Popular Post Gray Posted March 23, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: C'mon, guys. There are always going to be extreme circumstances which leave behind the ordinary, accepted rules. Why? Because the ordinary rules are inadequate to deal with extreme circumstances. All of us are independent, thinking humans, and the LDS Church is not the only consideration which should be brought to bear. One must be prepared to step outside the system if necessary. I don't know, I think a big part of the MTC experience is trying to drill the independent thought out of the missionaries. It's a boot camp where obedience and conformity are valued as the highest currencies. I don't think I would have had the wherewithal to leave and call the police. (Not that I could have - our MTC was gated with guards at the front) Edited March 23, 2018 by Gray 7
jkwilliams Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 Just now, Gray said: I don't know, I think a big part of the MTC experience is trying to drill the independent thought out of the missionaries. It's book camp where obedience and conformity are valued as the highest currencies. I don't think I would have had the wherewithal to leave and call the police. (Not that I could have - our MTC was gated with guards at the front) We are talking about an experience so regimented you can’t even see a doctor without getting permission from the mission president’s wife. It’s ridiculous to blame missionaries for not thinking critically and acting on their own judgment. 4
hope_for_things Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I hear a lot of clamoring for changes and some of these changes I find impractical or the cure about as bad as the disease. The courts will do what they will. I doubt she will go after the church though. Proving negligence this long after the fact would be even harder than winning a civil case against him and I doubt she can win there. I'm pretty sure one of the news reports linked in this thread said she was filing a civil suit against the church, since the negotiations for a settlement didn't work out. As for changes, I think many good ideas are out there, the church could follow the lead of other institutions that already have practices in place. They don't need to reinvent the wheel.
Duncan Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 15 minutes ago, Analytics said: It's funny--I still have dreams about this. Just a couple of weeks ago, I had a pretty vivid dream about being on a mission and wanting to walk away from it. Even in my dream walking away was a difficult, complicated thing. I'd be interested in your thoughts on Shunn's story (The Accidental Terrorist)--it really illustrates how difficult it is to walk away. Just walking out of the MTC to the nearest phone to call 911 is almost as hard as walking off of the set of The Truman Show. In a sense it would probably be easy. But at the same time, I could imagine staff members, security guards, leaders, and other missionaries trying to physically restrain you. Ultimately they'll let you go if that's what you really want to do, but not before long talks and counseling back in the mission president's office where they try to manipulate you to change your mind. Have you taken leave of your senses?! A bomb was called in the Airport!!!!! the missionary had other options, if you can the airport you can call the Cops, even ones in Calgary-Great place to live, if you're a horrible person
Calm Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I hear a lot of clamoring for changes and some of these changes I find impractical or the cure about as bad as the disease. The courts will do what they will. I doubt she will go after the church though. Proving negligence this long after the fact would be even harder than winning a civil case against him and I doubt she can win there. She can prove negligence by the bishop she originally told back in 87 because he has admitted to ignoring her accusations and doing nothing. He was acting as an agent of the Church at that time. Wouldnt that be a valid claim? 1
jkwilliams Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 Just now, Calm said: She can prove negligence by the bishop she originally told back in 87 because he has admitted to ignoring her accusations and doing nothing. He was acting as an agent of the Church at that time. Wouldnt that be a valid claim? Yes, it would.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: "callings are perfect"? "the brethren have no responsibility"? Nonsense. Pres Eyring and the Brethren have made no such claims. I have personally sent major items to members of the Twelve, and they were not sent back to my Stake Pres. Instead, I have received nice letters in response -- one of them quite detailed. The Brethren should not be treated as fools. From Eyring: For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls. 4
Calm Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Duncan said: even ones in Calgary-Great place to live, if you're a horrible person Don't be nasty. It was rated number one best place to live in the world while we were there (remarkable how many places manage to make that claim ) 1
why me Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 I can see one problem. Someone leaked all this to mormonleaks. Why? What was the purpose for the leak. To harm the church? To get publicity? For a lawsuit? This all could have been done quietly between lawyers and bishop. But...instead it goes on the net to harm the lds church? Most likely to harm the church. No other reason to leak it to mormonleaks. And here we are discussing it on the thread...Publicity achieved. And money assured, perhaps? 1
Duncan Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 Just now, Calm said: Don't be nasty. It was rated number one best place to live in the world while we were there (remarkable how many places manage to make that claim ) reminds me of Biggar, Sk. "New York is big but this is Biggar"
The Nehor Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Calm said: She can prove negligence by the bishop she originally told back in 87 because he has admitted to ignoring her accusations and doing nothing. He was acting as an agent of the Church at that time. Wouldnt that be a valid claim? Doubt it. If she was a minor at the time of the incident it would be more likely. Mandatory reporting requirements rarely cover anyone except minors, the mentally disabled, and sometimes the elderly. Maybe under general sexual harassment laws but you would have to go back and look at the laws of the time. My guess is they would not allow such a suit. Again, I am not a lawyer or an expert. Just giving a very amateur opinion that could be wrong and I know it could be. But I doubt it.
