jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Just now, The Nehor said: I find it odd that adults want to voluntarily saddle themselves with such nanny rules in a kind of extended childhood but I guess that is their decision. Yeah, that's nothing like adult missionaries voluntarily saddling themselves with nanny rules, such as, you know, a dress code, curfews, avoidance of TV and music, and so on. Seems like a kind of extended childhood to me, but I guess that is their decision. 1
The Nehor Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: Yeah, that's nothing like adult missionaries voluntarily saddling themselves with nanny rules, such as, you know, a dress code, curfews, avoidance of TV and music, and so on. Seems like a kind of extended childhood to me, but I guess that is their decision. Missionary work is distinct. It is a commanded or volunteer endeavor and you put yourself under restrictions to serve God. Temple covenants cover this service and it is a holy occupation. When you obey those restrictions you serve God. Going to school is not like that at all. 1
ALarson Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I find it odd that adults want to voluntarily saddle themselves with such nanny rules in a kind of extended childhood but I guess that is their decision. I can see it if they have kids who are attending this university who have not been treated fairly over this issue. If some have been allowed to break the honor code and not punished and your child was punished for doing the same thing, I'd imagine you'd be wanting this corrected as well.
jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Missionary work is distinct. It is a commanded or volunteer endeavor and you put yourself under restrictions to serve God. Temple covenants cover this service and it is a holy occupation. When you obey those restrictions you serve God. Going to school is not like that at all. Making a commitment to follow certain rules is the same, whether in a holy occupation or not. I understand you think the Honor Code is silly and you're not a fan of BYU, but I don't see any reason to mock people who choose to attend BYU and adhere to its honor code. Not your cup of tea? Fine. 2
The Nehor Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Making a commitment to follow certain rules is the same, whether in a holy occupation or not. I understand you think the Honor Code is silly and you're not a fan of BYU, but I don't see any reason to mock people who choose to attend BYU and adhere to its honor code. Not your cup of tea? Fine. I disagree that it is the same thing at all. God has the right to ask unreasonable things of me. People do not (absent Priesthood keys yada Tara etc.) I just do not get it. If that constitutes mockery then so be it.
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Again, are you consistent this this criteria? Do you think it's fine that say Gawker hawked the Hulk Hogan sex tape because it would have come out anyway? Are you really comfortable with that ethical criteria? I have to admit I see it as a completely indefensible position. Honestly I might not be consistent with this, and I'm open to being influenced. My initial reaction yesterday was frustration at seeing the video made public, but that frustration was not pointed at MormonLeaks, its pointed at the person who recorded the incident. I don't know much about the Hulk Hogan situation, not enough to see whether that is an appropriate comparison or not. I do know that I've seen videos of BYU players doing inappropriate things made public in recent years, I can think of two in particular both of which were involving altercations at local businesses. If you can explain to me why you think MormonLeaks is in an ethically indefensible position, I'm open to persuasion. As I see it now, they are just one avenue for communicating the information, they are an aggregator of Mormon related topics, they aren't a catalyst like a tabloid, they don't have paparazzi or any mechanisms for monetary incentives to those who contribute content.
bsjkki Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Making a commitment to follow certain rules is the same, whether in a holy occupation or not. I understand you think the Honor Code is silly and you're not a fan of BYU, but I don't see any reason to mock people who choose to attend BYU and adhere to its honor code. Not your cup of tea? Fine. The problem is most break the honor code in one way or another. So, is it a set up for failure? Technically, if you speed in your car, you break the honor code. I think the most common rules broken are having the opposite sex in your apartment too late or at BYU I, breaking curfew. Even the super righteous break the rules so what lessons are the students really learning? I don't remember knowing any person at BYU that did not break a rule. At BYU I, students break the honor code by not tattling on their roommates. What an awful position to put students in. Edited August 31, 2017 by bsjkki
bsjkki Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I don't like having the video out there and I think its an embarrassment for the player and unfair to him and his family. But I still don't see why MormonLeaks is being blamed for this, the video was gonna come out anyway because the person who recorded it wanted it made public. I seem to have read this rationale before--it's going to get out so we might as well publish. It's unsubstantiated rumor but it's going to get out so we better warn the target. The target was warned so now that is news and justifies the publication. They published it, we won't, but we will talk about what they other guys published. The wonderful world of rationalization and professional news manipulators aka spin doctors. Bernard Gui is correct about the real target. 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: I remember once I got busted at registration because my mustaches went over the corner of my mouth. The next day I was demoted from first violins to last chair second violins in the BYU orchestra, and I had to sit out a performance of Prokofiev's Lieutenant Kije, a piece coincidently quite appropriate for this situation. See...everyone breaks the honor code. Everyone.
jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 35 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I disagree that it is the same thing at all. God has the right to ask unreasonable things of me. People do not (absent Priesthood keys yada Tara etc.) I just do not get it. If that constitutes mockery then so be it. Well, maybe not mockery per se, but a definite lack of respect for the choice BYU students make. I'm not offended or anything, but I don't get the accusation of childishness for accepting and living the honor code. I guess for me, when I went to BYU, I understood that our board of regents were prophets, seers, and revelators, so I figured they wouldn't be asking things that God thought unreasonable. Gee, I feel a little weird sticking up for BYU and the church by extension. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I seem to have read this rationale before--it's going to get out so we might as well publish. It's unsubstantiated rumor but it's going to get out so we better warn the target. The target was warned so now that is news and justifies the publication. They published it, we won't, but we will talk about what they other guys published. The wonderful world of rationalization and professional news manipulators aka spin doctors. Bernard Gui is correct about the real target. See...everyone breaks the honor code. Everyone. My run-ins were as follows: After my mission, I got a letter from University Standards every Fall because my bishop in California had forgotten to send off my ecclesiastical endorsement. I once went to the testing center at 6 p.m. and was turned away because they said I needed to shave. I had shaved that morning, but apparently that wasn't good enough. 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I don't like having the video out there and I think its an embarrassment for the player and unfair to him and his family. But I still don't see why MormonLeaks is being blamed for this, the video was gonna come out anyway because the person who recorded it wanted it made public. Yes it might have been put out there anyway. But that doesn't relieve mormonleaks from its poor decision. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) I feel badly that this kid's dirty laundry is being broadcast throughout Mormondom. There are 3 separate issues. 1- Did the kid do something wrong. It appears so. Threatening violence and death cannot be tolerated. Not even from a talented football player 2- Is it wrong for Mormon Leaks to release personal info on a private citizen? That's a good ethical question to consider. I'm not a fan of releasing this info, yet they are merely distributing content that already existed. Deseret News is now sharing the same info. Are they just as culpable? 3- Is the honor code and its seemingly inconsistent enforcement a problem that should be addressed on a large scale? I believe so. And I think that's why Mormon leaks is involved here. Not so much for the individual. He seems like a vehicle, or collateral damage to a deeper criticism of the honor code. The criticism is fair but it still hurts to see a young kid face the public scrutiny. Even so, aren't police records public information? Edited August 31, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 3
Pete Ahlstrom Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 hour ago, ALarson said: I think just like all of us, he's responsible for his own behavior and his own actions. So if he goes after the landlord (or manger), that's on him (even though I very strongly disagree with the video being taken and made public). It appears there was already some problems between the two and I also hope it doesn't escalate. Also, Francis Bernard must know what the honor code states by now (if he didn't read it carefully when he signed it) and he still made the decision to break it (1st ticket) and then break it again (got a warning), and then again later in the evening (which was recorded). The video shouldn't have been made public and BYU might not be for Mr. Bernard.
ALarson Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: The video shouldn't have been made public and BYU might not be for Mr. Bernard. I agree.
Calm Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) I can see the landlord being prudent in taking the video if he had a previous run in and was considering there might be a reason he would need to take legal action against Bernard. The video would be better documentation than a verbal report. I can also understand the landlord choosing to share it with friends if he was discussing the incident with others...though by sharing I mean showing it face to face, but not giving them possession of it by sending it by email or whatever. It is human to share our experiences with others. If he sent it out to people without thinking it might get made public, he shared responsibility by being careless. If he sent it out to get at Bernard, that is maliciousness. It is the person who released it, whether the landlord or someone he shared the video with, and Mormonleaks that are most responsible in my view. Using an excuse that someone else would have done it is wrong. Does the fact that a store is damaged in the flood of Harvey making it easy to be looted justify an excuse "someone is going to take the jewelry so it might as well be me doing it" ? Not sure I think Des News was appropriate in their investigation, drawing attention to the video once it was published. Don't know all the details so I could change my first impressions. Edited August 31, 2017 by Calm 1
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 57 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I seem to have read this rationale before--it's going to get out so we might as well publish. It's unsubstantiated rumor but it's going to get out so we better warn the target. The target was warned so now that is news and justifies the publication. They published it, we won't, but we will talk about what they other guys published. The wonderful world of rationalization and professional news manipulators aka spin doctors. Bernard Gui is correct about the real target. Are you saying the video would not have been made public if MormonLeaks didn't exist? Also, can you explain your comments about news manipulators and spin doctors? Who in the news media is manipulating or spinning this story, and how is it being spun?
