cinepro Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, pogi said: CFR for a corporation being held liable for the actions of a member who was acting contrary to the policies/procedures/laws of said corporation. How about this: BP settles final Gulf oil spill claims for $20 billion 2
Ouagadougou Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 4 hours ago, pogi said: To blame Joseph Smith for the mistakes of Warren Jeffs would be like blaming Islam/Muhammad for ISIS. But neither would be around if it weren't for the teachings of both Muhammad and JS; it is a repercussion of some of the doctrine they taught.
pogi Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 14 minutes ago, cinepro said: How about this: BP settles final Gulf oil spill claims for $20 billion Um, BP agreed with all reports that they were responsible. They admit to taking short cuts and that their safety measures were not up to par. It was an institutional failure.
Ouagadougou Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Ridiculous. That's like blaming Christ for the crusades or the inquisition. And the practice didn't come from the teachings of JS and BY. It came from the Lord by revelation. And there is NOTHING inherently evil about polygamy. God doesn't ever command evil, and yet the BOM says he can command polygamy. The OT says he will give David the wives of Saul. Nothing evil with polygamy? I beg to differ-- I think it is morally wrong and not of God. You approve of men in their 60's marrying teenage girls? Don't know what to say there... 1
JLHPROF Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said: Nothing evil with polygamy? I beg to differ-- I think it is morally wrong and not of God. You approve of men in their 60's marrying teenage girls? Don't know what to say there... Two separate issues there. There is nothing morally wrong about polygamy. Morality is defined by God and he has never called it immoral unless lived wickedly.
hope_for_things Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: D&C 98:4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. Pres. Rudger Clawson - I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God; but whenever they do I shall invariably choose to obey the latter. It was still against the law of the land. I'm not arguing whether or not it was morally justified, I'm just pointing out the fact that it was illegal.
bluebell Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 21 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Nothing evil with polygamy? I beg to differ-- I think it is morally wrong and not of God. You approve of men in their 60's marrying teenage girls? Don't know what to say there... Are you aware that polygamy can exist without men in their 60s marrying teenage girls? 1
hope_for_things Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, pogi said: We are talking about MMM. I thought he was talking about Warren Jeffs scenario, not MMM. I'm confused, but no matter. I think my point about employee liability is still applicable.
stemelbow Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 On 2/12/2017 at 0:45 PM, Johnnie Cake said: As I've been taking a break from MD&D this past week, laying on a Mexican beach, a random thought entered my mind that I seriously couldn't answer. So I kindly ask it here. Has the LDS Church ever admitted to making a mistake or error? I know the church doesn't apologize but certainly mistakes have been made over the years that they must regret or there have been errors in judgement over the years or there have been positions taken by the church and its various organizations that have caused unintended injury, harm or caused damaged to its members due to its policies or made by the people who have been called to positions of authority...and yet I could not think of a single example of the church ever taking responsibility, expressing regret and admitting that mistakes were made. Can you? If you can please share, if no. Why not? Other faith traditions have admited making mistakes and regret why not the LDS Church? The Church has apologized in code. Here's an example: https://www.lds.org/friend/1988/03/heather-mends-a-mistake?lang=eng Heather=Church Sean=Black people Susan=white and delightsome converts video games=temple ordinances Dad=American Culture that helped the Church change the ban policy 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 47 minutes ago, bluebell said: Could you provide an example? I read the news every day but i can't think of any example like that off of the top of my head. It would be really interesting to read about though. I can think of lots of examples of it happening in the court of public opinion, but none where the company was held legally liable for the behavior of an employee that was counter to company policy/procedures/law. Legal liability can either both criminal or civil. Companies are regularly held accountable for the actions of employees and leaders. I don't even know where to begin the examples are so numerous. Cinepro already mentioned the BP oil spill. Another example that leaps to mind is the Wells Fargo fraud http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/06/los-angeles-sues-wells-fargo-alleging-fraud-by-employees.html and there are so many other examples of customers winning lawsuits against McDonalds because the coffee was hotter than it should have been, or an employee slips on ice in a parking lot that should have been de-iced etc. etc. These examples are everywhere. Think of any lawsuit a company pays out. Why is it paying out? Because they were held liable by a court. In most cases I can think of an employee or a leader didn't follow procedures or policy, because lets be honest, what company has a policy that condones breaking the law or ignoring customer safety. Yet problems arise and the company is responsible. 1
pogi Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Wow. Seriously? Read a newspaper. I will be happy to admit that I am wrong when you can show me an example. If a corporation was liable for the independent actions of its employees who act contrary to the policies/procedures of the corporation, then business in general could not survive endless litigation. They are protected when the corporation is found to be abiding by its policies but the employee is in violation. Corporations are NOT guilty by association. The only time corporations are liable is when they don't have clear or applicable policies/procedures or are negligent in some way. Such is NOT the case with the MMM.
