Who heard the disruption?

[Tacenda]

Just now, CA Steve said:

The entire phrase is horrible.

Can you imagine how a woman would feel if the lawyer prosecuting her assault or rape, got up in a courtroom and told the jury  she was a victim of  "non-consensual morality"?

CA Steve, didn't Elder Cook say "non-consensual immorality"? 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The entire phrase is horrible.

Can you imagine how a woman would feel if the lawyer prosecuting her assault or rape, got up in a courtroom and told the jury  she was a victim of  "non-consensual morality"?

 

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

We do get some very torturous euphemistic expressions used in the Church. 

It isn't the "non-consentual" part that's a problem. Putting that with "morality" is strange. We all know what he meant, but it's a strange way to put it. "Non-consentual sex" is a euphemism for rape or assault, but equating "sex" with "morality" is strained and tortured. 

His use of the word morality instead of sex might have been based on the group that he was speaking to.  Maybe I'm remembering wrong and he said this in the Priesthood session, but if he didn't, then very young children would have been listening and he might have thought that it wasn't his job to introduce the term 'sex' to those children in a church meeting.   

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The entire phrase is horrible.

Can you imagine how a woman would feel if the lawyer prosecuting her assault or rape, got up in a courtroom and told the jury  she was a victim of  "non-consensual morality"?

Like I said, making someone an offender for a word (or phrase)

I am sure none of us have ever given a talk with a without everything perfectly phrased, because of this we are justified in condemning this man.

[rongo]

Just now, bluebell said:

His use of the word morality instead of sex might have been based on the group that he was speaking to.  Maybe I'm remembering wrong and he said this in the Priesthood session, but if he didn't, then very young children would have been listening and he might have thought that it wasn't his job to introduce the term 'sex' to those children in a church meeting.   

That's a big part of the problem: cultural squeamishness about talking about sex (not in detail, just saying the word or simply referring to it). This makes it awkward, and then creates an expectation that it is/will be an awkward topic. A vicious cycle. 

It was in a general session (Sunday afternoon), and we ought to be able to mention topics or issues that need addressing without euphemizing it for children. 

I don't think it was the children that were in mind --- we euphemize a lot of things in the Church. Good luck getting "ministering brothers" and "ministering sisters" to catch on in everyday use.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

I agree - it's obvious what he meant to say.

I didn't hear the talk. I hope he made it clear that rape is a much, much more serious sin than consensual premarital sex.

Nope:

“Such nonconsensual immorality is against the laws of God and of society,” he said. “However, those who understand God’s plan must also oppose consensual immorality, which is also a sin.”

[CA Steve]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

CA Steve, didn't Elder Cook say "non-consensual immorality"? 

You are correct.

 

Thanks

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nope:

“Such nonconsensual immorality is against the laws of God and of society,” he said. “However, those who understand God’s plan must also oppose consensual immorality, which is also a sin.”

Well that's unfortunate. We don't have a good strong history of clear preaching against the evils of rape or child molestation. The consensual stuff seems to usually be the focus, when rape is much more serious, and sadly not a very rare occurance.

[Prof]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

His use of the word morality instead of sex might have been based on the group that he was speaking to.  Maybe I'm remembering wrong and he said this in the Priesthood session, but if he didn't, then very young children would have been listening and he might have thought that it wasn't his job to introduce the term 'sex' to those children in a church meeting.   

Agreed. He had a very fine line to walk. On the one hand, the matter needed to be addressed, given recent events. On the other hand, the audience, which includes children, needed to be respected in the way it was presented. 

I try to imagine what conversations might ensure if I were watching this at home with kids and he used language other than what he did. 

When I look at it in that context, I would say he did okay. 

[smac97]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

I would like that spot better than west Layton. It’s onle a couple of miles south of my house. 

Guess we’ll have to wait and see. 

Looks like we won't have to wait long:

Quote

LDS Church members, Layton officials thrilled with plans for new temple
LDS Church acquired 13 acres in city Friday, but official site under wraps

By: Katie McKellar
Published: April 2, 2018 9:15 pm

A nearly 13-acre site in Layton that was purchased by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Friday is pictured on Monday, April 2, 2018. On Sunday, LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson announced a temple would be built in Layton.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Looks like we won't have to wait long:

Thanks,

-Smac

We were joking that the Church bought the cursed mansion on the mountain,  (anyone familiar with that? It's had many owners, and some tragedy). 

