How Does the SLC PD View Mormons? LGBT?

[Daniel2]

14 minutes ago, ERMD said:

See above.

If you look at is a purge or a separating wheat from tares thing, then you are definitely missing the big picture.

If you can't see how ongoing calls, texts, and visits, after repeated requests to be left alone aren't "harassment," then you're definitely missing the big picture. 

And if that's how the church wants to conduct its affairs, then I can understand why it creates feelings of acrimony.

Finally, if that's how the church treats adults who have changed their minds about mindless "covenants" made by unassuming and indoctrinated children, imposed by parents who don't tell their 8-year-olds how the church will treat them if they ever have a change of heart or mind, perhaps the church should raise the age of baptism for ALL converts to 21, just so everyone truly knows what they're getting into, so they can avoid such harassment once they grow up and develop critical thinking skills that lead them to put aside teachings they perceive differently than they did as a child.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Daniel2

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, ERMD said:

First, Church discipline is not equivalent to excommunication.

Second, just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Third, if you understood covenants and repentance, it would make sense.

Your slam notwithstanding, have you seen a lot of this--seeking out a less-active person who doesn't want contact, and convening a disciplinary council? I think it's unusual. 

[ERMD]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

This has been brought up a couple times... that somehow, excommunication "makes it better" for the exercised member by holding them under a less severe status, or something along those lines.

I admit that I'm unfamiliar with any LDS scripture that outlines the practice of excommunication as a preferable status, or even the practice thereof.  Is there something in the D&C about excommunication and church counsels/courts....?

 

Yes, there is.  You should read it sometime.

[Jeanne]

What is crazy to me..is that in the early church days, people like McClellan and others were exed so quickly and then re-instated so quickly as part of the twelve.  I mean, really, that wouldn't happen today.  I think each case is different. 

[Daniel2]

12 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Yes, there is.  You should read it sometime.

That's why I asked... What is the reference?

EDITED to add:  On www.lds.org, this is the only thing I could find:

Quote

Excommunication

See also Apostasy; Rebellion

The process of excluding a person from the Church and taking away all rights and privileges of membership. Church authorities excommunicate a person from the Church only when he has chosen to live in opposition to the Lord’s commandments and thus has disqualified himself for further membership in the Church.

• The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out:Alma 1:24; ( Alma 6:3; )
• If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people:3 Ne. 18:31; ( Mosiah 26; )
• Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out:D&C 42:24;
• He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out:D&C 42:28;
• Procedures are given for settling important difficulties in the Church:D&C 102; ( D&C 42:80–93; )
• The bishop is appointed to be a judge in Israel:D&C 107:72;
• Religious societies have the right to deal with members’ disorderly conduct:D&C 134:10;

Neither D&C 102 or 42 describe the church court as it'd designed today, and none of the verses listed there discuss that it's somehow morally better for church members to be excommunicated.

But again, that sentiment prevails in LDS cultural belief.   But I have yet to see any scriptural justification for it.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

Can we return to the topic of this thread before it goes too far off the rails?

 

[ERMD]

30 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

That's why I asked... What is the reference?

EDITED to add:  On www.lds.org, this is the only thing I could find:

Neither D&C 102 or 42 describe the church court as it'd designed today, and none of the verses listed there discuss that it's somehow morally better for church members to be excommunicated.

But again, that sentiment prevails in LDS cultural belief.   But I have yet to see any scriptural justification for it.

I can't speak to sentiment or cultural belief.  There is this thing called "continuing revelation," though.

[ERMD]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can we return to the topic of this thread before it goes too far off the rails?

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Kindly acquaint yourself with the facts before you comment on the Moutsos affair.

He DID NOT refuse "to show up for work." He arranged to trade shifts with another officer and asked the police chief to OK the arrangement. He DID NOT refuse to protect the community. Under the arrangement proposed, he would have provided traffic enforcement and public safety for the parade while the other officer took his place in doing the showy motorcycle choreography at the head of the parade.

