stemelbow Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: 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 don't see how the video addresses that. It appears events in this video lead to some misdeamor. I don't think it describes or explains much regarding his punishment from the school. The Desnews article seems to be more helpful in giving info about the honor code busUnless. 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: 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.
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: 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. Good questions. Is MormonLeaks a legitimate news service? They are a tiny non-profit. I think DeseretNews could have chosen to not cover the story, it wouldn't be the first time they ignored news they thought was controversial and negative towards the church. Its unfortunate that these individuals who are regular people like you and me, are also public figures. Its a conundrum. The amount of money in the system, college football is arguably the 2nd most popular sport after the NFL. The players don't get paid, yet tons of money and influence are wielded in this system with such young people. When I think of spin doctors I think of people taking information and manipulating the narrative to a certain end. They have an agenda and they will always represent things with a particular spin. I don't think MormonLeaks falls into this definition well. It's putting information out there, but its not really providing any interpretive spin on what that information means. Yes, its selective in what it releases, but just looking at the history of leaks I've read, some of them you could say are settling controversies that actually put the church in a better light. I think transparency is their primary goal.
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't see how the video addresses that. It appears events in this video lead to some misdeamor. I don't think it describes or explains much regarding his punishment from the school. The Desnews article seems to be more helpful in giving info about the honor code busUnless. The broader context is just what I'm familiar with since I've been following the Bernard suspension story from the start. Speculation about why the coaches weren't involved in the decision from the Honor Code office and how they were blindsided right before the end of fall camp. People who were questioning the 1 yr suspension as being too harsh. All of that context is part of why this video is adding to our insight about what happened behind closed doors and what everyone has been speculating about. In that way it adds to the context. MormonLeaks didn't attempt to bring all the context together, but that's what was out there already.
jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 I hope we can all agree that my wife's cousin is pond scum.
bsjkki Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Good questions. Is MormonLeaks a legitimate news service? They are a tiny non-profit. I think DeseretNews could have chosen to not cover the story, it wouldn't be the first time they ignored news they thought was controversial and negative towards the church. Its unfortunate that these individuals who are regular people like you and me, are also public figures. Its a conundrum. The amount of money in the system, college football is arguably the 2nd most popular sport after the NFL. The players don't get paid, yet tons of money and influence are wielded in this system with such young people. When I think of spin doctors I think of people taking information and manipulating the narrative to a certain end. They have an agenda and they will always represent things with a particular spin. I don't think MormonLeaks falls into this definition well. It's putting information out there, but its not really providing any interpretive spin on what that information means. Yes, its selective in what it releases, but just looking at the history of leaks I've read, some of them you could say are settling controversies that actually put the church in a better light. I think transparency is their primary goal. So do you consider Wikileaks the same way? Their goal is also transparency and both sites publish unethically obtained information. The danger of leaking private conversations is real debate will be stifled. Who is going to take or examine unpopular or Devil's Advocate positions in a private conference if their words can be leaked and then misinterpreted? In my meetings, we debate a lot of issues and look at all sides of an issue before coming to a final decision. Those internal debates should stay private and don't actually help transparency.
ALarson Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I hope we can all agree that my wife's cousin is pond scum. No, not at all. How well do you know him?
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 hour ago, bsjkki said: See...everyone breaks the honor code. Everyone. It was a joke.
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 2 hours ago, ALarson said: He chose to violate the Honor Code that you are defending. This is on him. I agree he's "unfortunate" in that what he did was made public (and I don't agree with anyone doing that to a person...), but it doesn't change the fact that he repeatedly broke the Honor Code that he signed. Indeed. No one is forced to sign it.
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Because we all hate the Honor Code, right? It's alleged defects are a regular topic here.
jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, ALarson said: No, not at all. How well do you know him? Pretty well, actually. I've talked to him about the MormonLeaks project, and he is pretty passionate about it because he thinks it's the right thing to do. Obviously, a lot of people here disagree, but I've known him since he was a boy, and he's a good man with good intentions. I'm sure he felt releasing the Bernard video was the right thing to do, or he wouldn't have done it. I'm not agreeing or condoning his project, but I know he's not motivated by hatred or malice. 1
ALarson Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: Indeed. No one is forced to sign it. How about students who want to attend BYU? Can they attend without signing it?
jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: It's alleged defects are a regular topic here. It's weird to feel like I'm defending the honor code on the one hand but that others think I'm attacking it. Maybe it's just one of those topics that you can't have a reasonable discussion about.