My dad and his brothers built a rock wall that is still there at the Layton foothills. They also got in trouble for swimming in the drinking water tower. 

Good times in East Layton/Davis High School.  

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Looks like we won't have to wait long:

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the news is getting ahead of itself.  As far as I know, that lot is still just speculation.  There are two other lots that the church owns within the city limits (they actually own a lot of lots but Fox News thinks there are three top contenders.  It's this one, and then two down off of west Gentile.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Prof said:

Agreed. He had a very fine line to walk. On the one hand, the matter needed to be addressed, given recent events. On the other hand, the audience, which includes children, needed to be respected in the way it was presented. 

I try to imagine what conversations might ensure if I were watching this at home with kids and he used language other than what he did. 

When I look at it in that context, I would say he did okay. 

I think so too.  I think he assumed that the adult members would know what he was referring to and would cut him some slack.  

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's a big part of the problem: cultural squeamishness about talking about sex (not in detail, just saying the word or simply referring to it). This makes it awkward, and then creates an expectation that it is/will be an awkward topic. A vicious cycle. 

It was in a general session (Sunday afternoon), and we ought to be able to mention topics or issues that need addressing without euphemizing it for children. 

I don't think it was the children that were in mind --- we euphemize a lot of things in the Church. Good luck getting "ministering brothers" and "ministering sisters" to catch on in everyday use.  

Not all parents agree with you though and it's not just your feelings that need to be considered.  

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the news is getting ahead of itself.  As far as I know, that lot is still just speculation.  There are two other lots that the church owns within the city limits (they actually own a lot of lots but Fox News thinks there are three top contenders.  It's this one, and then two down off of west Gentile.

Ah, well.  Speculation is still fun.  How big are the other two lots?  The one in the article is 13 acres, which seems temple-sized, and much too large for a chapel.

Thanks,

-SMac

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the news is getting ahead of itself.  As far as I know, that lot is still just speculation.  There are two other lots that the church owns within the city limits (they actually own a lot of lots but Fox News thinks there are three top contenders.  It's this one, and then two down off of west Gentile.

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46292553 Did you already see that I posted this? I think this sounds like it may be the spot, or I'm just wishful thinking that it's not next to me, haha!

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah, well.  Speculation is still fun.  How big are the other two lots?  The one in the article is 13 acres, which seems temple-sized, and much too large for a chapel.

Thanks,

-SMac

Analyzing Church land purchases can lead people down rabbit holes. The Church famously bought 500 acres in my town (then only 20-30,000 people) around 2006, and there was rampant speculation about "BYU-Southwest" (serving Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and SoCal) and the like. Non-Mormons were terrified that there would be big Mormon inroads and move-ins. When Bishop Burton visited for a stake conference and was asked about it, he said, "It's just a land investment. Pure and simple. When the time is right, we will sell it for a lot of money."

It is very possible that the Church is also investing in land in Layton. Land prices in Layton are through the roof and climbing, so if you have the money to buy, it's a good investment. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah, well.  Speculation is still fun.  How big are the other two lots?  The one in the article is 13 acres, which seems temple-sized, and much too large for a chapel.

Thanks,

-SMac

I'm not sure.  The article I read stated that the church owns "dozens of lots" in Layton of which "a handful" are big enough for a temple.  It then goes on to list what it believes the top three contenders, which are.

-The lot off of east Gentile and 1300 East east of Smiths
-west hill field rd and 2200 West
-Gentile near 2800 West

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46292553 Did you already see that I posted this? I think this sounds like it may be the spot, or I'm just wishful thinking that it's not next to me, haha!

I did.  It's kind of fun to contemplate.  

[cinepro]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Analyzing Church land purchases can lead people down rabbit holes. The Church famously bought 500 acres in my town (then only 20-30,000 people) around 2006, and there was rampant speculation about "BYU-Southwest" (serving Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and SoCal) and the like. Non-Mormons were terrified that there would be big Mormon inroads and move-ins. When Bishop Burton visited for a stake conference and was asked about it, he said, "It's just a land investment. Pure and simple. When the time is right, we will sell it for a lot of money."

It is very possible that the Church is also investing in land in Layton. Land prices in Layton are through the roof and climbing, so if you have the money to buy, it's a good investment. 

Hopefully it goes better than this deal from 2008:

Quote

The Mormon Church has purchased a major chunk of undeveloped property in overbuilt Maricopa, AZ, from two major home builders.