Do you have me "on ignore" or something? I get the impression you are not reading my posts.
 

See above.

See above. Moutsos did not refuse to do his job. He requested to trade shifts with another officer. After the police chief went ballistic, Moutsos relented and said he would do the motorcycle show in the parade. But by then, Chief Burbank, playing the martinet, was determined to make a public example of Moutsos to the point of humiliating him with a false news release that he directed be publicized.

Excuse me? Moutsos did not regret his action. He offered to defuse the situation by relenting and doing the motorcycle show after all, but by then, Burbank would have none of it. He wanted Moutsos's head on a platter, as it were, and he would accept nothing less.

Excuse me? Moutsos's career with SLPD was destroyed when he was pressured to resign. And his reputation was damaged by the false news release the department initially put out.

Again, please acquaint yourself with the facts.

 

 

 

 

You gotta love a job where you can tell the boss when you want to show up for work and when you don't.  I can't understand why a boss would go ballistic when people start to choose what assignments they will take.  I guess the boss just didn't get the memo that it was up to Moutsos to decide when he would show up and when he would make other arrangements.  And just why did he go about doing all of this?  Because as a police officer, he didn't want anyone to get the impression that he could support the gay community.  After all, he is Mormon and Mormons have a revelation that tells them they should treat gay couples and their children differently.

i don't have you on ignore.  I read your comments.  I remember well an entire thread where you supported this officers actions.  I am not willing to defend the actions of either officer.  Both behaved badly.  It is time we stop excusing this type of behavior no matter who it is directed against.  I get that you see nothing wrong with officer Moutsos deciding that he didn't have to do what his boss assigned him to do and he thought it was appropriate to get someone else to cover for him.  That is your opinion.  And I know you will die on the sword defending it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You gotta love a job where you can tell the boss when you want to show up for work and when you don't.  

More invincible ignorance.

He didn't "not show up for work." For the 10th time, man, ACQUAINT YOURSELF WITH THE FACTS!

He worked it out to trade assignments with another officer. Under the arrangement, he would still be working the parade but doing traffic or other public safety instead of show business. The other officer would be doing the motorcycle stunt choreography in his place. All Moutsos did was to ask Burbank to OK it. Burbank went ballistic, so Moutsos relented and said he would do the motorcycle tricks after all. But Burbank, by then, was determined to impale Moutsos for even making the request, so he summarily suspended Moutsos and put out a humiliating press release pending an internal affairs investigation. Burbank had made the environment intolerable, so Moutsos resigned.

Quote

I can't understand why a boss would go ballistic when people start to choose what assignments they will take.  

That's not what happened. Stop distorting facts.

Quote

I guess the boss just didn't get the memo that it was up to Moutsos to decide when he would show up and when he would make other arrangements.

That's not what happened. Stop telling falsehoods.

Quote

And just why did he go about doing all of this?  Because as a police officer, he didn't want anyone to get the impression that he could support the gay community.  After all, he is Mormon and Mormons have a revelation that tells them they should treat gay couples and their children differently.

Did you really not get the message that Moutsos was willing to work traffic or some other assignment during the parade, something that actually would protect the parade-going public as opposed to just being part of the parade entertainment?

Quote

i don't have you on ignore.

You may as well for all the attention you're paying to what I write.

Quote

 I read your comments.  I remember well an entire thread where you supported this officers actions.

Then why, oh why, did you not read it for comprehension?

Quote

 I am not willing to defend the actions of either officer.

I'm not expecting you to defend Moutsos. I would be content if you ceased telling blatant falsehoods about him and the episode in which he was involved.

Quote

 Both behaved badly.

Bilgewater! Moutsos behaved reasonably. If anything, it was Burbank who deserved censure.

Quote

It is time we stop excusing this type of behavior no matter who it is directed against.

Excusing what type of behavior? Asking to be able to give an honest day's work without having to violate one's own conscience?

