"But the Wedding is Coming Up...!"...LDS Video of a Bishop's Interview

[ALarson]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, if I recall correctly, Analytics has in the past identified himself as Unitarian Universalist.

I was merely endeavoring from personal observation to answer rongo's question. Each reader may determine for him/herself whether that is germane to the subject at hand.

I don't find that information to be relevant as to whether or not someone is lying or being honest or dishonest.  When someone is an active member of the church, it does not mean they are more honest than those who aren't.  

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The trouble with anonymous anecdotes is that there is no way to definitively verify or falsify them. So in evaluating them, one is obliged, as rongo has done, to look for internal clues that bear on their credibility.

Well, I don't know if you've served in leadership positions where disciplinary experiences take place, but if you have, you'd most likely have had a few of your own.  I've served in several Bishoprics and under a few different Stake Presidents and have seen much discrepancy and apparent "rule breaking" many times.  I have always just thought that I don't know all of the details perhaps or just the fact that different men handle things differently than others do when they are the ones making decisions or recommending whether or not to discipline and how harsh.  

We have heard enough anecdotal experiences here from many regarding weird or unexplainable things that seem to happen when it comes to church discipline.  I'm one who has seen some personally that are actually pretty hard to believe or explain....but they happened.

What Analytics described is really not that unbelievable, IMO, and I just don't like that his honesty has been questioned (especially since it involved his own wife apparently).  If there were different SPs involved, each may have handled it differently.  The rules are laid out, but not always followed.  

Edited December 28, 2017 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've served in several Bishoprics and under a few different Stake Presidents and have seen much discrepancy and apparent "rule breaking" many times.

That's an interesting observation.  I've had similar leadership experience and my experience is that I've not seen any "rule breaking" when it comes to disciplinary matters.  Leadership that I've been involved with has always been very careful to handle things properly.

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's an interesting observation.  I've had similar leadership experience and my experience is that I've not seen any "rule breaking" when it comes to disciplinary matters.  Leadership that I've been involved with has always been very careful to handle things properly.

I'm sure there are others with your experience as well.  It's different from mine (and many others who have related personal experiences on here both from serving in leadership and from personal knowledge of disciplinary courts and results, etc.).   That's once again part of the leadership roulette mentioned....who we serve with or under determines what our own experiences are and they can be varied.

This still does not mean that Analytic's story is false and that we should doubt him.  I prefer to assume people are being truthful (especially since this involved his own wife).  I've given explanations for why these 2 missionaries may have been dealt with in a different manner.  

I've told about a couple of my experiences and could relate others (more unexplainable and involving apparent rule breaking).  Once again, this is what happens when lay clergy are involved and the human aspect enters into these decisions.

Edited December 28, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't find that information to be relevant as to whether or not someone is lying or being honest or dishonest.  When someone is an active member of the church, it does not mean they are more honest than those who aren't.  

Well, I don't know if you've served in leadership positions where disciplinary experiences take place, but if you have, you'd most likely have had a few of your own.  I've served in several Bishoprics and under a few different Stake Presidents and have seen much discrepancy and apparent "rule breaking" many times.  I have always just thought that I don't know all of the details perhaps or just the fact that different men handle things differently than others do when they are the ones making decisions or recommending whether or not to discipline and how harsh.  

We have heard enough anecdotal experiences here from many regarding weird or unexplainable things that seem to happen when it comes to church discipline.  I'm one who has seen some personally that are actually pretty hard to believe or explain....but they happened.

What Analytics described is really not that unbelievable, IMO, and I just don't like that his honesty has been questioned (especially since it involved his own wife apparently).  If there were different SPs involved, each may have handled it differently.  The rules are laid out, but not always followed.  

This seems to amount to what Smac97 in the past has characterized as the "I-wouldn't-put-it past-'em" argument. As much as to say, "I've seen stranger things, so this one must be true." Never mind evaluating it for credibility by examining internal clues.

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This seems to amount to what Smac97 in the past has characterized as the "I-wouldn't-put-it past-'em" argument. As much as to say, "I've seen stranger things, so this one must be true." Never mind evaluating it for credibility by examining internal clues.

