Jump to content

Penalties for not being vaccinated?


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, halconero said:

If I were a bishop in the above case, I would clarify with the member that President Nelson urged us to get vaccinated, but ultimately left the decision in our hands, and that people who are not vaccinated can still sustain him as President. I would then ask them again, with more context, if they feel they can sustain the President of the Church. If they still said no, I would deny them a recommend.

 

This happened in my area with a couple who told the bishop that they couldn't sustain him because of his decision with a complicated issue with a different member of the ward.  So the bishop told them he couldn't give them a recommend.  They did NOT like that and took the issue to the SP who did give them the recommends.  

I agree with your take on the issue.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have it on good authority the primary method of transmission is gay orgies. I have decided to only attend every other month out of an abundance of caution.

LOL! 

I haven't even bothered learning about monkeypox. I await the government telling me what to think about it.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What happened with your SP?

After enough people complained to SLC,  he stopped.  He went onto finish his normal 9 year term.  
 

Prior to that situation he made the news with a crazy talk that he gave in Stake Conf. (the talk went viral on the LDS web sites and even had people calling him from outside the country about it).  It seems The Church almost always prefers that leaders save face rather than accept responsibility for errors by releasing them early.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Durangout said:

After enough people complained to SLC,  he stopped.  He went onto finish his normal 9 year term.  
 

Prior to that situation he made the news with a crazy talk that he gave in Stake Conf. (the talk went viral on the LDS web sites and even had people calling him from outside the country about it).  It seems The Church almost always prefers that leaders save face rather than accept responsibility for errors by releasing them early.

As long as they learn from errors, why release them?

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Durangout said:

After enough people complained to SLC,  he stopped.  He went onto finish his normal 9 year term.  
 

Prior to that situation he made the news with a crazy talk that he gave in Stake Conf. (the talk went viral on the LDS web sites and even had people calling him from outside the country about it).  It seems The Church almost always prefers that leaders save face rather than accept responsibility for errors by releasing them early.

Now you have to tell us what the crazy talk was about! :lol:

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

As long as they learn from errors, why release them?

Fair question.
 

I guess the same question could be asked about anyone who has received restrictions from a membership council.  “If they learned from their error, why restrict their membership in anyway?”

Regarding leaders the truth is they most likely haven’t learned from their errors.  In my SP’s case, probably bc of ego, the errors just kept coming.  That seems to be the case generally.  When the new SP took over he was such a breath of fresh air—that is until after he’d been there for a few years and started to drink the kool-aid of how wonderful was was and is following suit w the last one.  sigh

So, the answer is that they should be released after these errors because of all the damage that they do in the meantime.  Brad Wilcox is another good (bad) example of this.

Sadly if a members becomes disgruntled bc of learners’ bad actions,  the leader is never blamed but the member is gaslighted ( hate using an in vogue term) and told they are the problem. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

LOL! 

I haven't even bothered learning about monkeypox. I await the government telling me what to think about it.

They are trying to fight the disease. The worry is that if it becomes endemic we may have to vaccinate people but we are nowhere near that point yet. We already have a vaccine and it is being offered to those most at risk (men who have sex with men, primarily gay and bisexual guys). It doesn’t spread sexually though or at least not just sexually. It requires sustained close quarters contact to transmit. Generally it transmits through skin lesions or oral exchange of fluids (kissing) and it might be transmitted sexually but last I heard the jury was out on that.

States of emergency have been declared in some states but that is more to track the disease and treat those who get it. There won’t be lockdowns unless the nature of the disease changes on a major level. This is very unlikely. Unless you have a Grindr account it shouldn’t have any impact.

The name is unfortunate but it wasn’t originally racist. It was first identified in lab monkeys.

The last US outbreak was confined almost entirely to people who took care of prairie dogs that had the disease.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Durangout said:

After enough people complained to SLC,  he stopped.  He went onto finish his normal 9 year term.  
 

