested? Would you press charges?

I don't know. Perhaps I would use the same measures as were used before (instructing the protesters to not enter, and prohibiting the media from entering). If they actually did protest again, then the third time I would resort to more stringent measures (calling the police).

 

I am inclined to say yes to all of the above. I know its not like IP law (that I know of), but if you don't protect a trademark, you lose it. Even if not legally, wouldn't the same be true in effect (meaning people don't take you at your word) if you don't enforce your property rights?

Private property owners have pretty broad latitude to allow people onto their property or not. Moreover, the Church did attempt to enforce its property rights. The OW group just happened to be contemptible enough to disregard those rights.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

If you don't want to address my arguments, that is certainly your perrogative.

No, I won't address your arguments when they are based on fictional statements from the Church instead of what the Church actually said. Color me fickle.

 

So let's go ahead and consider what did in fact happen:

Well, let's also consider what the Church said.

 

1- The Church never claimed it was the victim of criminal tresspass

2- The D.A. never brought charges against anybody for criminal tresspass

 

You've already stated that the Church could have any number of reasons not to file a complaint about this alleged crime, but what is the D.A.'s excuse?

Lack of a complaining witness. Prosecutorial discretion. Bigger fish to fry. There are lots of reasons why a DA could decline to prosecute. The absence of a complaint from the property owner is likely the main reason.

 

If a heinous crime has in fact been committed,

You are attempting to belittle what happened by falsely characterizing it. I don't think anyone here has characterized the apparent criminal trespass as a "heinous crime." If I am in error, CFR. If I am not, then you are setting up a straw man.

 

doesn’t the D.A. have the responsibility to bring the perpetrators to justice?  According to you he could easily make the case without the cooperation of the alleged victim—the evidence is all out there.

But he didn't.  Is that because he knows it would be hard to win this case without the support of the alleged victim?  That's what I would guess.

That's what I would guess, too. That does not mean that a crime was not committed. There are all sorts of crimes that go unprosecuted for all sorts of reasons.

 

That, and the fact that it just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

From a secular perspective, I agree with you. A criminal trespass is not that big a deal. But that doesn't make the trespass any less offensive to Latter-day Saints on religious/moral grounds.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

From a secular perspective, I agree with you. A criminal trespass is not that big a deal. But that doesn't make the trespass any less offensive to Latter-day Saints on religious/moral grounds.

Thanks,

-Smac

But don't let us manifest any indignation over the offense, or we'll be viewed as "overreacting" or having "palpable anger."

Like you said, when it's the Church in the crosshairs ...

Share this post


Link to post

We even call our most vicious action -- a "court of love."

We don't call it that. It has been referred to as that, but not officially. And not for many, many years, except in anti-Mormon circles. The proper name -- what we actually call it -- is a disciplinary council.

And it is anything but vicious. I have been through enough of them to know that anyone who calls them such has either not been through them or has approached them with anything but the attendance of the Spirit. (You really need to read my first-hand blog post on this very topic. It might provide you with some real understanding.)

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post

From a secular perspective, I agree with you. A criminal trespass is not that big a deal.

I know you probably didn't mean to make a blanket statement, but while this particular example of criminal trespass may not have been that big of a deal, there are many others which are big deals. (Try engaging in criminal trespass at a military base, the White House, or a nuclear plant. Big, BIG deals all.)

Also, it is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) that criminal trespass charges are never prosecuted by a D.A. without a complaining witness. Had the Church chosen to complain to the authorities, the D.A. would have been compelled to evaluate the case and determine whether to pursue charges. Without the initiating complaint, however, the D.A. cannot take independent action solely on the basis of trespass. In other words, it is completely at the property owner's discretion as to whether to press charges or not. That the property owner chooses (for whatever reason) to not press charges does not mean that charges could not have been pressed. (It also does not mean that the charges would have gone anywhere had they, in fact, been pressed.)

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post

Well, let's also consider what the Church said.

 

Lack of a complaining witness. Prosecutorial discretion. Bigger fish to fry. There are lots of reasons why a DA could decline to prosecute. The absence of a complaint from the property owner is likely the main reason.

 

You are attempting to belittle what happened by falsely characterizing it. I don't think anyone here has characterized the apparent criminal trespass as a "heinous crime." If I am in error, CFR. If I am not, then you are setting up a straw man.

