Tacenda Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: A bummer being on "limited," eh consig? You have a finite number of posts that are allotted you each day, so when you waste them on meaningless drive-by sniping such as this, you end up not having any posts left when you want to say something worthwhile. Such are the consequences of not being willing to play nice with others. Been there, done that!
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: Any lawyer representing the LDS Church would agree with you. That is because such lawyers are retained by the LDS Church to protect it against legal liability. I am concerned with the interests of the person who is summoned to the disciplinary hearing. Those who sit in judgment have no right of privacy in such hearings. LDS disciplinary councils are described in scripture as having six members assigned by lot to represent the accused. The other six are assigned to represent the Church. This is a fairer system. Unfortunately, the LDS Church has seen fit to subvert the scriptural process and instead now has nobody to represent the accused. Those who sit in judgment in such hearings are vested with great authority--they are judge, jury and executioner. In addition, they are prosecutors/police officers who are permitted to interrogate the accused. Again, nobody is allowed in the council to represent the interests of the accused. The cheese stands alone. This situation is rife with opportunities for abuse. This is why those who sit in judgment have no right to privacy for how they act in such councils. This is to be distinguished from their deliberations after the council, which are confidential and private, just as a jury's deliberations are. Granting the right to privacy to everybody in the council creates the LDS equivalent of the Star Chamber. Nobody there is accountable for how they behave or how they conduct the proceedings. It may well be that such lack of accountability is largely responsible for the manner in which disciplinary councils have drifted so far from their scriptural underpinnings. The reason that disciplinary councils are confidential is to protect the privacy of the accused. It was never to protect the privacy of those who are sitting in judgment on the accused. Wherever there's a cop beating up a guy, I'll be there. everyone is accountable for what happens there. They are accountable before God. As they should be. They aren't accountable before you.
consiglieri Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 26 minutes ago, Senator said: Well, that was quick. Just when I was going to defend you that you don't make personal, demeaning comments to other posters. Scott drew first blood with his post demeaning my qualities as a lawyer on page 15 of this thread: Quote Isn't consig some kind of lawyer? And he didn't think through all this stuff? My favorite: The accused is the only one with the right to confidentiality. Give me a break! If I ever needed representation and the choice were between the two of you, it would be the easiest decision I would ever have to make. I was merely responding in kind. It's not my fault Scott brought a knife to a gun fight. But I appreciate your sentiments, just the same, Senator. You are one of the good guys!
consiglieri Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said: everyone is accountable for what happens there. They are accountable before God. As they should be. They aren't accountable before you. No one is accountable if there is no record of the proceedings.
Teancum Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: A bummer being on "limited," eh consig? You have a finite number of posts that are allotted you each day, so when you waste them on meaningless drive-by sniping such as this, you end up not having any posts left when you want to say something worthwhile. Such are the consequences of not being willing to play nice with others. Pot meet kettle. Lucky for you that even though the moderators here have been more tempered than in times past it still tilts towards tolerating nonsense from the true believers. 1
ksfisher Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 12 minutes ago, consiglieri said: No one is accountable if there is no record of the proceedings. A record is kept by the clerk. And all men are accountable before God. 2
ttribe Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: So do you plan to reproach consig next time he makes one of his drive-by jabs? He has a habit of that, you know. That's what got him put on "limited." [shrug] Dunno. I've mostly been an equal opportunity critic of nastiness in the past. But, your attempted defense of RCM was hilarious; couldn't let that one go. 1
consiglieri Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 Just got back from getting my wife a dozen long stem red roses. Happy Valentine's Day, everybody!
sheilauk Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 24 minutes ago, consiglieri said: No one is accountable if there is no record of the proceedings. erm, they are still accountable - its just not provable - just one word against another, so they may not be able to be held to account.
bluebell Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Just got back from getting my wife a dozen long stem red roses. Happy Valentine's Day, everybody! For some reason I can't give you rep points any more. +1 from me! 1
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 46 minutes ago, consiglieri said: No one is accountable if there is no record of the proceedings. because God doesn't know what is going on?
