Honor Obey and Sustain the Law

[MiserereNobis]

Does that include the “laws” of this forum? EVERYONE knows that politics are against the rules — there’s even a banner to remind us that shows up regularly.

Does the fact that Nemesis hasn’t shown up yet make it ok to break the rules?

We also need a hotline to Nemesis when something egregious (like Pink) occurs. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

30 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Does that include the “laws” of this forum? EVERYONE knows that politics are against the rules — there’s even a banner to remind us that shows up regularly.

Does the fact that Nemesis hasn’t shown up yet make it ok to break the rules?

We also need a hotline to Nemesis when something egregious (like Pink) occurs. 

It only applies when someone else does it. I'm always justified. /s

Edited February 13, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Dario_M]

47 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Does that include the “laws” of this forum? EVERYONE knows that politics are against the rules — there’s even a banner to remind us that shows up regularly.

Does the fact that Nemesis hasn’t shown up yet make it ok to break the rules?

We also need a hotline to Nemesis when something egregious (like Pink) occurs. 

I'm so agree. I see more and more people breaking this rule now, and talk about politics. Or mention the name of the new president of the United States. While the rules are clear. "Don't talk about politics"

[The Nehor]

I figure as long as I didn’t start it I am in the clear. So far this hypothesis has not been proved since I get thread-banned fairly regularly.

Also it is not a law. It is a rule.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Does that include the “laws” of this forum? EVERYONE knows that politics are against the rules — there’s even a banner to remind us that shows up regularly.

Does the fact that Nemesis hasn’t shown up yet make it ok to break the rules?

We also need a hotline to Nemesis when something egregious (like Pink) occurs. 

This is only my observation and I could be very wrong. The rule is almost always do not do politics. That rule is almost usually followed with cautious talking around the political aspect of this or that social issue when it comes up. It can break down a little in thread, goes for a few pages and get shut down. People move on. But this usually breaks down for a little bit around big political events. A thread or 2 will start up, it'll burn hot for a bit because people know it's going to be shut down sooner than later. For a little bit people talk about it starts running afoul, Nemesis steps in and shuts it down, people move on and talk (mostly) religion again. 

The de jure rule is "seriously, no politics" because when politics goes on too long unchecked, it gets uglier than religion here (and faster). But the de facto rule is more what I see above. A dance that usually works to reduce the ugly that politics can pull out of people while letting some the natural stream of communications that surround politics in people's day to day or particular social issue that edges religion to happen in a limited fashion. Usually in a thread. Maybe two. Mayyybe three. Then it resets till some time later.

 

....but that hotline button would definitely be nice. If only for the wildcards that come up like Pink...but also cuz the political dialogue is curdling fast. As it usually does. 

Edited February 13, 2025 by BlueDreams

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It only applies when someone else does it. I'm always justified. /s

Reminds me of one of my favorite exchanges from the musical “1776”

• John ****inson: Mr. Jefferson, are you seriously suggesting that we publish a paper declaring to all the world that an illegal rebellion is, in reality, a legal one?
• Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Oh, Mr. ****inson, I'm surprised at you. You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it is illegal

[Calm]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

That rule is almost usually followed with cautious talking around the political aspect of this or that social issue when it comes up.

It works best if tied to the Church in some fashion.  And longest if you can keep references to parties or people out of it, sticking with liberal and conservative at most.

And of course keep the personal attacks and mind reading out.

Edited February 13, 2025 by Calm

[blackstrap]

count down to thread close in....    47 , 46 , 45 ...

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

..................... sticking with liberal and conservative at most.

.....................

That is because the terms "liberal" and "conservative" only describe emotional states, or moods, and are not substantive.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Does that include the “laws” of this forum?

Not sure I would call them "laws," but participation on this board is, technically, based on a contract.  Contracts are "private law" between the parties thereto.

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

EVERYONE knows that politics are against the rules — there’s even a banner to remind us that shows up regularly.

Does the fact that Nemesis hasn’t shown up yet make it ok to break the rules?

We also need a hotline to Nemesis when something egregious (like Pink) occurs. 

I have withdrawn from commenting on political issues, having heavily participated in them previously.

I think we should get back to avoiding politics on the board.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I figure as long as I didn’t start it I am in the clear.

Casting the “second stone” so to speak 🙂

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure I would call them "laws," but participation on this board is, technically, based on a contract.  Contracts are "private law" between the parties thereto.

I have withdrawn from commenting on political issues, having heavily participated in them previously.

I think we should get back to avoiding politics on the board.

Thanks,

-Smac

LOL

[Mfbnew]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is because the terms "liberal" and "conservative" only describe emotional states, or moods, and are not substantive.

Oh, like a "testimony" and "revelation", right?

Don't go positivist on me now... 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2025 by Mfbnew

[2BizE]

I find this statement highly ironic as for 20 years the church and its investment arm Ensign Peak Advisors participated in financial fraud and deceit resulting in a $5 Million unprecedented fine.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I find this statement highly ironic as for 20 years the church and its investment arm Ensign Peak Advisors participated in financial fraud and deceit resulting in a $5 Million unprecedented fine.

Following the commandments of the Lord is sometimes an onerous burden, but not at all unprecedented.

Indeed, Jesus' parable of the talents insists that the master expects that his servants will put the talents he gave them to be invested so as to increase their value.

And, of course, it was Judas who was upset when good money was "wasted" on expensive oil (probably mixed with myrrh) used by Mary on Jesus' feet, instead of being spent on the poor.