Quote

 I get that you see nothing wrong with officer Moutsos deciding that he didn't have to do what his boss assigned him to do ...

Again, that's not how it went down. He made a reasonable request and Burbank got mad at him for even asking, then humiliated him in public and destroyed his career with the department. If you don't like Moutsos, at least be honest about the facts of the matter.

Quote

... and he thought it was appropriate to get someone else to cover for him.  That is your opinion.  And I know you will die on the sword defending it.

You know what? I don't think you really do "get" what I'm saying. You're not demonstrating that you do.

And it's not just my "opinion." It's the uncontested facts. Burbank had every opportunity in press interviews to set the record straight. He never materially contradicted what Moutsos told the press. All he did was continue to vilify Moutsos and call him a bigot.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

More invincible ignorance.

He didn't "not show up for work." For the 10th time, man ACQUAINT YOURSELF WITH THE FACTS!

He worked it out to trade assignments with another officer. Under the arrangement, he would still be working the parade but doing traffic or other public safety instead of show business. The other officer would be doing the motorcycle stunt choreography in his place. All Moutsos did was to ask Burbank to OK it. Burbank went ballistic, so Moutsos relented and said he would do the motorcycle tricks after all. But Burbank, by then, was determined to impale Moutsos for even making the request, so he summarily suspended Moutsos and put out a humiliating press release pending an internal affairs investigation. Burbank had made the environment intolerable, so Moutsos resigned.

That's not what happened. Stop distorting facts.

That's not what happened. Stop telling falsehoods.

Did you really not get the message that Moutsos was willing to work traffic or some other assignment during the parade, something that actually would protect the parade-going public as opposed to just being part of the parade entertainment?

You may as well for all the attention you're paying to what I write.

Then why, oh why, did you not read it for comprehension?

I'm not expecting you to defend Moutsos. I would be content if you ceased telling blatant falsehoods about him and the episode in which he was involved.

Bilgewater! Moutsos behaved reasonably. If anything, it was Burbank who deserved censure.

Excusing what type of behavior? Asking to be able to give an honest day's work without having to violate one's own conscience?

Again, that's not how it went down. He made a reasonable request and Burbank got mad at him for even asking, then humiliated him in public and destroyed his career with the department. If you don't like Moutsos, at least be honest about the facts of the matter.

You know what? I don't think you really do "get" what I'm saying. You're not demonstrating that you do.

And it's not just my "opinion." It's the uncontested facts. Burbank had every opportunity in press interviews to set the record straight. He never materially contradicted what Moutsos told the press. All he did was continue to vilify Moutsos and call him a bigot.

Simple question Scott.  Why didn't officer Moutsos just do what he was assigned to do by his boss just like every other officer in the department?

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Simple question Scott.  Why didn't officer Moutsos just do what he was assigned to do by his boss just like every other officer in the department?

Simple question CB: Why was Officer Moutsos disciplined and publicly branded a bigot by his own boss - at a government agency, no less - after he agreed to participate in the Gay Pride parade?

He tried to "just do what he was assigned to do by his boss."  Are you still not aware of this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Simple question Scott.  Why didn't officer Moutsos just do what he was assigned to do by his boss just like every other officer in the department?

What Smac said.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Simple question CB: Why was Officer Moutsos disciplined and publicly branded a bigot by his own boss - at a government agency, no less - after he agreed to participate in the Gay Pride parade?

He tried to "just do what he was assigned to do by his boss."  Are you still not aware of this?

Thanks,

-Smac

In a couple of weeks, I'll be departing on tour with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (not singing; I'll be doing newspaper coverage).

An event that occurs within my news beat, a history lecture at the Assembly Hall on Temple Square, will be occurring shortly before then. Knowing that I would probably be busy making tour preparations, some weeks ago, I arranged with a colleague to cover the lecture in my place. It was a provisional arrangement; we both knew the editor would have to bless it. We approached the editor and got her OK. If it had not been OK, I would have gone ahead and covered the lecture before departing on the tour.

