The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Media (fka Mormonism)

[LA Ute]

Jana Reiss, who I think is a fair, prolific (and not apologetic) commentator on Mormonism, has this interesting piece on her blog:

Do Mormons get fair treatment in the media? A Q&A with J.B. Haws (http://janariess.religionnews.com/2013/12/17/mormons-get-fair-treatment-media-qa-j-b-haws/)

[Solon]

Slate recently put out a cool write-up on the Deseret Alphabet.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/07/21/deseret_alphabet_history_the_19th_century_alternat ive_alphabet_and_the_church.html

The blog also contains a link to a deseret-alphabet translation of the XKCD cartoons.
Kind of fun

http://www.deseretalphabet.info/XKCD/Images/Deseret_manual_for_civilization.jpg

http://www.deseretalphabet.info/XKCD/1380.html


I'm not sure I really buy the idea that I heard as a kid, that the Deseret Alphabet was primarily intended to help non-English-speaking immigrants assimilate. Sure, that might have been part of the story, but this really drives at heightening the peculiarity of God's peculiar people, and of emphasizing separation with the rest of the world.

On the one hand, interest in philology & an increased emphasis on "scientific" linguistics is typical of the 19th century (Esperanto, anyone?).
One the other hand, inventing a secret code for the initiates is a surefire way to emphasize exclusivity.

At any rate, the alphabet speaks to Brigham Young's boldness of vision.

[Rocker Ute]

Slate recently put out a cool write-up on the Deseret Alphabet.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/07/21/deseret_alphabet_history_the_19th_century_alternat ive_alphabet_and_the_church.html

The blog also contains a link to a deseret-alphabet translation of the XKCD cartoons.
Kind of fun

http://www.deseretalphabet.info/XKCD/Images/Deseret_manual_for_civilization.jpg

http://www.deseretalphabet.info/XKCD/1380.html


I'm not sure I really buy the idea that I heard as a kid, that the Deseret Alphabet was primarily intended to help non-English-speaking immigrants assimilate. Sure, that might have been part of the story, but this really drives at heightening the peculiarity of God's peculiar people, and of emphasizing separation with the rest of the world.

On the one hand, interest in philology & an increased emphasis on "scientific" linguistics is typical of the 19th century (Esperanto, anyone?).
One the other hand, inventing a secret code for the initiates is a surefire way to emphasize exclusivity.

At any rate, the alphabet speaks to Brigham Young's boldness of vision.

I used to have a copy of the Book of Mormon in the Deseret Alphabet and a school book too. I can't remember the exact phrasing in it, but it basically explained it was about exclusiveness, the building up of Zion and to protect the people against their enemies.

[Rocker Ute]

I used to have a copy of the Book of Mormon in the Deseret Alphabet and a school book too. I can't remember the exact phrasing in it, but it basically explained it was about exclusiveness, the building up of Zion and to protect the people against their enemies.

Ha should have read the article first. That was what my Book of Mormon looked like and the school primer. I wonder what happened to those actually...

[LA Ute]

This is pretty good:

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/12/01/10-things-we-wish-everyone-knew-about-mormons/35174

[SeattleUte]

This is pretty good:

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/12/01/10-things-we-wish-everyone-knew-about-mormons/35174

Good grief. Everything about the look and feel of that site is a shameless rip-off of the New York Times. I had to make sure this wasn't a Times article.

As for the content, there's certainly nothing really untrue or offensive about it (I guess I'm a little offended by the refusal to own up to the responsiblity for the current problem of polygamy), but nothing really thought provoking or even original either.

[tooblue]

Good grief. Everything about the look and feel of that site is a shameless rip-off of the New York Times. I had to make sure this wasn't a Times article.

As for the content, there's certainly nothing really untrue or offensive about it (I guess I'm a little offended by the refusal to own up to the responsiblity for the current problem of polygamy), but nothing really thought provoking or even original either.

If it looks like a New York Times special feature it's because each site respectively is using the same Web framework as the backbone for their layout. The New York Times didn't invent it and they are not the first to employ it, for special features or op-eds.

As a white, middle aged American do you own up to every and any cultural peculiarity unique to United States? If not, why not? You are as much to blame as anyone.

