For Your Reading Pleasure: Tales From the 90s

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

I do think the Church can, and should, improve a number of its procedures for calling leadership.  For example, background checks.

I live in a jurisdiction that requires all volunteers who work around children, the elderly and the disabled to have a background check. So pretty much all Church members have verification cards. It's not a perfect system, but I don't have an issue with it.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[6EQUJ5]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Transparency" is an expectation from civil government.

This is why some folks dislike lawyers, I think. You make a statement that is true, and then leave out an equally, and incredibly relevant, additional piece of information.  Dishonesty by omission?

You state this as if it is based on some objective standard. I'm willing to bet the folks in North Korea don't expect transparency from their government. You are right though, it is our cultural expectation based on hundreds of years of experience that civil government and charitable organizations and Churches that solicit donations are transparent about some things. Both collect money from the people and both have significant influence over the their lives.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church is materially constrained in many different ways.  It does not function as a civil government.

It is impressive, really. You have whipped up this distraction about the particulars of civil government but this has no objective or reasonable basis unless you accept that the expectation is a cultural one.  But you don't want to do that because that would tank your entire argument. The function of the Church compared to civil government is totally irrelevant.  

You are not interested in good faith discussion. You are here to win and argument, seemingly at all costs.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church works hard to comply with the laws of the land.  Are you suggesting that the Church should do more than this?  That the Church should establish itself as an investigative agency?  As a police force?  That it should publish, in the name of "transparency," allegations of abuse received by bishops during pastoral counseling?

Wow! You have really created the most nonsensical, absurd and irrelevant "argument" I've ever seen.  Amazing! Let me give this a try:

My nephew's private school also works hard to comply with the laws of the land. But do you know what parents expect? Transparency. On their curriculum, and interactions with other kids, , their schoolwork etc..

I have another one. People give a lot of money to the Red Cross. And when it came out that the RC had misused some of the funds after 9/11, there was an uproar.  Donations went down. The RC changed.  Why? Because donors expected transparency.

I really don't care about how the Church spends the tithing money I have given and will continue to give. But the Church will become more transparent about issue X, when the members/donors demand change en masse or simply stop paying tithing.

This is in no way whatsoever related to civil government. LOL

Do juries really fall for that? 

Edited March 27, 2018 by 6EQUJ5

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This is why some folks dislike lawyers, I think. You make a statement that is true, and then leave out an equally, and incredibly relevant, additional piece of information.  Dishonesty by omission?

You don't know me from Adam, but feel free to publicly accuse me of dishonesty.  

No need to be boorish, or to personalize this thread.  If I overlooked something point it out.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

You state this as if it is based on some objective standard. I'm willing to bet the folks in North Korea don't expect transparency from their government. You are right though, it is our cultural expectation based on hundreds of years of experience that civil government and charitable organizations and Churches that solicit donations are transparent about some things. Both collect money from the people and both have significant influence over the their lives.

We're not talking about financial transparency.  Stick to the topic.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

It is impressive, really. You have whipped up this distraction about the particulars of civil government but this has no objective or reasonable basis unless you accept that the expectation is a cultural one.  

Malarky.  

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

But you don't want to do that because that would tank your entire argument. The function of the Church compared to civil government is totally irrelevant.  

It's totally relevant.  

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

You are not interested in good faith discussion.

Yes, I am.  Quit personalizing this thread.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

You are here to win and argument, seemingly at all costs.

No, I'm not.  Quit personalizing this thread.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Wow! You have really created the most nonsensical, absurd and irrelevant "argument" I've ever seen.  Amazing!

Quit personalizing this thread.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Let me give this a try:

My nephew's private school also works hard to comply with the laws of the land. But do you know what parents expect? Transparency. On their curriculum, and interactions with other kids, , their schoolwork etc..

Do parents also expect "transparency" in terms of the grades and mental health evaluations and family issues of Johnny and his family being publicly shared with all the other parents and their children?

I think . . . not.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I have another one. People give a lot of money to the Red Cross. And when it came out that the RC had misused some of the funds after 9/11, there was an uproar.  Donations went down. The RC changed.  Why? Because donors expected transparency.

Again, we're not talking about financial transparency.  That is not remotely the topic I was addressing.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I really don't care about how the Church spends the tithing money I have given and will continue to give.

I haven't been talking about "how the Church spends the tithing money."  The references to "transparency" have not been about financial transparency.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

But the Church will become more transparent about issue X, when the members/donors demand change en masse or simply stop paying tithing.

I don't know how to respond to this.

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This is in no way whatsoever related to civil government. LOL

I agree.  Expectations of "transparency" as to civil government are not readily transferrable to religious groups.

Bishops are recipients of a lot of very private information, in ways somewhat comparable to doctors and lawyers.  As it turns out, doctors and lawyers often receive very sensitive information from their patients/clients, and yet there are many circumstances (most, in fact) where they are affirmatively prohibited from publicly disclosing such information.  This is why we have the doctor/patient privilege and the attorney/client privilege.

And we also have . . . the priest/penitent privilege.

These privileges substantially constrain what can and should be disclosed in the name of "transparency."