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 53 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Yes it might have been put out there anyway. But that doesn't relieve mormonleaks from its poor decision. If MormonLeaks chose not to release the video, couldn't the person who recorded it just published the video themselves or find another outlet to release the video? I'm still struggling to see why MormonLeaks is getting a large portion of blame for this incident, nobody has explained to me what specifically they did that was so egregious.
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I feel badly that this kid's dirty laundry is being broadcast throughout Mormondom. There are 3 separate issues. 1- Did the kid do something wrong. It appears so. Threatening violence and death cannot be tolerated. Not even from a talented football player 2- Is it wrong for Mormon Leaks to release personal info on a private citizen? That's a good ethical question to consider. I'm not a fan of releasing this info, yet they are merely distributing content that already existed. Deseret News is now sharing the same info. Are they just as culpable? 3- Is the honor code and its seemingly inconsistent enforcement a problem that should be addressed on a large scale? I believe so. And I think that's why Mormon leaks is involved here. Not so much for the individual. He seems like a vehicle, or collateral damage to a deeper criticism of the honor code. The criticism is fair but it still hurts to see a young kid face the public scrutiny. Even so, aren't police records public information? Happy, I agree with you about most of this, but a couple comments. 1. I'm not sure his "threats" are quite as bad as my initial reaction thought. We don't know the history between these two individuals, and his comments were in a highly stressful and charged environment and late at night. I'm not comfortable condemning Bernard completely for those comments he made in this situation that we only have so little information about. I think the language was inappropriate and thats about as far as I'm willing to go. Nothing physical happened to our knowledge and we don't know if he apologized later or what happened about all this. 2 & 3 Great points and questions, I completely agree. 1
ALarson Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Calm said: I can see the landlord being prudent in taking the video if he had a previous run in and was considering there might be a reason he would need to take legal action against Bernard. The video would be better documentation than a verbal report. I can also understand the landlord choosing to share it with friends if he was discussing the incident with others...though by sharing I mean showing it face to face, but not giving them possession of it by sending it by email or whatever. It is human to share our experiences with others. If he sent it out to people without thinking it might get made public, he shared responsibility by being careless. If he sent it out to get at Bernard, that is maliciousness. It is the person who released it, whether the landlord or someone he shared the video with, and Mormonleaks that are most responsible in my view. Using an excuse that someone else would have done it is wrong. Does the fact that a store is damaged in the flood of Harvey making it easy to be looted justify an excuse "someone is going to take the jewelry so it might as well be me doing it" ? Not sure I think Des News was appropriate in their investigation, drawing attention to the video once it was published. Don't know all the details so I could change my first impressions. I agree with all that you wrote above, Calm, except one point. I believe that Francis Bernard is the one who is the most responsible here. He is the one who repeatedly chose to violate the Honor Code (even after receiving one ticket and then a warning). He had to have known with as many as were present witnessing this altercation (and other earlier violations), his behavior would eventually get out. I doubt he thought it would be in video form, but considering the age we live in, that everyone has a phone with a camera on it, and all that's put on YouTube, he should have at least been more cautious and made sure he lived the Honor Code that he'd signed. I think the responsibility for this is shared and I disagree with publishing the video, but bottom line is there'd be no video to publish if Francis Bernard had not behaved as he did. Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson 2
Calm Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: If MormonLeaks chose not to release the video, couldn't the person who recorded it just published the video themselves or find another outlet to release the video? I'm still struggling to see why MormonLeaks is getting a large portion of blame for this incident, nobody has explained to me what specifically they did that was so egregious. Would you feel the same way if it was a sex tape? The tape is eventually going to get out there, might as well be you who posts it? Probably not, I am thinking. If restraint can be used by you in that situation, why not Mormonleaks in another situation, Doing something wrong is not excused just because others are or would do it as well. 1