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 2 hours 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. My experience is that nanny rules (and laws) are often the result of someone messing up.
jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: My experience is that nanny rules (and laws) are often the result of someone messing up. My dad was at BYU when they instituted the honor code in the mid-1950s. Back then, the common expression was that the campus had become "Kimballized." According to him (and I have no way of verifying this), then-apostle Spencer W. Kimball visited BYU and was appalled at the sloppy dress, beards, and strapless dresses he saw on campus. He went back to the board of regents (essentially the FP and Qof12) and asked that they institute a code of conduct, including dress and grooming standards.
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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? Shhhhhaaaazzzaaammmm! Times 4.
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I hope we can all agree that my wife's cousin is pond scum. Most of our wife's cousins are.
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: My dad was at BYU when they instituted the honor code in the mid-1950s. Back then, the common expression was that the campus had become "Kimballized." According to him (and I have no way of verifying this), then-apostle Spencer W. Kimball visited BYU and was appalled at the sloppy dress, beards, and strapless dresses he saw on campus. He went back to the board of regents (essentially the FP and Qof12) and asked that they institute a code of conduct, including dress and grooming standards. Those danged Mormon kids getting all swept away by the disgusting secular 50s culture.
jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Those danged Mormon kids getting all swept away by the disgusting secular 50s culture. If you go to the Creamery on Ninth, they have all these photos of BYU students from days gone by. One photo is of a "beard-growing contest" from the early 1950s. Wouldn't be kosher today. Edited August 31, 2017 by jkwilliams
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 22 minutes ago, bsjkki said: So do you consider Wikileaks the same way? Their goal is also transparency and both sites publish unethically obtained information. The danger of leaking private conversations is real debate will be stifled. Who is going to take or examine unpopular or Devil's Advocate positions in a private conference if their words can be leaked and then misinterpreted? In my meetings, we debate a lot of issues and look at all sides of an issue before coming to a final decision. Those internal debates should stay private and don't actually help transparency. I haven't followed Wikileaks closely so this is just my initial impression. When it comes to national security issues, those are very different considerations ethically. I am generally in favor of greater transparency as a society, especially for public institutions and large private organizations. I also think we need to balance personal privacy, these are some of the most important discussions we need to have in our modern age as the access to information and the long term storage of information creates risks for individuals and society at large. I'm not sure I agree internal debates should always remain private, we have freedom of information laws in place to protect the interests of the public. When it comes to private organizations we also have things they have to disclose publicly from an account perspective. Its important to try and balance the needs of the public good with the needs of the individual. No easy answers here from me on how to do that, but we should strive to maximize freedom at the same time as improving transparency.
The Nehor Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: 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. You have fallen into my cunning trap. Mwahahahahahha! And welcome back to the faith. We will email you a Home Teaching list within the hour.
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 13 minutes ago, ALarson said: How about students who want to attend BYU? Can they attend without signing it? I want to be a Navy Seal. But not go through the training.
jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Just now, The Nehor said: You have fallen into my cunning trap. Mwahahahahahha! And welcome back to the faith. We will email you a Home Teaching list within the hour. You must be some kind of sadist.
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: If you go to the Creamery on Ninth, they have all these photos of BYU students from days gone by. One photo is of a "beard-growing contest" from the early 1950s. Wouldn't be kosher today. Sounds like a fun era, actually (save for an issue or two, one prominently stemming from the priesthood and temple ban). Too bad we missed it. Edited August 31, 2017 by stemelbow
jkwilliams Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Just now, stemelbow said: Sounds like a fun era, actually. Too bad we missed it. When I was there, it was a big deal that my freshman year was the first year you were allowed to wear jeans. Seems kind of quaint now.
The Nehor Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: My experience is that nanny rules (and laws) are often the result of someone messing up. Yeah, the missionary White handbook is a fascinating chronicle of the screw ups of all previous missionaries if read correctly.
Recommended Posts