6 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Do juries really fall for that? 

Again, quit personalizing this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[6EQUJ5]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You don't know me from Adam, but feel free to publicly accuse me of dishonesty.  

I am only responding to what you have written here.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do parents also expect "transparency" in terms of the grades and mental health evaluations and family issues of Johnny and his family being publicly shared with all the other parents and their children?

I think . . . not.

Well, as it turns out, when some possible abuse a was discovered a couple of years back a letter went out to all parents notifying them as to what had happened so they could discuss it with their own children.

I think so!

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know how to respond to this.

One possible response could be: "Yep."

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Bishops are recipients of a lot of very private information, in ways somewhat comparable to doctors and lawyers.  As it turns out, doctors and lawyers often receive very sensitive information from their patients/clients, and yet there are many circumstances (most, in fact) where they are affirmatively prohibited from publicly disclosing such information.  This is why we have the doctor/patient privilege and the attorney/client privilege.

And what are the exceptions to these very strict rules in the medical field?

Child endangerment

Sexual predation. 

(I don't know enough about the legal prof although I would expect that because these actions violate the law, lawyers have to keep their mouths shut)

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I am only responding to what you have written here.

You don't know me from Adam, and you are publicly accusing me of dishonesty.

That is what you are doing.

53 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Quote

Do parents also expect "transparency" in terms of the grades and mental health evaluations and family issues of Johnny and his family being publicly shared with all the other parents and their children?

I think . . . not.

Well, as it turns out, when some possible abuse a was discovered a couple of years back a letter went out to all parents notifying them as to what had happened so they could discuss it with their own children.

Again, do parents also expect "transparency" in terms of the grades and mental health evaluations and family issues of Johnny and his family being publicly shared with all the other parents and their children?

I think . . . not.

53 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Quote

Bishops are recipients of a lot of very private information, in ways somewhat comparable to doctors and lawyers.  As it turns out, doctors and lawyers often receive very sensitive information from their patients/clients, and yet there are many circumstances (most, in fact) where they are affirmatively prohibited from publicly disclosing such information.  This is why we have the doctor/patient privilege and the attorney/client privilege.

And what are the exceptions to these very strict rules in the medical field?

Well, if we were having a civil discussion, I would take some effort to lay some things out.

But we aren't, so I won't.

53 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Child endangerment

Sexual predation. 

Yes, broadly speaking.

53 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

(I don't know enough about the legal prof although I would expect that because these actions violate the law, lawyers have to keep their mouths shut)

The legal concept of privilege is actually a very important point, particularly the priest/penitent privilege and how it intersects with the 1st Amendment "Free Exercise" right, and also the 5th Amendment.

I'd go into more detail, but the generalized lack of civility makes it not really worthwhile.

We apparently are not getting along.  Let's just part ways before things get worse.  This topic is difficult enough to discuss as it is.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[6EQUJ5]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

You don't know me from Adam, and you are publicly accusing me of dishonesty.

That is what you are doing.

Whatever.  You are just embarrassed that you were called out on your tricks.

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, do parents also expect "transparency" in terms of the grades and mental health evaluations and family issues of Johnny and his family being publicly shared with all the other parents and their children?

I think . . . not.

They sure do.  They want to know if someone at school has head lice.  Or chicken pox. And they sure want to know how the school is doing in terms of grades, state tests, national standards, etc.

I think so!!

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

The legal concept of privilege is actually a very important point, particularly the priest/penitent privilege and how it intersects with the 1st Amendment "Free Exercise" right, and also the 5th Amendment.

The legal, but not the medical? 

As you have already acknowledged, in medicine there are some things that trump privilege. 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'd go into more detail, but the generalized lack of civility makes it not really worthwhile.

We apparently are not getting along.  Let's just part ways before things get worse.  This topic is difficult enough to discuss as it is.  

Don't be so dramatic. Just engage the argument.

Dispute opinions, not people.  

[rongo]

13 hours ago, rpn said:

Polygraphs are NOT accepted in US courts precisely because they are problematic.   Polygraph examiners will tell  you that their usefulness is usually in the fact that examinees disclose lots of stuff so it wont' come up as deceptive on the polygraph itself.   There are a few exceptions:  they are better when you are "asking did you take a necklace with blue beads from the house at 3214 polard street in Sonoma, WY?  (If you used the word "stones" instead of "beads" then someone might answer no, because he believed that the material was porcelain and not stone, and been found to have answered truthfully, for instance. even if they took the dang necklace.)   And you can find a polygraph "expert" who will anyone truthful if you pay them enough.  So, yes, some attorneys will ask a client to take a polygraph and tout the client as truthful when the questions weren't even on point, or the person flat out lied.   And the science of polygraphs is that the body expresses its distress over bad acts, but it also expresses distress at having a polygraph, and at hearing some words or being triggered by them, or even at needing to use the restroom and not knowing you could interrupt to do that.   Conversely, a person trained to surpress his emotions or a socio/psycho path may not show any reaction and thus be declared truthful.

 

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

It should be pointed out that polygraphs are about as reliable as flipping a coin.  You may as well tell us that they asked a Ouija board if he was guilty and it said "N-O."