[SeattleUte]

If it looks like a New York Times special feature it's because each site respectively is using the same Web framework as the backbone for their layout. The New York Times didn't invent it and they are not the first to employ it, for special features or op-eds.

As a white, middle aged American do you own up to every and any cultural peculiarity unique to United States? If not, why not? You are as much to blame as anyone.

I have never before seen this except for the Times. I doubt the Times' look and feal comes from an off the shelf product. And this was painstakingly created to ape the Times.

They are trying to absolve the LDS movement of any responsiblity for polygamy and its attendant social ills. Were someone for some reason to write a piece defending all white males as misunderstood and underappreciated because of the atrocities some white males have committed I don't see how that could be done without acknowleding that there still exists injury to society resulting from atrocities committed by some white males.

This is just a puff piece. It's not worth getting into an argument about. It's got no more substance than those I'm a Mormon billboards. Nobody is saying all Mormons are like Warren Jeffs.

[tooblue]

I have never before seen this except for the Times. I doubt the Times' look and feal comes from an off the shelf product. And this was painstakingly created to ape the Times.

They are trying to absolve the LDS movement of any responsiblity for polygamy and its attendant social ills. Were someone for some reason to write a piece defending all white males as misunderstood and underappreciated because of the atrocities some white males have committed I don't see how that could be done without acknowleding that there still exists injury to society resulting from atrocities committed by some white males.

This is just a puff piece. It's not worth getting into an argument about. It's got no more substance than those I'm a Mormon billboards. Nobody is saying all Mormons are like Warren Jeffs.

I teach this stuff for a living. It's off the shelf. For example, you can find the framework for free at http://tympanus.net/codrops/

[NorthwestUteFan]

I teach this stuff for a living. It's off the shelf. For example, you can find the framework for free at http://tympanus.net/codrops/

You are correct. And this format was chosen specifically for a reason.

[tooblue]

You are correct. And this format was chosen specifically for a reason.

Of course it was. Because it renders the site responsive (http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_responsive.asp) ... like every other site on the World Wide Web that wants it's content to flow naturally as it is resized on any given device that may be accessing it, and for no other reason. Please, don't be so daft. The New York Times didn't invent responsive design. Nor are they first, second or even third adopters ... they are late generation adopters of responsive design practices like nearly every other Site on the WWW.

[LA Ute]

I liked this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRcHQ4mwgrE&feature=share&fb_ref=share

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-12/with-booze-and-coffee-taboo-utah-leads-nation-in-eating-candy

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I liked this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRcHQ4mwgrE&feature=share&fb_ref=share

I've been following these ladies for a while. They're great. Glad that they're voice is being heard. It just needs to be amplified about x10,000.

[Solon]

The Mormon Leaks on YouTube.
Kind of interesting, and sure to stir controversy.

i was kind of impressed with Gerritt Gong. He seemed cool and patient under questioning.

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCJTIFO9JJWiXABNXHDUKj4A

[NorthwestUteFan]

Gerritt Gong is a highly educated and extremely experienced government official with years of work in international relations and security before he became a college professor.

He is giving a well-researched and important high-level presentation on Wikileaks and how it could affect the church.

So why in the HELL are the Q12 so concerned about whether Julian Assange and Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning were gay.

There is a real concern that truly damaging information could have been released, and they were only concerned about how the leaks could be used to 'further the gay agenda'.

These need to get outside of their tiny, little, restrictive, bubbles.

[LA Ute]

Gerritt Gong is a highly educated and extremely experienced government official with years of work in international relations and security before he became a college professor.

He is giving a well-researched and important high-level presentation on Wikileaks and how it could affect the church.

So why in the HELL are the Q12 so concerned about whether Julian Assange and Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning were gay.

There is a real concern that truly damaging information could have been released, and they were only concerned about how the leaks could be used to 'further the gay agenda'.

These need to get outside of their tiny, little, restrictive, bubbles.

I will just speculate. I am not defending for opposing anything. This appears to be a strategy meeting. What might be called the "gay lobby" (nothing pejorative intended there, merely a descriptive term) is highly organized and quite influential. It also is not friendly, by and large, to the church, for obvious reasons. It seems logical to ask if those individuals are tied into that lobby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solon]

Gerritt Gong is a highly educated and extremely experienced government official with years of work in international relations and security before he became a college professor.