"Internal clues"?  Ok.  How about we just acknowledge that disciplinary results are not always consistent when it comes to different leaders making the decisions (different Bishops and different Stake Presidents)?  Some are excommunicated for adultery and some aren't, for example.

There are many reasons why these 2 missionaries in the story may have been dealt with in a different manner.  That does not mean that there was evil afoot or anything of that nature.

I'm moving on now as this is pretty ridiculous really.   Believe Analytic's personal experience or don't believe it.  

Edited December 28, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm sure there are others with your experience as well.  It's different from mine (and many others who have related personal experiences on here both from serving in leadership and from personal knowledge of disciplinary courts and results, etc.).   That's once again part of the leadership roulette mentioned....who we serve with or under determines what our own experiences are and they can be varied.

This still does not mean that Analytics story is false and that we should doubt him.  I prefer to assume people are being truthful (especially since this involved his own wife).  I've given explanations for why these 2 missionaries may have been dealt with in a different manner.  

I've told about a couple of my experiences and could relate others (more unexplainable and involving apparent rule breaking).  Once again, this is what happens when lay clergy are involved and the human aspect enters into these decisions.

Whether strange things happen occasionally is one thing. Whether they happen with regularity -- enough to justify the "leadership roulette" cliche -- is another.

It's like what I've said before when I've seen people recount bizarre or quirky goings-on in their wards or stakes. My own ward, by contrast, is so normal as to seem almost abnormal -- if one is to conclude that the quirkiness is so ubiquitous as it is sometimes made to seem.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 Believe Analytic's personal experience or don't believe it.  

Which is what I've been saying all along -- with the caveat that there is no reason to feel compelled to swallow it whole, not without more verification than has been offered here.

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether strange things happen occasionally is one thing. Whether they happen with regularity -- enough to justify the "leadership roulette" cliche -- is another.

It's like what I've said before when I've seen people describe bizarre or quirky goings-on in their wards or stakes. My own ward, by contrast, seems so normal as to seem almost abnormal -- if one is to conclude that the quirkiness is so ubiquitous as it is sometimes made to seem.

 

Maybe it happens more outside of Utah?  I don't know....that may have nothing to do with it. 

We had a brother and sister have an affair in our ward (caught in bed together), both were leaders in our ward with temple marriages and many kids involved.  They left their spouses and moved to another stake and ward....but moved in together and eventually married.  I know that our Bishop called their new Bishop to fill him in...but no disciplinary council was ever held for either of them  He was called as the YM president and she was put into leadership too in that ward.  Members in our ward saw them regularly in the temple soon after they moved as well (and still do).  Unbelievable?  YES!!!  

But it happened.  And, IMO, it involves more serious rule breaking than Analytic's personal story. 

That's just the nature of things when men (humans) get involved in running things on a local level.  I agree that they should not happen, but they do.

Edited December 28, 2017 by ALarson

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe it happens more outside of Utah?  I don't know....that may have nothing to do with it. 

We had a brother and sister have an affair in our ward (caught in bed together), both were leaders in our ward with temple marriages and many kids involved.  They left their spouses and moved to another stake and ward....but moved in together and eventually married.  I know that our Bishop called their new Bishop to fill him in...but no disciplinary council was ever held for either of them  He was called as the YM president and she was put into leadership too in that ward.  Members in our ward saw them regularly in the temple soon after they moved as well (and still do).  Unbelievable?  YES!!!  

But it happened.  And, IMO, it involves more serious rule breaking than Analytic's personal story. 

That's just the nature of things when men (humans) get involved in running things on a local level.  I agree that they should not happen, but they do.

Notice the turn this thread has taken. You have the people who initially were critical of the bishop not rubber stamping the sealing in the video because of embarrassment to the woman . . . arguing that church action should be more uniformly harsh in dealing with adultery/fornication. 

It took this turn because the sharing of outlier, weird anecdotes illustrates how extreme leniency and refusal to apply formal discipline where needed causes problems. Something everyone agrees on!

It took a while, but the progressives brought themselves around to the harliners' initial position they were criticizing . . .  

Edited December 28, 2017 by rongo

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which is what I've been saying all along -- with the caveat that there is no reason to feel compelled to swallow it whole, not without more verification than has been offered here.