As for the hypothetical being posed, there is always a risk.  The only perfect method for determining the truth would be for God to tell us what is going on.

But since that doesn't appear to be a reliable option in these cases, our best judgement and efforts would have to suffice, with the knowledge that there is a risk of a guilty man going free or an innocent man being falsely convicted and continually trying to improve the process. 

I know that polygraphs are controversial, and you can find experts on both sides who are adamant. In the end, each of us decides for ourselves how reliable we think they are, in the main. 

But for both of you: even if you think they are "no better than flipping a coin," if you were falsely accused of something, something that wasn't true and that you didn't do, would you take a polygraph and publish the results (assuming they were in your favor)? Even believing that they are worthless?

That's pretty much all this LDS judge can do, along with deny the allegations. There is no corroborating evidence, and no history or track record to corroborate the woman's claims. I would think that even believing for yourself that they are worthless, you would still take one and publish the results to help in the court of public opinion.

[Hestia]

Posters who get personal will be banned from the thread.  This is the only warning.  

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

But for both of you: even if you think they are "no better than flipping a coin," if you were falsely accused of something, something that wasn't true and that you didn't do, would you take a polygraph and publish the results (assuming they were in your favor)? Even believing that they are worthless?

 

There is so much wrong with that question I wouldn't even know where to begin.

But if I can stipulate that the results will only get published if they are in my favor, then I would willingly submit to all manner of superstitions (polygraph, divining rod, Ouija Board, tea leaves, palm reader, tarot reading,  psychic, groundhogs, etc.) and publish all the complimentary results.

Edited March 27, 2018 by cinepro

[rpn]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

But for both of you: even if you think they are "no better than flipping a coin," if you were falsely accused of some of something, something that wasn't true and that you didn't do, would you take a polygraph and publish the results (assuming they were in your favor)? Even believing that they are worthless?

 

I once almost lost a longtime job in which I was serving with distinction because a polygraph examiner said I must be lying because of the powers that be decided everyone employed in the job should now have an employment polygraph.   And I was completely truthful.  So my answer is no, I would not attempt to prove my innocence by taking a polygraph.

Edited March 27, 2018 by rpn

[rongo]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

There is so much wrong with that question I wouldn't even know where to begin.

But if I can stipulate that the results will only get published if they are in my favor, then I would willingly submit to all manner of superstitions (polygraph, divining rod, Ouija Board, tea leaves, palm reader, tarot reading,  psychic, groundhogs, etc.) and publish all the complimentary results.

Oh, come one. "So much wrong with that question I wouldn't even know where to begin." It's a hypothetical about you being falsely accused, with the assumption being that you felt a polygraph could circumstantially exonerate you. 

Sounds like your answer is "no." That wasn't so hard, was it?

You're being intentionally absurd (Ouija boards, tea leaves, tarot cards, groundhogs, etc.). While polygraphs' efficacy in all cases is controversial, they generally can show deception. Nervousness and other things can give false positives, and some people can "beat" them --- everyone agrees on that. Polygraphs aren't in the same category as the ridiculous examples you gave, though. 

I don't see anything wrong with trying that as a means of winning the court of public opinion angle. The risk would be if you failed the polygraph, but really were innocent. If the stakes were high enough, it may be a risk worth taking. 

 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

I once almost lost a longtime job in which I was serving with distinction because a polygraph examiner said I must be lying because of the powers that be decided everyone employed in the job should now have an employment polygraph.   And I was completely truthful.  So my answer is no, I would not attempt to prove my innocence by taking a polygraph.

Yeah, false positives would really stink. 

While they aren't admissible in court, they form part of the court of public opinion chess game (and indirectly influencing juries) when defendants discuss whether or not they are willing to take one. The willingness can make one look guilty or innocent.

In the case in question, the accused LDS judge wasn't challenged with taking one. He took one through a professional polygraph firm that has a reputation to uphold, and the firm said that he aced it. That only helps his court of public opinion case. Doesn't it? What downside is there for him to willingly take one if he passes it?

[Kenngo1969]

On 3/26/2018 at 4:41 PM, rongo said:

What if someone with an ax to grind, though, called and reported that Bishop rongo had raped her, or that he had molested her son. Let's say that it is completely untrue; that there is not a shred of truth to it. What investigations or clouds of suspicion are launched through that? 

My county has this happening right now. An LDS judge has been accused of molesting a twelve year-old girl thirteen years ago (the accuser is 25). He has no record of anything, but is on leave and under investigation. He completely passed an in-depth polygraph through a licensed polygraph firm. There is no evidence, other than the woman's story and his denial. Will he be reinstated? Will he be under a cloud forever? [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] 

I can think of people who are unhappy with their bishops for other reasons, but who would seize the opportunity to turn them in for something serious through a tip line.  

The woman's story is dispositive, his passing a polygraph test and his denial mean nothing, no, he will not be reinstated, and yes, he will be under a cloud forever.  You're welcome.  Glad I could clear that up for you.  Anything else?  (I guess, as someone who has been the victim of false accusations [though they don't involve physical or sexual abuse] I'm just a wee bit sensitive ...)