He is giving a well-researched and important high-level presentation on Wikileaks and how it could affect the church.

So why in the HELL are the Q12 so concerned about whether Julian Assange and Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning were gay.

There is a real concern that truly damaging information could have been released, and they were only concerned about how the leaks could be used to 'further the gay agenda'.

These need to get outside of their tiny, little, restrictive, bubbles.

I wish we had exact dates on these videos. If I remember correctly, there was an LDS handbook 1 on Wikileaks at one time a few years ago.

yep. I did recall correctly: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon_Church_Handbook_of_Instructions,_2006

edit: apparently there are exact dates. This trib article has dates.
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4424105-155/a-brief-look-at-whats-in?fullpage=1

[UtahsMrSports]

Ill be interested in seeing who it was who leaked these. Disgruntled former employee who is now a Dehlinite or Kellyite? Hacker? Photo op john was on this one pretty early in the game...

[LA Ute]

Church response.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865663842/LDS-Church-responds-to-leaked-videos-of-private-meetings-with-Mormon-apostles.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

1. Gordon Smith's remarks are probably the most damaging. Voted for the Iraq War to open up Iraq for missionaries? Uh-Oh. Mitt may find some relief in not winning, in 2012.

2. The fixation with the LGBT movement will be damaging, but mostly within the LDS ecosystem, maybe being a Xth "final nail" in BYU's Big12 application - but nobody else cares, too much. I'm sure the LGBT movement will use it to their advantage, but their list of targets is vast. Within the LDS ecosystem, the damage may linger into the future, like the priesthood ban did, long after it was eliminated.

3. There is some solace to be found in how this doesn't really shock too much, and among the various "leaks" scandals, this just doesn't hold up, compared to what we're hearing about how Trump was fixated on how "hot" contestants (and even camera operators) on The Apprentice were - but that they weren't as hot as his daughter, Ivanka, of course. (Reasonable Republicans should start to hope he doesn't win, as he'll indelibly label the GOP as the "Party of Pervs", for a generation.)

4. We live in an age where information overload is chronic, and numbing. Everyone has filters, the days of Walter Cronkite telling the nation how things are is long gone. The brethren are going to have to work harder if they really want to stay in the news cycle for an extended trip.

[Rocker Ute]

1. Gordon Smith's remarks are probably the most damaging. Voted for the Iraq War to open up Iraq for missionaries? Uh-Oh. Mitt may find some relief in not winning, in 2012.

2. The fixation with the LGBT movement will be damaging, but mostly within the LDS ecosystem, maybe being a Xth "final nail" in BYU's Big12 application - but nobody else cares, too much. I'm sure the LGBT movement will use it to their advantage, but their list of targets is vast. Within the LDS ecosystem, the damage may linger into the future, like the priesthood ban did, long after it was eliminated.

3. There is some solace to be found in how this doesn't really shock too much, and among the various "leaks" scandals, this just doesn't hold up, compared to what we're hearing about how Trump was fixated on how "hot" contestants (and even camera operators) on The Apprentice were - but that they weren't as hot as his daughter, Ivanka, of course. (Reasonable Republicans should start to hope he doesn't win, as he'll indelibly label the GOP as the "Party of Pervs", for a generation.)

4. We live in an age where information overload is chronic, and numbing. Everyone has filters, the days of Walter Cronkite telling the nation how things are is long gone. The brethren are going to have to work harder if they really want to stay in the news cycle for an extended trip.

I agree on #1, although I'll note that is his opinion and not something that the Q12 brethren were saying to him. We've all sat in meeting with kooks before and the normal Mormon reaction is to put your head down and let the goof push through.

I watched the video that has people in a supposed uproar over the 'gay agenda' remark by Oaks. After an 8 minute presentation about Wikileaks and Pvt Manning Oaks says something like, "Did you say he was gay? That's the first time I've heard that..." presumably because he was familiar with the story of Manning leaking info to Wikileaks already. He then speculates that maybe the media suppressed that part of the story as part of the 'Gay Agenda'. Then someone off camera, not sure what he is talking about, asks if Assange is gay. Entire discussion on that was about 1 minute in length, so hardly something that you could conclude was an obsession. We already know the church is concerned about that and I think he was just ruminating off the cuff, not that that was the actual big takeaway from the meeting. People are also critical that is all they seem to focus on, but we also don't even know what else they talked about that day. I know my Mormon meetings and there is no such thing as a 10 minute Mormon meeting.