Calm Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: I agree with all that you wrote above, Calm, except one point. I believe that Francis Bernard is the one who is the most responsible here. He is the one who repeatedly chose to violate the Honor Code (even after receiving one ticket and then a warning). He had to have known with as many as were present witnessing this altercation (and other earlier violations), his behavior would eventually get out. I doubt he thought it would be in video form, but the considering the age we live in and all that's put on YouTube, he should have at least been more cautious and made sure he lived the Honor Code that he'd signed. I think the responsibility for this is shared and I disagree with publishing the video, but bottom line is there'd be no video to publish if Francis Bernard had not behaved as he did. I don't disagree with that. I was thinking in terms of possession of the video, so did not include him specifically though it could be inferred by my approval of filming the video in the first place (if done for protection and not maliciousness). It is important that his own behaviour's contribution to his difficulty be recognized. Edited August 31, 2017 by Calm
ALarson Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Calm said: Would you feel the same way if it was a sex tape? The tape is eventually going to get out there, might as well be you who posts it? I think that each circumstance would need to be evaluated as it happened. But having sex is not a violation of anything for most (if it's consensual sex) and I think that's a different matter if someone tapes this without your knowledge and then makes it public (and I disagree that it's "going to get out there" anyway). However Francis Bernard was violating the Honor Code or there would have been nothing to tape and release to the public. That's why I feel he is the one mainly responsible here. Once again though, I don't agree with publishing the video and I feel bad for him and for his family. Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson 1
bsjkki Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Are you saying the video would not have been made public if MormonLeaks didn't exist? Also, can you explain your comments about news manipulators and spin doctors? Who in the news media is manipulating or spinning this story, and how is it being spun? That is the ethical question...should there be higher journalistic ethics? In the age of YouTube, it was going to get out but should Mormonleaks have published it? Because it's on YouTube or where ever, should legitimate news sources comment or publish links to the video. The Deseret News did report on this story because once it was out they must have felt they needed to write a story but they did not link to Mormonleaks or the video. If they ignored it, they would then be accused of not covering a story. They could have reported on the suspension but not provide any details and not report what Wikileaks published. Because this kid is a football player, I don't see how this information is not news since he will not be playing this year. But, I do not think the landlord should have leaked the video. Does the public have the right to all the gory details of a BYU players suspension? The spin doctors comment was a general statement about how questionable stories or rumors are shopped and placed in the media. That happens all the time. If they can find one website or publication to publish--more legitimate sites will then push the story to a wider audience and add legitimacy to the original, questionable rumor.
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 18 minutes ago, Calm said: It is the person who released it, whether the landlord or someone he shared the video with, and Mormonleaks that are most responsible in my view. Using an excuse that someone else would have done it is wrong. Does the fact that a store is damaged in the flood of Harvey making it easy to be looted justify an excuse "someone is going to take the jewelry so it might as well be me doing it" ? Thanks Calm, finally an example I can consider with respect to MormonLeaks. In this case, MormonLeaks is providing a platform for people who want to put forward information anonymously. I think we can question whether or not this video is in line with the mission of MormonLeaks as posted on their website. Quote MormonLeaks™ is a non profit media organization founded on the belief that increased transparency within the Mormon Church results in fewer untruths, less corruption, and less abuse with Mormonism. The organization provides sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents for use by professional and citizen journalists for starting and expanding news reporting, public commentary, and criticism related to Mormonism. You could make an argument that this falls into the category of "less abuse with Mormonism" as they may view the honor code at BYU as a form of abuse. I would counter that there is also harm happening for the individual and his family, so I think this is a tricky situation if MormonLeaks is justifying harm against the family in support of exposing harm perpetuated by the institution. I think that's a reasonable thing to question. Ultimately I do think this fits enough into the mission statement of MormonLeaks that I can see why they released the video. I don't know if I personally would have though, just understanding how personal this video is for that player and his family.
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Would you feel the same way if it was a sex tape? The tape is eventually going to get out there, might as well be you who posts it? Probably not, I am thinking. If restraint can be used by you in that situation, why not Mormonleaks in another situation, Doing something wrong is not excused just because others are or would do it as well. see my other response, I think this falls into the category in the MormonLeaks mission statement for trying to expose an issue they believe is institutional and harmful, and that is the honor code. I'm not sure this qualifies as 100% wrong, I think its a gray area for sure and I'm torn and can see both sides of it. I personally am not comfortable having the video out there, but I can see why they did it and can't completely fault them.
Recommended Posts