Prior to that situation he made the news with a crazy talk that he gave in Stake Conf. (the talk went viral on the LDS web sites and even had people calling him from outside the country about it).  It seems The Church almost always prefers that leaders save face rather than accept responsibility for errors by releasing them early.

It is normally 10 years.

I heard of a legendary talk my grandfather supposedly gave as a Stake President back in the 60s or 70s where he somehow got onto the topic of as you are driving down the road and see people on the sidewalk you get the urge to swerve a little and knock them over. When asked about it he didn’t remember it but insists there had to have been some kind of spiritual lesson in there somewhere. When the Earth becomes a Urim and Thummim holodeck that is one scene I want to look up.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, bluebell said:

This happened in my area with a couple who told the bishop that they couldn't sustain him because of his decision with a complicated issue with a different member of the ward.  So the bishop told them he couldn't give them a recommend.  They did NOT like that and took the issue to the SP who did give them the recommends.  

I agree with your take on the issue.

Hmm.  Just out of curiosity, I wonder, procedurally, how that would work?  Would the Stake President, after completing his interviews with them, send the couple back to the Bishop?  Would the Stake President sign the recommend in both places himself?  (Again, it's nothing I'm going to lose sleep over.  Just curious ...)  I have heard of one case where a a Bishop was called as a Stake President, and the "transition" between callings occurred as he was "issuing himself" a Recommend ... so he signed it in both places!*  Wild! :D

*Not the one I discuss in a subsequent post, below.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Durangout said:

Fair question.
 

I guess the same question could be asked about anyone who has received restrictions from a membership council.  “If they learned from their error, why restrict their membership in anyway?”

Regarding leaders the truth is they most likely haven’t learned from their errors.  In my SP’s case, probably bc of ego, the errors just kept coming.  That seems to be the case generally.  When the new SP took over he was such a breath of fresh air—that is until after he’d been there for a few years and started to drink the kool-aid of how wonderful was was and is following suit w the last one.  sigh

So, the answer is that they should be released after these errors because of all the damage that they do in the meantime.  Brad Wilcox is another good (bad) example of this.

Sadly if a members becomes disgruntled bc of learners’ bad actions,  the leader is never blamed but the member is gaslighted ( hate using an in vogue term) and told they are the problem. 

I think, perhaps, we need to learn to develop more charity for our leaders.  They didn't ask for the job.  They didn't campaign for it.  Unlike many of them in their professional lives, they didn't go to school for it.  Perhaps you've heard a couple of old sayings about why Bishops, usually, serve for five years, and Stake Presidents, usually, serve for ten?  (1) Because that's about how long it takes to learn to perform the calling; (2) Because that's about how long it takes to offend everyone in the ward and in the stake, respectively. 

My brother served as a Bishop for, I believe, six years, and as a Stake President for another six.  Good news?  It took him a little longer than usual to offend everyone in his ward.  Bad news?  It took him a lot less time than usual to offend everyone in his stake! :D :rofl: :D  (Just kidding, Thomas.  Love you, Bro. :friends:)

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They are trying to fight the disease. The worry is that if it becomes endemic we may have to vaccinate people but we are nowhere near that point yet. We already have a vaccine and it is being offered to those most at risk (men who have sex with men, primarily gay and bisexual guys). It doesn’t spread sexually though or at least not just sexually. It requires sustained close quarters contact to transmit. Generally it transmits through skin lesions or oral exchange of fluids (kissing) and it might be transmitted sexually but last I heard the jury was out on that.

States of emergency have been declared in some states but that is more to track the disease and treat those who get it. There won’t be lockdowns unless the nature of the disease changes on a major level. This is very unlikely. Unless you have a Grindr account it shouldn’t have any impact.

The name is unfortunate but it wasn’t originally racist. It was first identified in lab monkeys.

The last US outbreak was confined almost entirely to people who took care of prairie dogs that had the disease.