I remember when Elder Perry talked about 'counterfeit lifestyles' and thinking, "That is probably the nicest thing a 92yo man has ever said about homosexuality." Much of the same with all of this, I don't think a new thing was even revealed about the Q12 and people are getting up in arms over reports of what was said versus watching it themselves, because if they did I doubt they'd see much of a story.

I was also thinking of the context of these discussions, etc. in relation to a meeting I sat in about two weeks ago. I was sitting in on a meeting of a client of mine, all people I know very well. They were covering some recruiting efforts (something that had nothing to do with me) and one of the male recruiters talked about how he had taken a male potential recruiting target to a movie. Another guys joked, "Ross is resorting to dating his recruits now..." and everyone laughed. He then joked back, "I'm willing to switch sides for you boss..." to more laughter, and then his boss said, "For me? I'm a little curious..." to even more laughter. I'm thinking if that snippet of conversation was recorded and released you'd have a lot of people upset at this company and me sitting there being complicit in the joke or something. Yet all of us here have sat in on a meeting like that with no big deal.

So I just can't get wound up by a bunch of people very familiar with each other sitting in a non-policy binding meeting asking different questions or making different jokes. I've sat in enough meetings like that to know better. Plus you get familiar enough with people you almost know the questions they are going to ask. Other than Oaks asking what he did, nobody seemed remotely rousted about that issue.

In short, even taking off my Mormon goggles I'm having a hard time seeing this as a story at all.

[Ma'ake]

I agree on #1, although I'll note that is his [Gordon Smith's] opinion and not something that the Q12 brethren were saying to him. We've all sat in meeting with kooks before and the normal Mormon reaction is to put your head down and let the goof push through.

The timeline on Gordon Smith's positions on Iraq are interesting, though not that "scandalous". Voted to authorized force in Iraq in late 2002, like many others, including H Clinton. In 2006 began criticizing the Iraq War. Then in 2008-09, gave this explanation to this internal LDS committee, said he felt strong about the Iraq topic, at the time. Almost a confession / rationalization.

So, I don't think he was a kook, but rather was reflecting on his decision, and sharing a personal faith "revelation/prompting" aspect.

One thing that has taken a beating in the past 10-15 years is the general "Gift of Discernment" notion. From the photo of Apostle GBH shaking hands with Mark Hoffman, to a lot of other examples, the level of "certainty" leaders have about topics is subdued, compared to the past, in general.

Explaining previous pronouncements, policies, even "conditional prophecies" is a toughie, because social understandings move at tsunami speeds, and the Internet has everything in the past 150 years at our fingertips. I was long out of the church, but reading about JFS's opinions about the Apollo program was eyebrow raising, since I grew up being taught the top level guys were basically oracles of divine thinking. He was saying nothing not too different from the First Presidency letters in the late 40s on race, but they shy away from those kind of pronouncements, nowadays... although the young womens leader's recent remarks may take some heat.

History is an unforgiving prism.

[Solon]

I agree on #1, although I'll note that is his opinion and not something that the Q12 brethren were saying to him. We've all sat in meeting with kooks before and the normal Mormon reaction is to put your head down and let the goof push through.

I watched the video that has people in a supposed uproar over the 'gay agenda' remark by Oaks. After an 8 minute presentation about Wikileaks and Pvt Manning Oaks says something like, "Did you say he was gay? That's the first time I've heard that..." presumably because he was familiar with the story of Manning leaking info to Wikileaks already. He then speculates that maybe the media suppressed that part of the story as part of the 'Gay Agenda'. Then someone off camera, not sure what he is talking about, asks if Assange is gay. Entire discussion on that was about 1 minute in length, so hardly something that you could conclude was an obsession. We already know the church is concerned about that and I think he was just ruminating off the cuff, not that that was the actual big takeaway from the meeting. People are also critical that is all they seem to focus on, but we also don't even know what else they talked about that day. I know my Mormon meetings and there is no such thing as a 10 minute Mormon meeting.

