Jeanne Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 On 5/31/2016 at 10:08 AM, Storm Rider said: Unfortunately, it was tolerated and accepted by the Athletic Department and the Administration and - worse - by the fellow athletes. It was ignored until the student himself spoke up and then action was taken. Several levels of individuals in authority ignored the topic of abuse, persecution, etc., until it was already a problem. In things like this, heads should roll..from the top to the bottom.
Storm Rider Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: In things like this, heads should roll..from the top to the bottom. I think it was an aberration centered on this young man. It is strongly suspect that any of us has a complete picture of what occurred and the motivations for the behavior and actions of each individual involved. Our society has become very crass. We tolerate so much that I find it easy to understand when some individuals make poor choices. I am not saying that individuals should not be accountable for their actions, but I don't accept a zero tolerance rule. When we set such a high standard all will fail to maintain it. I don't like scapegoats to teach others to hide their baser qualities more effectively. These guys are good examples of how stupid humans can be; how poorly humans can make choices, but I don't thing their lives should be destroyed. There has to be a better way to punish people fairly.
Jeanne Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 52 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: I think it was an aberration centered on this young I like your take on this. But how does one go about penalizing those who are responsible when liability is attached to so many others? It is hard to be fair in a world that isn't fair..especially in a school. You're right about the callousness in society in general. It is so unfortunate that choices of a few can hurt so many.
Jim Stiles Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Only when it is overtly in opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Then it is anti-Mormon -- by definition. And it's not having a "persecution complex" to say so. If it were anti-Catholic or anti-Semitic I would likewise identify it by those descriptors. I've said it before: If you don't like the term anti-Mormon being applied to you, don't engage in behavior that would make the application of the term accurate. It's really very simple. I think that the office of the pope is a prime candidate for the Antichrist. I have yet to hear of any Roman Catholic being told to stay away from anything that I may have written. Jerry Falwell once said that the Antichrist would come from the Hebrew tribe of Dan (the idea did not originate with him). No one outside of television's talking heads said that he was being anti-semitic. Posts in here that contain an innocuous link to a Mormonism Research Ministry web page get edited.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2016 Author Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: I think that the office of the pope is a prime candidate for the Antichrist. What a blatantly anti-Catholic remark. Quote I have yet to hear of any Roman Catholic being told to stay away from anything that I may have written. I've yet to hear of any Mormon being told to stay away from anything you may have written. I don't even know you, in fact. I think you are inflating your own importance. Quote Jerry Falwell once said that the Antichrist would come from the Hebrew tribe of Dan (the idea did not originate with him). No one outside of television's talking heads said that he was being anti-semitic. Probably few paid attention to him enough to even be aware of it. I'm not acquainted enough with the context to say whether or not it is anti-Semitic. On its face, the remark just seems weird. Quote Posts in here that contain an innocuous link to a Mormonism Research Ministry web page get edited. Take that up with the moderators. For my part I will say this is a privately owned board, and the proprietors are entitled to set the rules. They are not obliged to furnish you a platform to spew your bile. I wonder how successful anyone would be in posting links on MRM to lds.org or to FairMormon.org or to Interpreter, a Journal of Mormon Scripture. Edited June 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Gray Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 11 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: I think that the office of the pope is a prime candidate for the Antichrist. I have yet to hear of any Roman Catholic being told to stay away from anything that I may have written. Jerry Falwell once said that the Antichrist would come from the Hebrew tribe of Dan (the idea did not originate with him). No one outside of television's talking heads said that he was being anti-semitic. Posts in here that contain an innocuous link to a Mormonism Research Ministry web page get edited. While I don't think this kind of stuff amounts to serious persecution, it's definitely rude and counter productive.
Storm Rider Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 13 hours ago, Jeanne said: I like your take on this. But how does one go about penalizing those who are responsible when liability is attached to so many others? It is hard to be fair in a world that isn't fair..especially in a school. You're right about the callousness in society in general. It is so unfortunate that choices of a few can hurt so many. I don't have the answers, but some thoughts come to mind. First, I think there needs to be a meeting of all that participated in the abuse. The meeting should include a review of what occurred and an explanation of why they felt their actions was acceptable. Second, a sincere apology should be required and if not observed then that impacts the penalty phase. Third, I do like the concept of community service - for example, working with LDS youth that are interested in learning to play tennis at a higher level, talking with LDS youth about the sport and its effect on the coaches life, talking with youth groups about how abusing people can happen and how it has impacted the coaches life. If necessary, a fee may also be assessed if the actions are deemed egregious enough and it is evident that an honest apology is not acceptable or possible. The goal is to assist individuals to reform their thinking rather than destroy their lives. If a coach cannot coach his/her life is destroyed unnecessarily and without any improvement achieved for the individual or society. We may live in an unfair world, but that should not alleviate our individual responsibility to treat others fairly. 1
Jeanne Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: I don't have the answers, but some thoughts come to mind. First, I think there needs to be a meeting of all that participated in the abuse. The meeting should include a review of what occurred and an explanation of why they felt their actions was acceptable. Second, a sincere apology should be required and if not observed then that impacts the penalty phase. Third, I do like the concept of community service - for example, working with LDS youth that are interested in learning to play tennis at a higher level, talking with LDS youth about the sport and its effect on the coaches life, talking with youth groups about how abusing people can happen and how it has impacted the coaches life. If necessary, a fee may also be assessed if the actions are deemed egregious enough and it is evident that an honest apology is not acceptable or possible. The goal is to assist individuals to reform their thinking rather than destroy their lives. If a coach cannot coach his/her life is destroyed unnecessarily and without any improvement achieved for the individual or society. We may live in an unfair world, but that should not alleviate our individual responsibility to treat others fairly. I agree with this. A horrible mistake that may come to some sort of good.