pogi Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Rude! Bad form making unfounded accusations, Pogi. You "sense" it, do you? Who can argue with that kind of evidence. Oh I have pages and pages of evidence. "Vitriol" might have been a bit strong, but disingenuous was not. Read the OP, it was not written out of concern for anybody. He is simply fishing for reasons to paint the church in a negative light. It really does smell disingenuous. This is all about the church, it is not about any victim or particular/specific wrong the church has committed. It seems clear to me anyway that he is more concerned about faulting the church than anything else.
cinepro Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: Um, BP agreed with all reports that they were responsible. They admit to taking short cuts and that their safety measures were not up to par. It was an institutional failure. You didn't say that. You said you wanted an example of a corporation being held liable when an employee (or in this case, employees) acted contrary to the corporation's "policies/procedures/laws". Since creating massive and expensive oil spills is certainly against the policies, procedures and laws of the BP corporation, the employees were acting contrary when they created the oil spill. You can argue that BP implicitly created the corporate culture that led to the short cuts that resulted in the spill, and in that way the corporation is responsible. But there's just as good an argument that the LDS Church created the religious culture that led to the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Priesthood Ban. So, that doesn't get you very far. Edited February 13, 2017 by cinepro 1
JLHPROF Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: It was still against the law of the land. I'm not arguing whether or not it was morally justified, I'm just pointing out the fact that it was illegal. And I am pointing out that God said following the law of the land not based in the Constitution isn't required. And a member of the First Presidency stated that the law of God must come first. So whether or not it is illegal seems unimportant to whether it was right.
Ouagadougou Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Are you aware that polygamy can exist without men in their 60s marrying teenage girls? Yes, but if you read LDS history, it didn't exist that way. Just look at the first five presidents of the church. I meant late 50's: Lorenzo Snow was 57 when he married a 15-year-old; he was 42 when she was born. I don't know what God would endorse that...
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 2 hours ago, cinepro said: Well, the Church didn't put on a yellow vest and go pick up garbage last year, but it was sure willing to take the credit for it when I did it. OMGosh...You make me laugh 1
pogi Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 11 minutes ago, cinepro said: You didn't say that. You said you wanted an example of a corporation being held liable when an employee (or in this case, employees) acted contrary to the corporation's "policies/procedures/laws". Since creating massive and expensive oil spills is certainly against the policies, procedures and laws of the BP corporation, the employees were acting contrary when they created the oil spill. You can argue that BP implicitly created the corporate culture that led to the short cuts that resulted in the spill, and in that way the corporation is responsible. But there's just as good an argument that the LDS Church created the religious culture that led to the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Priesthood Ban. So, that doesn't get you very far. I also clarified that a corporation could be liable for negligence, even if the employee followed all policies etc. BP was held legally liable for explicit not implicit "gross negligence and reckless conduct".