jkwilliams Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 Just now, why me said: I can see one problem. Someone leaked all this to mormonleaks. Why? What was the purpose for the leak. To harm the church? To get publicity? For a lawsuit? This all could have been done quietly between lawyers and bishop. But...instead it goes on the net to harm the lds church? Most likely to harm the church. No other reason to leak it to mormonleaks. And here we are discussing it on the thread...Publicity achieved. And money assured, perhaps? It could easily have been someone at the church office building who thought this needed to be publicized for any number of reasons. Do you think this harms the church? I don’t. It certainly provides some motivation for doing things differently in the future. 1
Calm Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, why me said: I can see one problem. Someone leaked all this to mormonleaks. Why? What was the purpose for the leak. To harm the church? To get publicity? For a lawsuit? This all could have been done quietly between lawyers and bishop. But...instead it goes on the net to harm the lds church? Most likely to harm the church. No other reason to leak it to mormonleaks. And here we are discussing it on the thread...Publicity achieved. And money assured, perhaps? Once the info has been released, there is little reason for the Church to settle to prevent publicity so I doubt she lied about not wanting it to be released and Mormonleaks going ahead without her permission (absolutely despicable imo). As to why one of those she trusted with it leaked it to Mormonleaks, theywere likely not any that would benefit financially from doing so so motivation might have been a desire to harm the Church or to motivate change or both or something else. 2
jkwilliams Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Calm said: Once the info has been released, there is little reason for the Church to settle to prevent publicity so I doubt she lied about not wanting it to be released and Mormonleaks going ahead without her permission (absolutely despicable imo). As to why one of those she trusted with it leaked it to Mormonleaks, theywere likely not any that would benefit financially from doing so so motivation might have been a desire to harm the Church or to motivate change or both or something else. I’ll reserve judgment on whether my cousin’s actions were despicable because I have no information about what happened and why. If he did wrong, he’ll hear about it from me, but I don’t have the facts. Generally speaking, he’s not the kind of person who would do something despicable. I, on the other hand. ...
