Gray Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your personal contempt for the ecclesiastical structure of the Church is not probative. LDS Bishops receive no relevant training in this area. Which means their work experience (which is usually irrelevant) is all they have to guide them. And barring the occasional coincidence (a teacher or doctor called as a bishop) they have nothing to help them to make sure their interviews are ethical and don't cross boundaries. Which is why we so many people report that their bishops used the interviews as an opportunity for stimulation, like a phone sex line. The bishops may not even realize they are crossing a line at first. Sadly more care is taken that tithing funds are counted properly at the ward level - there are extensive safeguards in place. Children should rate that level of care and concern, at least. Edited September 17, 2018 by Gray 1
ALarson Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If someone on the council surreptitiously recorded the proceedings, leaked them to a notorious anti-Mormon apostate, and then lied about it when asked, I would regard that as an egregious defilement of the name of that noble Book of Mormon prophet. I get that. But others disagree and feel it's the perfect name to have used (for other reasons as I quoted above). Either way, that's apparently the name they chose to use.... Edited September 17, 2018 by ALarson
california boy Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I would think degree of defiance enters into the equation. And entitlement mentality. Kei te whakaatu koe i ou ake whakapono. Kaore koe e whakaae? I decided to answer you in Maori. I served my mission there. It does make me sound more important don't you think? 1
Gray Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, kllindley said: CFR. What training in asking questions about sexual history? I'm fascinated because when our Medicaid administrator added this requirement, I heard many clinicians express that they had never had ANY training in talking to youth about sexual issues. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/why-do-we-take-sexual-history/2005-10 Quote Are physicians trained to do a thorough sexual history? Many graduating clinicians do not feel adequately prepared to evaluate sexual health problems [17]. Older physicians report less STD assessment training during medical school and residency than do younger physicians. However, training in sexual history assessment may be increasing in medical school education [18,19], and students who have had sexuality/sexual health instruction report greater confidence in addressing this topic with patients [20.] Physicians who conduct sexual histories are also more likely to test patients for STDs [21,22]. 1
smac97 Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 13 minutes ago, lostindc said: You're correct, it's an apt comparison in showing how little LDS leaders are trained and vetted compared to medical practitioners. And yet even "trained and vetted" medical practitioners can engage in misconduct. I would not be opposed to more training for bishops, though. But Sam Young's tirade is an overwrought and unreasoned incitement to a moral panic and mass hysteria. It's not a good faith effort to improve the safety and welfare of children in the Church. Thanks, -Smac
provoman Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Cool. Were their phones confiscated like his? It appears his wife was in the room at the time of the recording.
lostindc Posted September 17, 2018 Author Posted September 17, 2018 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Bishops and stake presidents are vetted ecclesiastically. They don’t come to those positions willy nilly. Well that should calm everyone.
Gray Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 I would also add, doctors do a lot of things that would be totally inappropriate in anything except a medical context. A prostate exam is fine in the doctor's office. Take that elsewhere, like into the workplace or a church, and it's something else entirely. 1
lostindc Posted September 17, 2018 Author Posted September 17, 2018 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Apples and oranges. Say that to Smac, he thinks it's an "apt" comparison.
california boy Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 31 minutes ago, smac97 said: Does any of that justify the individual in behaving unethically by recording the council? I don't think so. Yes. But it's reasonably to surmise that Sam Young did it, or else a supporter did it has his behest and/or on his behalf. I'm not ruling that out. It may well be that someone other than Sam Young, acting in support of Sam Young, was the one who broke trust with the stake president. The two circumstances are very different, but I think church law requires a disciplinary proceeding for Joseph Bishop. Thanks, -Smac Once again in Maori. Wow this is great. Do you all now think I am more brilliant and my arguments should have more weight? I te wa i pai ai ki te whakapae i tetahi tangata kei te tinihanga, no te mea he take tera e kore ai ia e tinihanga?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, california boy said: Kei te whakaatu koe i ou ake whakapono. Kaore koe e whakaae? I decided to answer you in Maori. I served my mission there. It does make me sound more important don't you think? If you would have provided sufficient context (as Smac does with his legal terms) I likely could have determined the meaning therefrom. But then that wouldn’t have served your in-your-face intent.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, lostindc said: Say that to Smac, he thinks it's an "apt" comparison. What are you talking about? I agree with Smac and even expressed the same thought.