Life is filled with choices.  That's why we are here.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I find this statement highly ironic as for 20 years the church and its investment arm Ensign Peak Advisors participated in financial fraud and deceit resulting in a $5 Million unprecedented fine.

Where in the Sec complaint is fraud mentioned?

https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-35

I grant the claim of deception but not to defraud the government or anyone.  Same amount of taxes were paid.

Quote

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against Ensign Peak Advisers Inc., a non-profit entity operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to manage the Church’s investments, for failing to file forms that would have disclosed the Church’s equity investments, and for instead filing forms for shell companies that obscured the Church’s portfolio and misstated Ensign Peak’s control over the Church’s investment decisions. The SEC also announced charges against the Church for causing these violations. To settle the charges, Ensign Peak agreed to pay a $4 million penalty and the Church agreed to pay a $1 million penalty.

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Following the commandments of the Lord is sometimes an onerous burden, but not at all unprecedented.

Indeed, Jesus' parable of the talents insists that the master expects that his servants will put the talents he gave them to be invested so as to increase their value.

And, of course, it was Judas who was upset when good money was "wasted" on expensive oil (probably mixed with myrrh) used by Mary on Jesus' feet, instead of being spent on the poor.

Life is filled with choices.  That's why we are here.

Saving money is an onerous burden?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/15/2025 at 2:03 AM, The Nehor said:

Saving money is an onerous burden?

@2BizE talked about "financial fraud and deceit resulting in a $5 Million unprecedented fine."

Some might consider that "an onerous burden" for following the Lord's commands.

[CV75]

On 2/12/2025 at 9:51 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Does that include the “laws” of this forum? EVERYONE knows that politics are against the rules — there’s even a banner to remind us that shows up regularly.

Does the fact that Nemesis hasn’t shown up yet make it ok to break the rules?

We also need a hotline to Nemesis when something egregious (like Pink) occurs. 

I think this Article of Faith (12) has to do with governments, not board rules. Lack of enforcement is not approval to not keep them. I think group action by the posters can take care of egregious infractions as well as intervention by the mods.

[Chum]

On 2/15/2025 at 4:03 AM, The Nehor said:

Saving money is an onerous burden?

Everything is an onerous burden now. Today was 2 hours locating a low cost carrier for 5 of my wireless lines ( existing = prices x 1½).  I found a service to try. That will take another hour or two. This is just one thing. My life is full of things that need hours of research to find an affordable/usable/not crap option. Each will become junk one day and it'll be back to the drawing board.

That's just things. Services is all the above x10. Mandated services are an order above that. 

Kings of old would gibber helplessly in the closet after carrying our burdens for an hour.

[Chum]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Lack of enforcement is not approval to not keep them.

This is very true.  Ethical laws that serve the public good benefit us. I honor them because it is in my long-term interest.

Also I like this topic.  Laws are not ethics and sometimes they are at odds.  When they are, is it better to be legal or ethical? In my exp, simple answers don't do well here.

[longview]

On 2/14/2025 at 11:15 PM, Calm said:

Where in the Sec complaint is fraud mentioned?

https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-35

I grant the claim of deception but not to defraud the government or anyone.  Same amount of taxes were paid.

 

Not even fraud nor deception but merely a punishment by the bureaucracy for missing a jot or tittle (submission of a particular form).

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

@2BizE talked about "financial fraud and deceit resulting in a $5 Million unprecedented fine."

Some might consider that "an onerous burden" for following the Lord's commands.

Just because the Church has a large membership plus financial "heft", it got snookered into paying its "pound of flesh".

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Chum said:

This is very true.  Ethical laws that serve the public good benefit us. I honor them because it is in my long-term interest.

Also I like this topic.  Laws are not ethics and sometimes they are at odds.  When they are, is it better to be legal or ethical? In my exp, simple answers don't do well here.

At what point would both paradigms (a black-and-white one and a nuanced/shades-of-gray one) answer this question the same way on a particular legal/ethical point: are there more examples of black-and-white laws, or of black-and-white ethics?

As far as a community sensing the same poster is acting like a jerk, that is certainly a lot simpler -- the problem lasted less than week and any offended parties returned to rule the day.

[Calm]

On 2/16/2025 at 6:14 PM, longview said:

Not even fraud nor deception but merely a punishment by the bureaucracy for missing a jot or tittle (submission of a particular form).

Not quite.  How the appropriate forms were filed were part of the problem.  And this involved, imo, some deception though not fraud (it was not done to gain money or property under false pretenses).

The Church may not have deceived, that would depend on if church representatives instructed EPA to hide assets in shell companies (which can be legal) even to the extent of specifically instructing  managers (in name only) to sign forms stating they had read the forms and validated them when they had not as they were allegedly only given the page needed signing to sign.  My guess is leadership did not know the details since the signing of forms occurred at such a low level, but rather leadership instructed lack of transparency in general which appears to be their SOP (which I don’t have an issue with if legal and honest, meaning information is simply withheld, not intentionally misrepresented).  The level of deception that occurred imo was relatively minor, given the context but it should not have occurred at all, imo.

https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf

Edited February 18, 2025 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/16/2025 at 6:14 PM, longview said:

Not even fraud nor deception but merely a punishment by the bureaucracy for missing a jot or tittle (submission of a particular form).

Just because the Church has a large membership plus financial "heft", it got snookered into paying its "pound of flesh".

Correct.  This is the normal price of doing business.  The LDS Church is a huge corporation, and such contretemps are normal.