I remember when Elder Perry talked about 'counterfeit lifestyles' and thinking, "That is probably the nicest thing a 92yo man has ever said about homosexuality." Much of the same with all of this, I don't think a new thing was even revealed about the Q12 and people are getting up in arms over reports of what was said versus watching it themselves, because if they did I doubt they'd see much of a story.

I was also thinking of the context of these discussions, etc. in relation to a meeting I sat in about two weeks ago. I was sitting in on a meeting of a client of mine, all people I know very well. They were covering some recruiting efforts (something that had nothing to do with me) and one of the male recruiters talked about how he had taken a male potential recruiting target to a movie. Another guys joked, "Ross is resorting to dating his recruits now..." and everyone laughed. He then joked back, "I'm willing to switch sides for you boss..." to more laughter, and then his boss said, "For me? I'm a little curious..." to even more laughter. I'm thinking if that snippet of conversation was recorded and released you'd have a lot of people upset at this company and me sitting there being complicit in the joke or something. Yet all of us here have sat in on a meeting like that with no big deal.

So I just can't get wound up by a bunch of people very familiar with each other sitting in a non-policy binding meeting asking different questions or making different jokes. I've sat in enough meetings like that to know better. Plus you get familiar enough with people you almost know the questions they are going to ask. Other than Oaks asking what he did, nobody seemed remotely rousted about that issue.

In short, even taking off my Mormon goggles I'm having a hard time seeing this as a story at all.

It's not up to me whether it's scandalous or not, but I found it fascinating to see leadership in non-General-Conference speaking situations.
Not that we needed any reminders, but it really brought home to me how corporate the church is.
While I don't really fault the church for that, that board room is a loooong ways from a group of ex-fishermen huddling in a house in 1st century Capernaum.

[Applejack]

I agree on #1, although I'll note that is his opinion and not something that the Q12 brethren were saying to him. We've all sat in meeting with kooks before and the normal Mormon reaction is to put your head down and let the goof push through.

I watched the video that has people in a supposed uproar over the 'gay agenda' remark by Oaks. After an 8 minute presentation about Wikileaks and Pvt Manning Oaks says something like, "Did you say he was gay? That's the first time I've heard that..." presumably because he was familiar with the story of Manning leaking info to Wikileaks already. He then speculates that maybe the media suppressed that part of the story as part of the 'Gay Agenda'. Then someone off camera, not sure what he is talking about, asks if Assange is gay. Entire discussion on that was about 1 minute in length, so hardly something that you could conclude was an obsession. We already know the church is concerned about that and I think he was just ruminating off the cuff, not that that was the actual big takeaway from the meeting. People are also critical that is all they seem to focus on, but we also don't even know what else they talked about that day. I know my Mormon meetings and there is no such thing as a 10 minute Mormon meeting.

I remember when Elder Perry talked about 'counterfeit lifestyles' and thinking, "That is probably the nicest thing a 92yo man has ever said about homosexuality." Much of the same with all of this, I don't think a new thing was even revealed about the Q12 and people are getting up in arms over reports of what was said versus watching it themselves, because if they did I doubt they'd see much of a story.

I was also thinking of the context of these discussions, etc. in relation to a meeting I sat in about two weeks ago. I was sitting in on a meeting of a client of mine, all people I know very well. They were covering some recruiting efforts (something that had nothing to do with me) and one of the male recruiters talked about how he had taken a male potential recruiting target to a movie. Another guys joked, "Ross is resorting to dating his recruits now..." and everyone laughed. He then joked back, "I'm willing to switch sides for you boss..." to more laughter, and then his boss said, "For me? I'm a little curious..." to even more laughter. I'm thinking if that snippet of conversation was recorded and released you'd have a lot of people upset at this company and me sitting there being complicit in the joke or something. Yet all of us here have sat in on a meeting like that with no big deal.

So I just can't get wound up by a bunch of people very familiar with each other sitting in a non-policy binding meeting asking different questions or making different jokes. I've sat in enough meetings like that to know better. Plus you get familiar enough with people you almost know the questions they are going to ask. Other than Oaks asking what he did, nobody seemed remotely rousted about that issue.

In short, even taking off my Mormon goggles I'm having a hard time seeing this as a story at all.