 

That's what I would guess, too. That does not mean that a crime was not committed. There are all sorts of crimes that go unprosecuted for all sorts of reasons.

 

From a secular perspective, I agree with you. A criminal trespass is not that big a deal. But that doesn't make the trespass any less offensive to Latter-day Saints on religious/moral grounds.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I’m not trying to mischaracterize your position.  I was merely groping for a synonym for “contemptible” since that word has already been used dozens of times in this thread alone.  If you think the alleged crime is “contemptible” but not “heinous”, I stand corrected.

 

In any case, I’m glad you agree with me that given the totality of the events that took place (including the fact that the alleged victim didn’t complain), it would be unlikely for a zealous prosecutor to successfully get a criminal conviction against OW for criminal trespassing. 

 

Nobody disputes the factual events that took place.  And based on those events, you and I also agree that a judge likely wouldn’t convict anybody of a crime.  So OW might be guilty of criminal trespass in an abstract way, but not in a way where a judge would actually say, “guilty” if the case were before him.

Share this post


Link to post

I know you probably didn't mean to make a blanket statement, but while this particular example of criminal trespass may not have been that big of a deal, there are many others which are big deals. (Try engaging in criminal trespass at a military base, the White House, or a nuclear plant. Big, BIG deals all.)

Yes, I was referring specifically to the OW group's trespass, not trespasses as a general rule.

Also, it is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) that criminal trespass charges are never prosecuted by a D.A. without a complaining witness.

There is no hard and fast rule. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion, and also a lot more crimes to deal with than they have resources with which to prosecute those crimes. In other words, prosecutors pick and choose, and one criterion for picking and choosing is whether there is an aggrieved party who wants charges pressed.

Had the Church chosen to complain to the authorities, the D.A. would have been compelled to evaluate the case and determine whether to pursue charges.

And the OW group surmised - correctly, as it turned out - that the Church would not pursue criminal charges against them. Contemptible.

Without the initiating complaint, however, the D.A. cannot take independent action solely on the basis of trespass. In other words, it is completely at the property owner's discretion as to whether to press charges or not.

I don't know about that. Prosecutors make the final call (criminal matters, after all, are prosecuted in the name of the governmental entity, not in the name of the victim of the crime). However, in many instances prosecutors will not pursue charges without a complaining witness.

That the property owner chooses (for whatever reason) to not press charges does not mean that charges could not have been pressed.

True. In this particular case, the criminal trespass charge was a factual slam dunk. I suspect the Church did not want to press charges because A) it hoped to preserve relationships with the trespassers, many of whom are church members, rather than escalate the acrimony created by the OW group, B) the OW group, contemptible as they are, would have exploited criminal charges to brag about how brave they are to have "stood up" against the Church and how craven the Church is for pressing criminal charges against them for "asking a question," and/or C) the Church's property was not damaged because of the trespass.

However, I think that if the OW group persists in protesting and committing property crimes against the Church, or if likeminded folks start to emulate their tactics, the Church may be compelled to protect itself and its property with more vigor.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

I’m not trying to mischaracterize your position.  I was merely groping for a synonym for “contemptible” since that word has already been used dozens of times in this thread alone.  If you think the alleged crime is “contemptible” but not “heinous”, I stand corrected.

Okay. "Heinous" goes to the weight and severity of the crime. "Contemptible" speaks more to the moral repugnance about it. A crime can therefore be relatively minor, but still "contemptible."

 

In any case, I’m glad you agree with me that given the totality of the events that took place (including the fact that the alleged victim didn’t complain), it would be unlikely for a zealous prosecutor to successfully get a criminal conviction against OW for criminal trespassing. 

I think that the prosecutor would listen to the complainant in such cases, or at least give the complainant's position some substantial consideration.

 

Nobody disputes the factual events that took place.  And based on those events, you and I also agree that a judge likely wouldn’t convict anybody of a crime.

No, we don't agree on that. That a criminal trespass occurred is pretty much a factual slam dunk. If the matter were presented to a judge or jury, I think a conviction would be very likely. But that's a very big "if."

 

So OW might be guilty of criminal trespass in an abstract way, but not in a way where a judge would actually say, “guilty” if the case were before him.

I disagree. The OW group is only "not guilty" in the sense that they were not found so by a court of competent jurisdiction. But the statute is clear, the actions of the OW group are not in dispute, and the application of the former to the latter seems to yield an inescapable conclusion.