Teancum Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 20 hours ago, ttribe said: Nice low blow. I can't imagine you would take too kindly to someone publicly deriding your professional skill as a journalist in this forum. So Consig does drive by insults and posts and get put on limited but Scott can be Mr Nasty and dish out insults and gets off Scott Lloyd free. And yes Scott you are rather nasty, demeaning and insulting more often than you think you are. 2
Popular Post Calm Posted February 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2016 Perhaps everyone, especially the readers, could benefit from stepping away from the personal stuff? Both in this thread and others? It becomes tedious for me at least and I suspect many others when the majority of posts have little to do with the actual topic and much to do about each other in a critical way. I know the mods are not always quick to respond, but from what I have seen if you leave it to them (after reporting of course) they tend to pay more attention to the report than if you take upon yourself any moderating duties as well. (I realize I may have crossed the line myself, but hopefully only a toe or two). 5
Teancum Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 6 minutes ago, Calm said: Perhaps everyone, especially the readers, could benefit from stepping away from the personal stuff? Both in this thread and others? It becomes tedious for me at least and I suspect many others when the majority of posts have little to do with the actual topic and much to do about each other in a critical way. I know the mods are not always quick to respond, but from what I have seen if you leave it to them (after reporting of course) they tend to pay more attention to the report than if you take upon yourself any moderating duties as well. (I realize I may have crossed the line myself, but hopefully only a toe or two). I am all for what you say but I tire of the sanctimonious posters like Scott, Russell, Smac and others who think they are wonderfully kind and fair yet they are not and are just as faulty as those they whine and complain about like Consig, me and others. 2
Calm Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 Irritation by ignoring can be highly effective. 2
Senator Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: Scott drew first blood with his post demeaning my qualities as a lawyer on page 15 of this thread: I realize that. 1
Senator Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: That's not the issue, Scott, and you know it. You said this: I provided numerous examples showing you are wrong. Now you want to change the subject. This is why it's hard to take you seriously. You have no journalistic integrity. Okay, thats enough. I'm late to the party but you are out of the thread. ......aaaaand Scott gets a pass.... 1
Jeanne Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Mystery Meat said: I never called you stupid. i just said your post was stupid, which it was. Same difference. And that was a stupid reply... Edited February 13, 2016 by Jeanne
ttribe Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 11 minutes ago, Senator said: ......aaaaand Scott gets a pass.... So it would seem. He who instigated the nastiness is left untouched. That certainly won't help this board's reputation regarding its moderating bias. 2
Jeanne Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: A bummer being on "limited," eh consig? You have a finite number of posts that are allotted you each day, so when you waste them on meaningless drive-by sniping such as this, you end up not having any posts left when you want to say something worthwhile. Such are the consequences of not being willing to play nice with others. But we have posters here calling people/posts stupid. Is that okay Scott? 1
Jeanne Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 44 minutes ago, Senator said: ......aaaaand Scott gets a pass.... And so does MysteryMeat???
Jeanne Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 3 hours ago, bluebell said: For some reason I can't give you rep points any more. +1 from me! Me too! 1
california boy Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Membership in the Church is a privilege, not a right. The Church is thus not a governmental entity granting so-called "rights." Rather, it is a party to a contract in which each party may terminate the contract at any time if it sees that the other party is not living up to the contractual terms. A disciplinary council may be thought of as a formal airing of grievances pursuant to possible limitation to or termination of the contract on the part of the Church. It justly allows a hearing and mercifully makes clear to the errant member how he can change his behavior and again be deemed to be in compliance. I think that is pretty much what I said, didn't I?? 1
Russell C McGregor Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, consiglieri said: Any lawyer representing the LDS Church would agree with you. That is because such lawyers are retained by the LDS Church to protect it against legal liability. I am concerned with the interests of the person who is summoned to the disciplinary hearing. Those who sit in judgment have no right of privacy in such hearings. In your opinion. That, plus some cash, will get you a coffee at Starbuck's. Quote LDS disciplinary councils are described in scripture as having six members assigned by lot to represent the accused. The other six are assigned to represent the Church. This is a fairer system. Unfortunately, the LDS Church has seen fit to subvert the scriptural process and instead now has nobody to represent the accused. Call for references, please. I've participated in DC's as a member of a Stake High Council. They were run according to the scriptural model. So I'm not only calling for references, I'm suggesting that you made it up. Quote Those who sit in judgment in such hearings are vested with great authority--they are judge, jury and executioner. Executioner? Funny, last I heard, Kate Kelly and John Dehlin were still breathing. (Rather loudly, too.) Quote In addition, they are prosecutors/police officers who are permitted to interrogate the accused. Again, nobody is allowed in the council to represent the interests of the accused. Again, I call for references. Support or retract, please. Quote The cheese stands alone. This situation is rife with opportunities for abuse. This is why those who sit in judgment have no right to privacy for how they act in such councils. This is to be distinguished from their deliberations after the council, which are confidential and private, just as a jury's deliberations are. Granting the right to privacy to everybody in the council creates the LDS equivalent of the Star Chamber. Nobody there is accountable for how they behave or how they conduct the proceedings. It may well be that such lack of accountability is largely responsible for the manner in which disciplinary councils have drifted so far from their scriptural underpinnings. The reason that disciplinary councils are confidential is to protect the privacy of the accused. It was never to protect the privacy of those who are sitting in judgment on the accused. Wherever there's a cop beating up a guy, I'll be there. ETA: I see Consig is out, so he won't have to respond to the CFR. Pity. Edited February 14, 2016 by Russell C McGregor 2
Mars Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 you are not stupid. your post is stupid. i am not stupid. i have been known say stupid things. you just plain have to separate the two. 2
Recommended Posts