Robert F. Smith Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: From Eyring: For instance, it takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/the-lord-leads-his-church?lang=eng&country=au . To say that God knows the people He calls perfectly is not to say that callings are perfect. I have no doubt that God has perfect knowledge, but I don't give the same quality to his human servants, who may or may not get it right. In other words, God makes no mistakes, but we certainly do. Pres Eyring needs to clarify that. 1
Popular Post Analytics Posted March 23, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 23, 2018 13 minutes ago, Duncan said: Have you taken leave of your senses?! A bomb was called in the Airport!!!!! the missionary had other options, if you can the airport you can call the Cops, even ones in Calgary-Great place to live, if you're a horrible person Lol. For those who aren't familiar with Shunn's story, the importance of not quitting your mission and of preventing others from quitting was so deeply ingrained into Elder Shunn's brain, when a missionary went AWOL and Elder Shunn knew he was on a plane that was about to take off and fly out of the Calgary mission, Elder Shunn was instructed to do everything possible to prevent the missionary from leaving before the mission president could get there and talk him out of it. In order to prevent the plane from taking off with the AWOL missionary, Elder Shunn called in a bomb threat(!) to the airline. Yes, it is possible to decide you aren't going to play the game anymore and walk away. But to do so, you need to first overcome a lot of conditioning and social pressure, and then have to get past everybody around you who will go to heroic efforts to prevent you from being successful. Quitting your mission is a lot like trying to leave the set of the Truman Show. 6
provoman Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 22 minutes ago, Calm said: She can prove negligence by the bishop she originally told back in 87 because he has admitted to ignoring her accusations and doing nothing. He was acting as an agent of the Church at that time. Wouldnt that be a valid claim? negligence is a legal question
Danzo Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Agreed. And I'm all for getting that message out more because it's definitely not the message I've been taught throughout my life in the church. You've been attending the wrong classes
jpv Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 21 hours ago, Jeanne said: I rarely see him around..but he does podcasts now...really good ones..He has such a beautiful voice and works hard to be accurate. Are his podcasts on Mormon Discussion? If not, where?
Danzo Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 26 minutes ago, Calm said: She can prove negligence by the bishop she originally told back in 87 because he has admitted to ignoring her accusations and doing nothing. He was acting as an agent of the Church at that time. Wouldnt that be a valid claim? Ironically, that might harm her case. I am not an expert in that area of law, but that could have triggered the start of the statute of limitations countdown. Most of these statutes give you a set number of years after you became aware of the damage. That action by her (as a legal adult) might have triggered a statute of limitation. Also Laches comes to mind (although I am not sure if Utah law allows using it as a defense). (Not trying to defend the guy, just pointing out some legal consideration)
Gray Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, Danzo said: Ironically, that might harm her case. I am not an expert in that area of law, but that could have triggered the start of the statute of limitations countdown. Most of these statutes give you a set number of years after you became aware of the damage. That action by her (as a legal adult) might have triggered a statute of limitation. Also Laches comes to mind (although I am not sure if Utah law allows using it as a defense). (Not trying to defend the guy, just pointing out some legal consideration) Does the statute of limitations apply to civil litigation?
Jeanne Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, jpv said: Are his podcasts on Mormon Discussion? If not, where? I believe it is Mormon Discussions. My favorite one is "The Wrong Road" Edited...I was wrong..it was Radio Free Mormon Edited March 23, 2018 by Jeanne 1
ttribe Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 19 minutes ago, Analytics said: Lol. For those who aren't familiar with Shunn's story, the importance of not quitting your mission and of preventing others from quitting was so deeply ingrained into Elder Shunn's brain, when a missionary went AWOL and Elder Shunn knew he was on a plane that was about to take off and fly out of the Calgary mission, Elder Shunn was instructed to do everything possible to prevent the missionary from leaving before the mission president could get there and talk him out of it. In order to prevent the plane from taking off with the AWOL missionary, Elder Shunn called in a bomb threat(!) to the airline. Yes, it is possible to decide you aren't going to play the game anymore and walk away. But to do so, you need to first overcome a lot of conditioning and social pressure, and then have to get past everybody around you who will go to heroic efforts to prevent you from being successful. Quitting your mission is a lot like trying to leave the set of the Truman Show.
why me Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It could easily have been someone at the church office building who thought this needed to be publicized for any number of reasons. Do you think this harms the church? I don’t. It certainly provides some motivation for doing things differently in the future. Taking it to mormonleaks certainly does harm the church only in the sense, it gives the antimormons some hay to start a fire with. This is the purpose for mormonleaks: to provide hay. This was so long ago, I am sure that things are done differently now. But...unfortunately, bishops are just people who have outside jobs and they may get things wrong at times.
ttribe Posted March 23, 2018 Posted March 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, Gray said: Does the statute of limitations apply to civil litigation? Depends on the matter and the state. In general, yes, there are statutes of limitation applicable to civil cases.
Recommended Posts