Jim Stiles Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Take that up with the moderators. For my part I will say this is a privately owned board, and the proprietors are entitled to set the rules. They are not obliged to furnish you a platform to spew your bile. I wonder how successful anyone would be in posting links on MRM to lds.org or to FairMormon.org or to Interpreter, a Journal of Mormon Scripture. Delicate snowflake.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2016 Author Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: I don't have the answers, but some thoughts come to mind. First, I think there needs to be a meeting of all that participated in the abuse. The meeting should include a review of what occurred and an explanation of why they felt their actions was acceptable. Second, a sincere apology should be required and if not observed then that impacts the penalty phase. Third, I do like the concept of community service - for example, working with LDS youth that are interested in learning to play tennis at a higher level, talking with LDS youth about the sport and its effect on the coaches life, talking with youth groups about how abusing people can happen and how it has impacted the coaches life. If necessary, a fee may also be assessed if the actions are deemed egregious enough and it is evident that an honest apology is not acceptable or possible. The goal is to assist individuals to reform their thinking rather than destroy their lives. If a coach cannot coach his/her life is destroyed unnecessarily and without any improvement achieved for the individual or society. We may live in an unfair world, but that should not alleviate our individual responsibility to treat others fairly. I think the train has already left the station on this thing. The head coach took early retirement and the assistant coach, whose behavior was the most egregious of all, resigned rather than face the music. The civil rights committee has recommended that he never be rehired. Not a pleasant thing, but misbehavior does and should carry consequences in society. Something like what you suggest above might be a matter for consideration in arriving at a settlement to avoid a trial in the lawsuit, but that would be up to the young man who is the aggrieved party in all of this. Edited June 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2016 Author Posted June 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: Delicate snowflake. I'm not being over-sensitve, only saying that a term such as anti-Mormon is a serviceable term and one should feel free to apply it when appropriate. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2016 Author Posted June 3, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: While I don't think this kind of stuff amounts to serious persecution, it's definitely rude and counter productive. The question wasn't whether it amounts to serious persecution but whether it amounts to anti-Catholicism -- which it does. 2
Jim Stiles Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: ...I wonder how successful anyone would be in posting links on MRM to lds.org or to FairMormon.org or to Interpreter, a Journal of Mormon Scripture. Snowflake, those sites are not forums.
Jim Stiles Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The question wasn't whether it amounts to serious persecution but whether it amounts to anti-Catholicism -- which it does. A lot of people in the United States when Joseph Smith Jr. lived were under the impression that the pope was the Antichrist. Quite a few people do so today, mostly conservative Presbyterians. That is why 1 Nephi 13 was originally interpreted as being the Roman Catholic Church. Quote 1 Nephi 13:5-6 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity. And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.
Teancum Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 17 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: I think that the office of the pope is a prime candidate for the Antichrist. I have yet to hear of any Roman Catholic being told to stay away from anything that I may have written. Jerry Falwell once said that the Antichrist would come from the Hebrew tribe of Dan (the idea did not originate with him). No one outside of television's talking heads said that he was being anti-semitic. Posts in here that contain an innocuous link to a Mormonism Research Ministry web page get edited. Jerry Falwell is about as close to any so called Anti-Christ that have seen.
Jim Stiles Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Jerry Falwell is about as close to any so called Anti-Christ that have seen. Why do you say that?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 4, 2016 Author Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, Teancum said: Jerry Falwell is about as close to any so called Anti-Christ that have seen. An anti-Jerry Falwell remark. See how it works, Jim Stiles? Something said or done in strident or hostile opposition to a thing is, by definition, anti- that thing. Edited June 4, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted June 4, 2016 Author Posted June 4, 2016 15 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: A lot of people in the United States when Joseph Smith Jr. lived were under the impression that the pope was the Antichrist. Quite a few people do so today, mostly conservative Presbyterians. That is why 1 Nephi 13 was originally interpreted as being the Roman Catholic Church. That something was said or thought or done in the 1800s does not make it right; much of it is quite odious, in fact. But regardless, calling the pope antiChrist is by definition anti-Catholic, notwithstanding the time period. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 4, 2016 Author Posted June 4, 2016 15 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Snowflake, those sites are not forums. So I take it you admit that links to those sites would be disallowed then. Which makes MRM not very forum-like.
Teancum Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: An anti-Jerry Falwell remark. See how it works, Jim Stiles? Something said or done in strident or hostile opposition to a thing is, by definition, anti- that thing. I am happy to own it as an anti Jerry Falwell remark.
Teancum Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 On June 3, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Jim Stiles said: Why do you say that? Because I think Jerry Falwell was not as Christian as he claimed and used his power in in Christ like ways.
Jim Stiles Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 On 6/4/2016 at 11:30 AM, Scott Lloyd said: So I take it you admit that links to those sites would be disallowed then. Which makes MRM not very forum-like. MRM's web site has a forum.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 11, 2016 Author Posted June 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: MRM's web site has a forum. So this board disallowing links to an anti-Mormon site such as MRM is scarcely different than what you are complaining about in this forum.
Jim Stiles Posted June 11, 2016 Posted June 11, 2016 On 6/4/2016 at 11:26 AM, Scott Lloyd said: That something was said or thought or done in the 1800s does not make it right; much of it is quite odious, in fact. But regardless, calling the pope antiChrist is by definition anti-Catholic, notwithstanding the time period. If the Antichrist was not someone living in the 1st century, then someone has to have been, has to be, or will be the Antichrist.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 11, 2016 Author Posted June 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: If the Antichrist was not someone living in the 1st century, then someone has to have been, has to be, or will be the Antichrist. Have you ever thought that anti-Christ is not any single individual or entity?
Recommended Posts