 

Or you can just take his word that he wouldn't lie or fabricate a story about his own wife when others can tell similar types of stories.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Notice the turn this thread has taken. You have the people who initially were critical of the bishop not rubber stamping the sealing in the video because of embarrassment to the woman . . . arguing that church action should be more uniformly harsh in dealing with adultery/fornication. 

It took a while, but the progressives brought themselves around to the harliners' initial position they were criticizing . . .  

Possibly.  I was just standing up for someone who I felt was under attack.  I haven't said that I believe it's bad to have a human element to these disciplinary courts or decisions.  I do think there are some instances that are pretty set regarding how they should be dealt with....others I believe we should allow those in leadership to make decisions based on what information they have that we may not know.  But, I do believe that mistakes and injustices happen as well.

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I haven't said that I believe it's bad to have a human element to these disciplinary courts or decisions.  I do think there are some instances that are pretty set regarding how they should be dealt with....others I believe we should allow those in leadership to make decisions based on what information they have that we may not know.  But, I do believe that mistakes and injustices happen as well.

I agree. People who think that disciplinary councils, on principle, are humiliating and demeaning have got it all wrong. The best thing that can be done with difficult situations (better than one man alone trying to discern and decide) is to go through the DC process. Sometimes the outcome is "no action," but the principle of "many heads are better than one," deliberation, sharing of concerns and different perspectives, etc. are invaluable --- to the leader, and to the person. I have learned that each DC is different, and that the pre-conceived notions as to outcome and what is best that I bring into them (despite best efforts to be neutral) wend their way through the process, and it becomes clear to all involved what the outcome should be and what is best. 

This is sometimes even true when there is technical disagreement. As I've pointed out to the stake presidency before (long ago, when there were concerns about perceived lack of unity because of disagreement from some bishops about something), "unity does not always mean unanimity." i.e., people can still be unified while not being unanimous (this happens with the Q12 and FP). I remember one when I was a counselor where a married man had scheduled and met with a prostitute, and according to him, stopped at making out clothed before it came to sex. This was a key detail with the bishop, but to me, that actually didn't matter. Meeting with and making out with her vs. having sex with her were essentially the same thing as far as infidelity and violation of covenants. I felt he should have been disfellowshipped (the harshest outcome possible for him at the ward level), but the bishop's final decision was formal probation. I sustained and accepted this while disagreeing with it. Being able to frankly disagree and counsel is valuable for the decision maker, even when the decision is not strictly in keeping with your own views. Overall, this system does very, very well. 

It really is one of the most revelatory experiences I have been involved with. 

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Or you can just take his word that he wouldn't lie or fabricate a story about his own wife when others can tell similar types of stories.

However, He gave different accounts each time about how much time before the fellowshiped Elder returned to his mission. In one account he said the elder was disfellowshipped and in the other he said he didn't know. 

We all know that if different accounts of an even  have different  versions, then it must follow that the account must be false. (at least if you are Joseph Smith). 

 

[ALarson]

48 minutes ago, Danzo said:

However, He gave different accounts each time about how much time before the fellowshiped Elder returned to his mission. In one account he said the elder was disfellowshipped and in the other he said he didn't know. 

I think when he was pressed for proof or more details, Analytics stated he'd seen the sister's record (his wife's), so he knew for sure that she'd been disfellowshipped, but that he didn't know for sure about the elder (he'd just been told that he was disfellowshipped).  From what I can tell, it appears he wasn't (disfellowshipped) and that pretty much makes other details make more sense (such as he was sent back out to finish his mission rather quickly).  I really have no reason to disbelieve Analytics even though it appears this case was not handled equitably between the sister and the elder, IMO, on the face of it.  But once again, the leaders may have more information than we do.

Edited December 28, 2017 by ALarson

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But once again, the leaders may have more information than we do.

That is virtually always going to be the case.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That is virtually always going to be the case.

True.  However Analytic's wife would know all details relating to her (and to what took place between her and the elder).  From what Analytic's stated, I believe her discipline was handled correctly (other than the letter part being a bit odd.....) and feel the elder should have received the same (he was not required to send a letter, so he may not have been disfellowshipped either which fits, IMO).