I don't see how this is materially different than what Officer Moutsos tried to do in arranging to trade assignments with a fellow officer. Except that he would still be working the same time and the same event, just in a different assignment. For that, merely trying, he was humiliated and ultimately hounded out of his job.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Simple question CB: Why was Officer Moutsos disciplined and publicly branded a bigot by his own boss - at a government agency, no less - after he agreed to participate in the Gay Pride parade?

He tried to "just do what he was assigned to do by his boss."  Are you still not aware of this?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What Smac said.

 

I think that is a fair question.  I am not the police chief, but I do know this about any police force.  Like the military, strict discipline and following orders without question is fundamental to the safety of the officers and those they are sworn to protect.  When you start having officers pick and choose what assignments they will take and what ones they want to pass on to others, there is a significant loss and breakdown of that discipline and chain of command.  Let's say the police chief told officer Moutsos sure you can choose what assignments you want to do and how you want to execute them.  Then next time, what happens when an officer goes to the police chief and says, I don't want to be partners with X officer because he is gay or Mormon.  So I have arranged for someone else to be his partner.  I think I would like to guard the capitol building instead.  Or how about when one is assigned to go through the front door of a suspected arms dealer.  Should the officer take it upon himself to tell the chief that he found someone else to cover for him?  He would rather work crowed control out in front of the crime scene.  

Yes I think the chief was making an example out of officer Moutsos.  It sent a clear message of how the chain of command works in the police force.  When given an assignment, it is their DUTY to fulfill that assignment.  If they don't want to do what is asked of them then they should be put on probation and yes, possibly police work is not the line of work they should be in.

Yes a gay pride parade is not a life or death situation, but maintaining discipline and following orders should be maintained throughout ALL assignments and at all times.  Otherwise you get officers confused about what assignments they may be in control of and what assignments the chief is in control of.  The situation becomes even more egregious when the reason for not wanting to do what is asked is based on prejudice.  It wasn't a parade officer Mouutsos had a problem with, it was because it was a gay parade that he had the problem.

Now can you answer the question that you avoided?

Quote

Simple question Scott or (SMAC).  Why didn't officer Moutsos just do what he was assigned to do by his boss just like every other officer in the department?

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by california boy

[ERMD]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not the police chief, but I do know this about any police force.  

 

What is your experience with police/law enforcement?

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a couple of weeks, I'll be departing on tour with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (not singing; I'll be doing newspaper coverage).

An event that occurs within my news beat, a history lecture at the Assembly Hall on Temple Square, will be occurring shortly before then. Knowing that I would probably be busy making tour preparations, some weeks ago, I arranged with a colleague to cover the lecture in my place. It was a provisional arrangement; we both knew the editor would have to bless it. We approached the editor and got her OK. If it had not been OK, I would have gone ahead and covered the lecture before departing on the tour.

I don't see how this is materially different than what Officer Moutsos tried to do in arranging to trade assignments with a fellow officer. Except that he would still be working the same time and the same event, just in a different assignment. For that, merely trying, he was humiliated and ultimately hounded out of his job.

 

 

See my post above.  I don't think being a newspaper reporter is the same as someone who is in the military or on the police force.  Generally most jobs have more leeway.  

That said, I would love for you to go into your bosses office and tell him that you no longer want to cover the Mormon church because you do not agree with their lifestyle.  Instead, you want to do sports from now on.  Depending on your editor, he might very well point out to you that you were hired to cover the Mormon church, not sports.  And if you want to do sports, start looking for another newspaper to work for.  He might even see your prejudice against the Mormon church to be a problem that would cause a lot of internal conflict and that alone would be important enough reason to reevaluate your position on the paper.  That is a little different than arranging vacation time.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

What is your experience with police/law enforcement?

Ditto.  Mr. Moutsos didn't commit treason.  He didn't disobey an order in combat.  He asked for another officer to take his place in a choreographed motorcycle routine participating in a Gay Pride parade.