The OW group committed a trespass against their own Church. And they did so because they surmised with reasonable certainty that they would get away with it (or if they did not, then they could exploit criminal charges against them as a weapon with which they could make the Church look bad). I find such actions contemptible.

That said, I am glad the Church did not seek to press charges. It was the right thing to do, this time. If in the future there are further efforts by other agitators or critics of the Church (the latter group, I note, are at least more honorable than the OW group to the extent they generally respect the Church's property rights) to trespass and protest on Church property, then the Church may have to pursue legal remedies to stop such a trend.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

Okay. "Heinous" goes to the weight and severity of the crime. "Contemptible" speaks more to the moral repugnance about it. A crime can therefore be relatively minor, but still "contemptible."

 

I think that the prosecutor would listen to the complainant in such cases, or at least give the complainant's position some substantial consideration.

 

No, we don't agree on that. That a criminal trespass occurred is pretty much a factual slam dunk. If the matter were presented to a judge or jury, I think a conviction would be very likely. But that's a very big "if."

 

I disagree. The OW group is only "not guilty" in the sense that they were not found so by a court of competent jurisdiction. But the statute is clear, the actions of the OW group are not in dispute, and the application of the former to the latter seems to yield an inescapable conclusion.

The OW group committed a trespass against their own Church. And they did so because they surmised with reasonable certainty that they would get away with it (or if they did not, then they could exploit criminal charges against them as a weapon with which they could make the Church look bad). I find such actions contemptible.

That said, I am glad the Church did not seek to press charges. It was the right thing to do, this time. If in the future there are further efforts by other agitators or critics of the Church (the latter group, I note, are at least more honorable than the OW group to the extent they generally respect the Church's property rights) to trespass and protest on Church property, then the Church may have to pursue legal remedies to stop such a trend.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Smac,

 

Let’s deal with the facts rather than your uncharitable speculations about OW’s motivations and hypothetical scenarios that didn’t transpire (such as the hypothetical universe where the church filed a complaint). 

 

Above I said,

 

But [the D.A.] didn't [file charges]. Is that because he knows it would be hard to win this case without the support of the alleged victim? That's what I would guess.”

 

You responded:

 

 “That's what I would guess, too.”

 

O.W. aren’t guilty in the sense that a court hasn’t found them guilty.  Furthermore, they aren’t guilty in the sense that a judge probably wouldn’t find them guilty if he heard the facts of the case as they are.

Share this post


Link to post

...your uncharitable speculations about OW’s motivations...

Anyone notice any irony in the above turn of phrase? (Hint: it implies that Analytics is a better judge of Smac's motivations -- they are, after all, uncharitable -- than Smac is of OW's motivations.)

-Allen

Edited by awyatt

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Smac,

 

Let’s deal with the facts rather than your uncharitable speculations about OW’s motivations and hypothetical scenarios that didn’t transpire (such as the hypothetical universe where the church filed a complaint). 

I have discussed the application of a state statute to the established-beyond-dispute actions of the OW group. "Charity" or the lack thereof doesn't factor into such an discussion.

But if by "uncharitable" you refer to my describing as "contemptible" the OW group's defiance of the Church and its trespass and protest on the Church's sacred ground during a sacred convocation, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I love charity. It is the highest of virtues in the eyes of Latter-day Saints. But it does not require us to be dishonest. What the OW group did was contemptible. It is not uncharitable to correctly describe their actions.

 

Above I said,

 

But [the D.A.] didn't [file charges]. Is that because he knows it would be hard to win this case without the support of the alleged victim? That's what I would guess.”

 

You responded:

 

 “That's what I would guess, too.”

 

O.W. aren’t guilty in the sense that a court hasn’t found them guilty.  Furthermore, they aren’t guilty in the sense that a judge probably wouldn’t find them guilty if he heard the facts of the case as they are.

I disagree. A judge or jury probably would find them guilty if presented with the facts of the case. The statute is clear. The communications from the Church to the OW group, and the OW group's subsequent deliberate and flagrant disregard of those communications, are not in dispute.

My position is that under Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-206(b)(ii), the OW group committed a criminal trespass on Temple Square. I have explained in detail the basis for my conclusion on that point. You have not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post

I'm certain that in 114 pages this discussion has been exhausted, time to move on.

 

~Chronos

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...