Property Reserve Inc., a real-estate holding company owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, paid home builders Fulton Homes Corp. and Shea Homes for Active Adults a combined $72 million in October for about 1,900 acres of virgin land in the Pinal County city, 35 miles south of Phoenix.

The deal has left local real-estate professionals shaking their heads. They say the land isn't worth anything close to what the church paid.

"I can't understand paying that kind of price for land in Maricopa at this stage in the market," said home builder Larry Kush, founder of Scottsdale-based Montevina Estate Homes.

Looks like prices for undeveloped land are still pretty low...

https://www.landwatch.com/Arizona_land_for_sale/Maricopa_County/500_Acres?

 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by cinepro

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Hopefully it goes better than this deal from 2008:

That's us (I'm in Maricopa). I didn't remember that it was 1900 acres.

We're not overbuilt now (that was in the recession, and we were especially hard hit by the housing collapse). 

The size and price led a lot of people to speculate that something big was on the horizon. Bishop Burton insisted that it was simply a buy and sell investment for later. Land and home prices are climbing now, and it will be a big growth area like Gilbert in the future. 

Cynics suggested that it was a bailout of Ira Fulton at a bad time in the land/home market (Fulton has donated millions to BYU and ASU, and has buildings named after him at both schools).

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I meant it to be the same thing. But, this discussion isn’t important and I don’t want to get into semantics so we can probably just move on. 

I don't agree it's mere semantics. Exuberant and vocal praise of God during a religious service -- whether or not one approves of it -- strikes me as qualitatively different from screeching out during a meeting because you're excited your town is getting a temple.

But I also agree it's not important, and I'm good with moving on.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

We do get some very torturous euphemistic expressions used in the Church. 

It isn't the "non-consentual" part that's a problem. Putting that with "morality" is strange. We all know what he meant, but it's a strange way to put it. "Non-consentual sex" is a euphemism for rape or assault, but equating "sex" with "morality" is strained and tortured. 

Harassment may get to the level of immorality as well imo, so if nonconsenual sex is seen as assault or rape, that would be inappropriate to use when intending harassment as well.  It seems like he was looking for a definition that would cover all nonconsensual sexual behaviour.

And he was probably trying to make it family friendly.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm

[mtomm]

On 3/31/2018 at 2:41 PM, CMZ said:

Not sure how people don't understand that there is a proper way to address these concerns. In fact they constantly repeat it in conference.

I did this (not my own assault) and was completely rebuffed by my bishop (my husband) the stake president and the grandfather of the girls who were preyed upon. The parents were assured that the missionary was being sent home and dealt with properly there.  However, he was not sent home only re-assigned to a different community (my husband saw him shortly after).  I happen to agree with the interrupter because of my own experience. Stop covering up for sexual predators. 
ETA: He was  reported to the sheriff who said that no charges could/should be brought. Apparently the little girls would actually have to lift their shirts as he asked and he would have actually had to have taken a picture of them instead of just pretending to. 

I begged that something be done to prevent future victims. Deaf ears.

Edited April 3, 2018 by mtomm

[provoman]

28 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I did this (not my own assault) and was completely rebuffed by my bishop (my husband) the stake president and the grandfather of the girls who were preyed upon. The parents were assured that the missionary was being sent home and dealt with properly there.  However, he was not sent home only re-assigned to a different community (my husband saw him shortly after).  I happen to agree with the interrupter because of my own experience. Stop covering up for sexual predators. 
ETA: He was  reported to the sheriff who said that no charges could/should be brought. Apparently the little girls would actually have to lift their shirts as he asked and he would have actually had to have taken a picture of them instead of just pretending to. 

I begged that something be done to prevent future victims. Deaf ears.

 What do you see as the responsibility of the Church in this situation you describe?

What is the “something be done” that the Church should have done?

[Jeanne]

31 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I did this (not my own assault) and was completely rebuffed by my bishop (my husband) the stake president and the grandfather of the girls who were preyed upon. The parents were assured that the missionary was being sent home and dealt with properly there.  However, he was not sent home only re-assigned to a different community (my husband saw him shortly after).  I happen to agree with the interrupter because of my own experience. Stop covering up for sexual predators. 
ETA: He was  reported to the sheriff who said that no charges could/should be brought. Apparently the little girls would actually have to lift their shirts as he asked and he would have actually had to have taken a picture of them instead of just pretending to. 

I begged that something be done to prevent future victims. Deaf ears.

Are you kidding me??  I would shout at the darn rooftops for such betrayal...!