Moreover, Mr. Moutsos relented and agreed to participate in the Gay Pride parade, but was not allowed to and instead disciplined.

Golly, CB, it's almost like you are ignoring the facts or something.

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

See my post above.  I don't think being a newspaper reporter is the same as someone who is in the military or on the police force.  Generally most jobs have more leeway.  

Have you ever served in the military or in law enforcement?  I served in the military during peacetime.  I spent a year training at a language school in California.  Trainees were regularly assigned "Fireguard Duty," which basically meant that the trainee stayed up through the night, patrolled the barracks, and generally kept an eye on things (they also had the next day off from attending classes).  It wasn't like guarding Fort Knox, but it had to be done.  

And guess what?  People assigned to Fireguard Duty were horse-trading their assignments all the time.  Nobody wanted to be assigned to Friday or Saturday nights because the resulting "day off" would be a Saturday or Sunday.  Moreover, most trainees wanted to go out and party/drink on Friday and/or Saturday.  So trading assignments was a regular thing, and the platoon sergeants were totally okay with it.  As long as the assignment was completed, they didn't really care who did it.  I think there are many, many assignments in the military that are like that, and many instances of soldiers trading these assignments without repercussion.

In terms of law enforcement, I suspect there are also instances of requests for changing of assignments, particularly when the assignment is not related to law enforcement or public safety.  

In the present case, Mr. Moutsos was assigned to participate in a choreographed motorcycle group as part of a Gay Pride parade.  Not exactly equivalent to storming the beaches at Normandy or responding to a "Shots Fired" call at an elementary school, is it?  Mr. Moutsos did not want to participate in a Gay Pride parade, and so he made arrangements for another officer to take his place and requested permission for that.  He was raked across the coals by his boss.  He relented and agreed to participate in the parade, but by then it was too late.  He was suspended and publicly branded as a bigot by his own boss.  His career in the department was toast.

In short, CB, your position is absurd.  You are twisting and turning every whichaway to vilify the Mormon.  Because he's a Mormon.

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2016 by smac97

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ditto.  Mr. Moutsos didn't commit treason.  He didn't disobey an order in combat.  He asked for another officer to take his place in a choreographed motorcycle routine participating in a Gay Pride parade.

Moreover, Mr. Moutsos relented and agreed to participate in the Gay Pride parade, but was not allowed to and instead disciplined.

Golly, CB, it's almost like you are ignoring the facts or something.

-Smac

Well this is probably pointless to continue.  I never said he committed treason or disobeyed an order in combat.  What I said is that a soldier in the military or police force can  not pick and choose what orders he needs to follow even if he does find someone else to fulfill the order.  

And I see you didn't answer my original question.  Yeah I get it.  You think the guy is a saint and you are willing to continue to defend him no matter what.

Like I said,  I am not willing to defend either officer.  I have said my piece.  I feel like I have been pretty fair in stating my reasons.  You disagree.  Fine.  Continue on supporting this officer that thought he could decide what orders he should follow and what orders he could pass on to other officers.  That is not how it works in these kinds of jobs.  When you refuse to do an assignment, you get disciplined even if you change your mind because you then realize that you are not in charge of how you execute your assignments..  What a surprise.  Love to see a police force like the one you envision where the officers are in charge of what they will do and what they won't do.  Sorry, I am not going to do that assignment, I want to direct traffic.  

How about now?

Quote

Simple question Scott or (SMAC).  Why didn't officer Moutsos just do what he was assigned to do by his boss just like every other officer in the department?

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by california boy

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well this is probably pointless to continue.  I never said he committed treason or disobeyed an order in combat.  What I said is that a soldier in the military or police force can  not pick and choose what orders he needs to follow even if he does find someone else to fulfill the order.  

Oh, come on.  Again, have you ever served in law enforcement or in the military?  