I think we've analyzed Analytic's story to death now....maybe we should move on and also get back on topic regarding the OP (if anyone is interested in discussing that).

Edited December 28, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Or you can just take his word that he wouldn't lie or fabricate a story about his own wife when others can tell similar types of stories.

There is a wide territory between believing an account is fabricated and believing it is rendered with perfect accuracy (“taking his word for it”). Or forming a conclusion of any kind, for that matter. 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

"Internal clues"?  Ok.  How about we just acknowledge that disciplinary results are not always consistent when it comes to different leaders making the decisions (different Bishops and different Stake Presidents)?  Some are excommunicated for adultery and some aren't, for example.

I acknowledge that.  Judges in Israel are not automatons.  They actually are vested with genuine authority and discretion to impose different types and levels of discipline depending on the particular circumstances of each instance.

I am rather surprised that you seem to be characterizing this as a bad thing.  Don't you want bishops and stake presidents to reasonably exercise discretion?  To take various individual factors into account which may be present in Situation X, but not in Situation Y, such that X ends up with a different outcome than Y?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

That's an interesting observation.  I've had similar leadership experience and my experience is that I've not seen any "rule breaking" when it comes to disciplinary matters.  Leadership that I've been involved with has always been very careful to handle things properly.

That has been my experience as well.  Having participated in dozens of disciplinary councils, I can attest that in each and every one the "ground rules" are laid out.  The Handbook is pulled out (or pulled up on a computer) and the relevant portions are reviewed verbatim.

Disciplinary councils are generally unpleasant.  None of us want to be there, but we do it because we feel it is our duty.  And certainly none of us what to do in incorrectly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that.  Judges in Israel are not automatons.  They actually are vested with genuine authority and discretion to impose different types and levels of discipline depending on the particular circumstances of each instance.

I am rather surprised that you seem to be characterizing this as a bad thing.

I haven't.  Quite the opposite.  I've repeatedly stated that the leaders involved know more than we know....that there's nothing evil afoot with what took place, just human error sometimes....that with lay clergy, mistakes may happen and that doesn't mean they are not good men doing the best they can.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I haven't.  Quite the opposite.  I've repeatedly stated that the leaders involved know more than we know....that there's nothing evil afoot with what took place, just human error sometimes....that with lay clergy, mistakes may happen and that doesn't mean they are not good men doing the best they can.

Or that differing outcomes between cases can be attributable to different circumstances as opposed to human error?

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or that differing outcomes between cases can be attributable to different circumstances as opposed to human error?

Well, if there was a sexual relationship (as with the elder and the sister missionary), then I think both should have been disciplined.  But of course, many times the Bishop or SP is privy to information that can cause some (who aren't aware of the info) to question the outcome, I agree.

Edited December 29, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I haven't.  Quite the opposite.  I've repeatedly stated that the leaders involved know more than we know....that there's nothing evil afoot with what took place, just human error sometimes....that with lay clergy, mistakes may happen and that doesn't mean they are not good men doing the best they can.

Okay.  Thank you for the clarification.

-Smac

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

True.  However Analytic's wife would know all details relating to her (and to what took place between her and the elder).  From what Analytic's stated, I believe her discipline was handled correctly (other than the letter part being a bit odd.....) and feel the elder should have received the same (he was not required to send a letter, so he may not have been disfellowshipped either which fits, IMO).

I think we've analyzed Analytic's story to death now....maybe we should move on and also get back on topic regarding the OP (if anyone is interested in discussing that).

Thank you.

Just to clarify a few things. While the story I told was in fact true, in no way did I intend to imply that it was typical or handled "by the books." It was certainly an outlier.

But on the other hand, my wife was in fact mistreated by certain members of the priesthood hierarchy who believed they were actually vested with genuine authority. Perhaps this is something only a cynical apostate would say, but my wife came to her own conclusion from her own experiences that as soon as a man gets a little bit of authority as he supposes, he will almost immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. She eventually realized that she has zero interest in being the object in such a system, and decidedly left. Personally, I can't blame her.

[Duncan]

a real life scenario

Edited December 30, 2017 by Duncan