volgadon Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 What I don't get is people here saying they wouldn't sustain him because they don't like what he did in the course of his duties, none of which have gotten him any church discipline, or prevented his being called? Does that mean we get to refuse sustain leaders who don't do their share of the laundry, or who use corporal punishment with their children, or who run companies that we think damage the environment?That is what common consent is for. I could not in good conscience sustain the bishop in question. That is between me and God.
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Article of Faith 12 — Torture, including waterboarding, is against international law.http://lawreview.wus...ing-is-illegal/Additionally, Artilce of Faith 13.So is terrorism.So is war.
thesometimesaint Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 ERayR:1) The death penalty is the most severe form of legal punishment we have. 2) No, it actually encourages further attacks.
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 ERayR:. 2) No, it actually encourages further attacks.And that one is the still the subject of debate.
Kemara Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 What I find interesting and repugnant is the way that some who have not been the recipients of the pain and horror of a terrorist attack. Those who had no family or friends in the 9-11 attacks nor who have not had children blown up by bombs can sit here and condemn those who find it their lot to fight on the front lines of that battle. How can you plop your backsides in a soft chair in a comfortable, safe home and write condemnation to those who have kept the horrors of terror from your doors. Does this principle apply to those whom you would consider your enemies? Is it equally as repugnant in relation to all people of all nations? I could be mistaken, but I am reasonably certain that the Lord would never condone the use of torture for any purpose. Period. Blessed sanity, how I have missed you.
Deborah Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Any one know anything about such a claim?Hearsay is never acceptable as evidence. What is amazing is you say you couldn't find anything to substantiate this but chose to start a thread even though there are just rumors about what happened. We have no idea what was involved or what the real story is so why speculate? 2
Mark Beesley Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Bishops are approved at church headquarters. When the press, however, makes past military service an issue for a bishop, it has the potential of interfering with the work. And it can also affect security clearances and national security. I get why he would be honorably released.What I don't get is people here saying they wouldn't sustain him because they don't like what he did in the course of his duties, none of which have gotten him any church discipline, or prevented his being called? Does that mean we get to refuse sustain leaders who don't do their share of the laundry, or who use corporal punishment with their children, or who run companies that we think damage the environment?I don't believe bishops are vetted in Salt Lake City, but I could be mistaken.One person, Volgodon, said he was was almost positive he would not be able to sustain the bishop given the circumstances, so perhaps we shouldn't overstate what posters are saying.For what it is worth, I am fairly certain I would sustain him in his calling, and if the issue of his involvement in torture techniques ever came up, I would express my unbridled opposition to torture, while still sustaining him in his calling as a bishop.Assuming the bishop has asked to be released from his calling as bishop, I can see that to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do when one sees that one's past is being used by the news media to sully the Church. But we probably lack sufficient information to make any useful judgments about if and why he did so. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 They also put them into prison for killing people. Villiages are destroyed, and it's another day at the office, other times they are imprisoned for the same action.We don't put soldiers/policemen and other officials into prison who kill others when it is within the scope of their responsibilities. It is when they go outside of those responsibilities that legal action against them is taken. So the bombing of Hanoi was legal, however nonsensical, and the destruction of My Lai was not.
Mark Beesley Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Hearsay is never acceptable as evidence.That is not true. There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that the rule itself gets swallowed up in the exceptions. Back in the day when I was a practicing litigation attorney, I never faced a hearsay objection that I could not overcome by reference to one of the exception. The easiest one is to simply say that you are not offering the evidence for proof of the matter asserted but to show state of mind.This thread is based on political positions. Closed (Nothing personal, Mark)
cdowis Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Article of Faith 12 — Torture, including waterboarding, is against international law.http://lawreview.wus...ing-is-illegal/Additionally, Artilce of Faith 13.I suggest that you check your link. It gives a reference to a letter where they give their personal opinion on the matter. But I understand the difference between a personal opinion and a statute of law.We are not bound by "internation law". Check out the US Constitution if you have any question on that issue. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 And that one is the still the subject of debate.No it isn't.
Mark Beesley Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Blessed sanity, how I have missed you.It is a temporary condition, but thank you.
Recommended Posts