Mr. Moutsos asked for a religious accommodation.  And he made arrangements so that the assignment conflicting with his religious beliefs could still be fulfilled.  This happens all the time.  

Quote

And I see you didn't answer my original question.  Yeah I get it.  You think the guy is a saint and you are willing to continue to defend him no matter what.

Like I said,  I am not willing to defend either officer.

But you are willing to vilify the Mormon officer.  And to cast him in the worst possible light.  And to do these things solely on the basis of his religious affiliation.

Quote

 I have said my piece.  I feel like I have been pretty fair in stating my reasons.  You disagree.  Fine.  Continue on supporting this officer that thought he could decide what orders he should follow and what orders he could pass on to other officers.  That is not how it works in these kinds of jobs. 

This is a crappy and unfair and inaccurate characterization of this issue.  

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2016 by smac97

[california boy]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

What is your experience with police/law enforcement?

I have never been on the police force, nor in the military.  I do have friends that have served in both jobs.  They have told me that when someone gives you an order, you do it.  You don't question orders.  Perhaps someone who has served in the military or police force can correct me if I am wrong..

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have never been on the police force, nor in the military.  I do have friends that have served in both jobs.  They have told me that when someone gives you an order, you do it.  You don't question orders.  Perhaps someone who has served in the military or police force can correct me if I am wrong..

You are wrong.

Soldiers and law enforcement officers can ask for religious accommodations.  

Soldiers and law enforcement officers do not totally surrender their constitutional rights when they enter those vocations.

Soldiers and law enforcement officers can, in peacetime, ask for reassignment of trivial, nonessential assignments (like participating in a choreographed motorcycle routine in a Gay Pride parade).

Soldiers (and, I should surmise, law enforcement officers) are required to obey all lawful orders, and to disobey all unlawful orders (see, e.g., here and here).  Whether the order Mr. Moutsos received (to participate in a Gay Rights parade despite his religious beliefs) was "lawful" or "unlawful" is too complex to address here and requires more information than I presently have on hand.  There are Free Speech and Free Exercise questions in play.  A law enforcement officer probably cannot credibly claim that being assigned to provide law enforcement and public safety services during a Gay Pride parade would violate these rights.  But being assigned to actively participate in a Gay Pride parade is a different situation.  He may have a claim that he is being compelled against his will to "speak" (or to engage in "expressive conduct" may be better).  His participation in the parade may be construed as endorsement of the content of the parade.  Moreover, compulsory participation in the parade may have violated his Free Exercise rights.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2016 by smac97

[ERMD]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have never been on the police force, nor in the military.  I do have friends that have served in both jobs.  They have told me that when someone gives you an order, you do it.  You don't question orders.  Perhaps someone who has served in the military or police force can correct me if I am wrong..

Looks like Smac already did.

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are wrong.

Soldiers and law enforcement officers can ask for religious accommodations.  

Soldiers and law enforcement officers do not totally surrender their constitutional rights when they enter those vocations.

Soldiers and law enforcement officers can, in peacetime, ask for reassignment of trivial, nonessential assignments (like participating in a choreographed motorcycle routine in a Gay Pride parade).

Soldiers (and, I should surmise, law enforcement officers) are required to obey all lawful orders, and to disobey all unlawful order (see, e.g., here and here).  Whether the order Mr. Moutsos received (to participate in a Gay Rights parade despite his religious beliefs) was "lawful" or "unlawful" is too complex to address here and requires more information than I presently have on hand.  There are Free Speech and Free Exercise questions in play.  A law enforcement officer probably cannot credibly claim that being assigned to provide law enforcement and public safety services during a Gay Pride parade would violate these rights.  But being assigned to actively participate in a Gay Pride parade is a different situation.  He may have a claim that he is being compelled against his will to "speak" (or to engage in "expressive conduct" may be better).  His participation in the parade may be construed as endorsement of the content of the parade.  Moreover, compulsory participation in the parade may have violated his Free Exercise rights.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks.  What part of the military were you in??