This eerily reminds me of the HIV/Aids virus, wasn't it started with a monkey?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-hiv-aids-monkeys-chimps-origin

Makes me understand that we need to take this seriously.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This eerily reminds me of the HIV/Aids virus, wasn't it started with a monkey?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-hiv-aids-monkeys-chimps-origin

Makes me understand that we need to take this seriously.

Yeah, but the two aren’t similar. HIV is only transmitted sexually or by blood. HIV is also a huge pain because it mutates so rapidly. That is why there isn’t a vaccine or a cure. The hope is that an MRNA injection if tailored right could cure someone.

HIV without treatment is also likely to kill you.

Monkey pox has a low fatality rate. We have had the first fatalities outside of Africa. It is unlikely to match Covid. Monkeypox can’t spread as quickly as Covid does.

If it is treated seriously we should be able to contact trace monkeypox cases and eradicate it (outside of its homeland). It remains to be seen if we can. We need more vaccines, a lot more and the federal government has been slow in ordering them and some states have been horrible at distribution.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This eerily reminds me of the HIV/Aids virus, wasn't it started with a monkey?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-hiv-aids-monkeys-chimps-origin

Makes me understand that we need to take this seriously.

I haven't studied the issue in depth, but what little I have heard leads me to believe that Monkeypox would not kill anyone unless his immune system were seriously compromised.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I haven't studied the issue in depth, but what little I have heard leads me to believe that Monkeypox would not kill anyone unless his immune system were seriously compromised.

It is more dangerous to the immunocompromised but it can be fatal even if not. The usual cause of death if inflammation of the brain which doesn’t appear to require you to be immunocompromised. That it is spreading primarily through a population with a high level of HIV infection is obviously not good.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That would be unrealistic unless someone is taking audio recordings of temple recommend interviews….and that would be its own problem.

Yes, most jokes are unrealistic (mine, anyway!).

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmm.  Just out of curiosity, I wonder, procedurally, how that would work?  Would the Stake President, after completing his interviews with them, send the couple back to the Bishop?  Would the Stake President sign the recommend in both places himself?  (Again, it's nothing I'm going to lose sleep over.  Just curious ...)  I have heard of one case where a a Bishop was called as a Stake President, and the "transition" between callings occurred as he was "issuing himself" a Recommend ... so he signed it in both places!*  Wild! :D

*Not the one I discuss in a subsequent post, below.

I don’t know how the logistics ended up playing out but I wouldn’t be surprised if the bishop was given another chance to sign it. He’s a very humble man and I can’t imagine his ego being involved. If the SP told him it was acceptable for these people to have a recommend then I can see him being fine with that. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don’t know how the logistics ended up playing out but I wouldn’t be surprised if the bishop was given another chance to sign it. He’s a very humble man and I can’t imagine his ego being involved. If the SP told him it was acceptable for these people to have a recommend then I can see him being fine with that. 

Don’t have to sign anymore. Now the Bishopric just does interview and reports it digitally. Then the Stake Presidency marks it off as well digitally and gives the recommend.

Link to comment
Just now, The Nehor said:

Don’t have to sign anymore. Now the Bishopric just does interview and reports it digitally. Then the Stake Presidency marks it off as well digitally and gives the recommend.

Very true, but this was before that change.  It was 3 1/2 years ago.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don’t know how the logistics ended up playing out but I wouldn’t be surprised if the bishop was given another chance to sign it. He’s a very humble man and I can’t imagine his ego being involved. If the SP told him it was acceptable for these people to have a recommend then I can see him being fine with that. 

Good to hear.  Many (I dare say most) Bishops are humble: If they're not humble before they're called, certainly, they're humbled by the calling itself.  Frankly, while I would be the last to suggest that Bishops and Stake Presidents are perfect (after all, my brother, the guy who used to sit on me, has had both callings ;):D :rofl: ), I think, too often, the dialogue surrounding how they carry out their callings is poisoned (at least somewhat: I know that's a strong word, but I think it fits) by the jaundiced views of people who report (one side of the story of) less than stellar dealings with them.  I regret that have been guilty of such unfair judgment based on incomplete information, myself.  

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...