Storm Rider Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 45 minutes ago, pogi said: Oh I have pages and pages of evidence. "Vitriol" might have been a bit strong, but disingenuous was not. Read the OP, it was not written out of concern for anybody. He is simply fishing for reasons to paint the church in a negative light. It really does smell disingenuous. This is all about the church, it is not about any victim or particular/specific wrong the church has committed. It seems clear to me anyway that he is more concerned about faulting the church than anything else. For shame, Pogi! You doubt the charitable hearts of so many of the boards participants? I shake my head in disgust. They hearts simply drip with enlightenment, kindness, compassion, and love toward the LDS Church. I am stunned that you would think differently. They have completely impressed me with the desire to find all things virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy - these individuals only seek after these things. And I do have some beach front property near Fairbanks, Alaska for sale if you believe that. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, pogi said: I will be happy to admit that I am wrong when you can show me an example. If a corporation was liable for the independent actions of its employees who act contrary to the policies/procedures of the corporation, then business in general could not survive endless litigation. They are protected when the corporation is found to be abiding by its policies but the employee is in violation. Corporations are NOT guilty by association. The only time corporations are liable is when they don't have clear or applicable policies/procedures or are negligent in some way. Such is NOT the case with the MMM. http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/23/investing/banks-fines-mortgages/ Unless you believe banks had a policy to fund toxic mortgages? These were rogue rotton apples and the bank managers failed to inforce bank policy
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 53 minutes ago, pogi said: Oh I have pages and pages of evidence. "Vitriol" might have been a bit strong, but disingenuous was not. Read the OP, it was not written out of concern for anybody. He is simply fishing for reasons to paint the church in a negative light. It really does smell disingenuous. This is all about the church, it is not about any victim or particular/specific wrong the church has committed. It seems clear to me anyway that he is more concerned about faulting the church than anything else. Is it a sin to ask an organization to merely abide by the same standards it expects its own members to live by? Sorry you found offense in my asking the question... Edited February 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
hope_for_things Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: And I am pointing out that God said following the law of the land not based in the Constitution isn't required. And a member of the First Presidency stated that the law of God must come first. So whether or not it is illegal seems unimportant to whether it was right. I agree with you that members believed they had the moral high ground and authorization from God to disobey the laws of the land on this an other issues. It was technically still illegal though.
pogi Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Legal liability can either both criminal or civil. Companies are regularly held accountable for the actions of employees and leaders. Only when the actions of the employees cause harm due to the negligent/non existent policies etc. of the company, or when the harm comes "in the course of employment." For an act to be considered within the course of employment, "it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible." Quote This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms "detour" or "frolic" to signify the difference. Example of a "Detour" and "Frolic" A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference: Example 1a: A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred. Example 1b: A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against). Example 2a: A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident. Example 2b: A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he'll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
Sky Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 21 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: (Side track and soapbox here) I've never found the point of person A apologizing for something person X did decades if not centuries ago. Person A is in no was responsible for person X's actions! You can acknowledge that person's X's actions were wrong, strive to be better in your life, etc. But you can't apologize for sins you didn't do. We were happy to accept an apology from the State of Illinois -160 years later. See: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-04-07/news/0404070268_1_mormons-armand-mauss-latter-day-saints https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/the-church-grows-stronger?lang=eng 1
Sky Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: For shame, Pogi! You doubt the charitable hearts of so many of the boards participants? I shake my head in disgust. They hearts simply drip with enlightenment, kindness, compassion, and love toward the LDS Church. I am stunned that you would think differently. They have completely impressed me with the desire to find all things virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy - these individuals only seek after these things. And I do have some beach front property near Fairbanks, Alaska for sale if you believe that. I say we just let him ask the question and steer clear of impugning his motives. This is a discussion board, after all. There is nothing wrong with asking questions.
sunstoned Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 6 hours ago, bluebell said: Are you aware that polygamy can exist without men in their 60s marrying teenage girls? But with church leaders, this type of age difference was often the case. Then you throw in the fact that JS often lied to cover his polygamist deeds and practiced them in secret, and it becomes hard for many to accept that this came from God.
Recommended Posts