Danzo Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, Gray said: LDS Bishops receive no relevant training in this area. Which means their work experience (which is usually irrelevant) is all they have to guide them. you know this. how? Cause I have seen the training video . . . Just saying. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, lostindc said: Well that should calm everyone. I think it’s good enough for those who are faithful.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ALarson said: I get that. But others disagree and feel it's the perfect name to have used (for other reasons as I quoted above). Either way, that's apparently the name they chose to use.... The kidnapper and rapist of Elizabeth Smart chose the name Immanuel David. It didn’t endow him with any nobility. Edited September 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
lostindc Posted September 17, 2018 Author Posted September 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: And yet even "trained and vetted" medical practitioners can engage in misconduct. I would not be opposed to more training for bishops, though. But Sam Young's tirade is an overwrought and unreasoned incitement to a moral panic and mass hysteria. It's not a good faith effort to improve the safety and welfare of children in the Church. Thanks, -Smac It's good you concede that change is required in the way Church leaders are trained in handling worthiness interviews. I am glad you believe change is something that this acceptable. But Smac, it's working. People are talking about Sam Young and his stance on worthiness interviews. As of today, since Sam's excommunication ceremony, nearly three wards worth of members resigned from the Church. I predict the worthiness interview processes is going to dramatically change.
Thinking Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: How was I to know what you were getting at without my asking one or more questions. You're a smart person who knows what reductio ad absurdum means and your conclusion had some extreme results.
ALarson Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The kidnapper if Elizabeth Smart chose the name Immanuel David. It didn’t endow him with any nobility. I've not claimed it endowed anyone "with any nobility", have I? Some believe it's the perfect name for whoever recorded it to use. You disagree. Bottom line is that at this point we do not know who made the recording and there were a lot of people in that room. Some believe it could have been a High Councilman.....and it could have been. As far as I know, we've only heard from one person who was in the room, and he's stated it was not him (or his wife). I guess we'll just have to wait and see if we find out who recorded it. I just feel it's unfortunate that Mike Norton ended up with it. Edited September 17, 2018 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Thinking said: You're a smart person who knows what reductio ad absurdum means and your conclusion had some extreme results. I had no way of knowing you had a correct understanding of it or that you were using it properly. When I don’t know what someone is getting at, I often will ask for clarification. I’m funny that way, I suppose.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: I've not claimed it endowed anyone "with any nobility", have I? Some believe it's the perfect name for whoever recorded it to use. You disagree. Bottom line is that at the point there were a lot of people in that room and we do not know who made the recording. Some believe it could have been a High Councilman.....and it could have been. As far as I know, we've only heard from one person who was in the room, and he's stated it was not him (or his wife). I guess we'll just have to wait and see if we find out who recorded it. I just feel it's unfortunate that Mike Norton ended up with it. Where did he state it was not him or his wife? I know Abulafia asserted this, but so far he/she has not responded to my CFR. Edited September 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
california boy Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you would have provided sufficient context (as Smac does with his legal terms) I likely could have determined the meaning therefrom. But then that wouldn’t have served your in-your-face intent. What were the exact words you said to Happyjack when he asked that posters use English rather than Latin? 1
smac97 Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 8 minutes ago, california boy said: Once again in Maori. Wow this is great. Do you all now think I am more brilliant and my arguments should have more weight? I te wa i pai ai ki te whakapae i tetahi tangata kei te tinihanga, no te mea he take tera e kore ai ia e tinihanga? I used a three-word phrase borrowed from Latin that is heavily used in the American legal system, the definition of which requires no more than a five-second search on Google. I did not provide a definition because I thought it would be a bit condescending, perhaps even an insult to the intelligence of the members of this board, to provide something that you could so easily find yourself. I honestly did not think a three-word phrase would excite such angst and twitterpation. I am now disabused these false notions. What's next? Limitations on words with more than three syllables? 🤨 -Smac 2
ALarson Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Where did he state it was not him or his wife? I read that earlier in this thread....I'll see if I can find where that was posted.
smac97 Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Thinking said: You're a smart person who knows what reductio ad absurdum means and your conclusion had some extreme results. Uh oh! Latin! Our two resident self-appointed arbiters on proper-use-of-non-English-phrases (HappyJackWagon and California Boy) are no doubt going to pounce on you for daring to deviate from the common tongue. Right? Right? 😀 -Smac 2
Storm Rider Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 11 hours ago, california boy said: I get the feeling that when you see a post from me, your first instinct is to attack without even a small attempt to understand what I have actually posted. This is a perfect example. Where in my post did say that the church was trying to silence anyone? In fact, the whole point of my post is that I don't think ANYONE thinks we have heard the last of Sam Young. It is HIM that is going to use his excommunication status to further his cause as the martyr. He is going to be the one to use his excommunication as a badge of honor for standing up against the church to protect the youth. Perhaps the church just gave him more power. Hence the comment that he may very well use his new martyrdom to expose every abuse possible. He can then say, I warned the church and their response was to kick me out. Your response to that is so far off the intent of my post, it makes me seriously wonder if you just skimmed my post and then jotted down the first thing that entered your head. Here is my post again. Love to hear your ideas on what I actually wrote. My comment was directed at Sam Young, not you personally. The allegation that excommunication is not realistic; however, it does fit with this guy's propaganda MO.
Recommended Posts