The big takeaway is mormon apostles sit through a lot of boring meetings in unattractive rooms.

Learning that Oaks is obsessed with the "gay" agenda and media bias? Not that big of a deal, everyone knows that already.

[Applejack]

The big takeaway is mormon apostles sit through a lot of boring meetings in unattractive rooms.

Learning that Oaks is obsessed with the "gay" agenda and media bias? Not that big of a deal, everyone knows that already.

Oh, and LOL at the apostle (I forget which, Andersen?) who can't for the life pronounce Al-Jazeera. He must try 30 different iterations (Al-Jazzeer, Al-Jazz, Al-Jazeeri) but he can't get it. Reminds me of my mom trying to say Bjorn.

[SeattleUte]

It's not up to me whether it's scandalous or not, but I found it fascinating to see leadership in non-General-Conference speaking situations.
Not that we needed any reminders, but it really brought home to me how corporate the church is.
While I don't really fault the church for that, that board room is a loooong ways from a group of ex-fishermen huddling in a house in 1st century Capernaum.

Absolutely. This is corrosive of the deification of themselves they've carefully cultivated. Do they sound like gods?

It's well documented Oaks is obsessed with homosexuality. In the 70s He was writing legal memos about stopping the homosexual agenda. This hatred has probably warped his whole outlook about everything.

[Rocker Ute]

The timeline on Gordon Smith's positions on Iraq are interesting, though not that "scandalous". Voted to authorized force in Iraq in late 2002, like many others, including H Clinton. In 2006 began criticizing the Iraq War. Then in 2008-09, gave this explanation to this internal LDS committee, said he felt strong about the Iraq topic, at the time. Almost a confession / rationalization.

So, I don't think he was a kook, but rather was reflecting on his decision, and sharing a personal faith "revelation/prompting" aspect.

One thing that has taken a beating in the past 10-15 years is the general "Gift of Discernment" notion. From the photo of Apostle GBH shaking hands with Mark Hoffman, to a lot of other examples, the level of "certainty" leaders have about topics is subdued, compared to the past, in general.

Explaining previous pronouncements, policies, even "conditional prophecies" is a toughie, because social understandings move at tsunami speeds, and the Internet has everything in the past 150 years at our fingertips. I was long out of the church, but reading about JFS's opinions about the Apollo program was eyebrow raising, since I grew up being taught the top level guys were basically oracles of divine thinking. He was saying nothing not too different from the First Presidency letters in the late 40s on race, but they shy away from those kind of pronouncements, nowadays... although the young womens leader's recent remarks may take some heat.

History is an unforgiving prism.

The Iraq war stuff was a meh, the 'most important certificate...' thing or whatever he said was kooky to me. Look, if you are religious God wins. But as most of us agreed, when you are work your job is to do your job, which is why most LDS people didn't support that clerk who refused to do gay marriages. So I would say that he should say, "I was elected to represent my constituents..." kind of like Romney said when questioned about his affiliations. That was the stuff I found weird. I'll also say all of that sounded more like political pandering than the truth. I know politicians in Utah who would say the same thing to their church leaders and pop open a beer right after.

[Rocker Ute]

The big takeaway is mormon apostles sit through a lot of boring meetings in unattractive rooms.

Learning that Oaks is obsessed with the "gay" agenda and media bias? Not that big of a deal, everyone knows that already.

Applejack sums up what I was trying to say in two sentences. Hats off.

[Rocker Ute]

This is corrosive of the deification of themselves they've carefully cultivated. Do they sound like gods?


Lol. Yes, yes they do. Keep in mind your own perceptions are warped by decades of fixation on a subject.

[LA Ute]

Not that we needed any reminders, but it really brought home to me how corporate the church is.
While I don't really fault the church for that, that board room is a loooong ways from a group of ex-fishermen huddling in a house in 1st century Capernaum.

It definitely has a corporate structure. When I am in the Church Office Building at 47 East So. Temple I am struck by the similarity to a law firm or accounting firm. (The Q12 members all have corner offices.) Still, can you think of a church of comparable or larger size that does not have a corporate feel? We Mormons are small fry compared to the Baptists and especially the Catholics.

[Solon]

It definitely has a corporate structure. When I am in the Church Office Building at 47 East So. Temple I am struck by the similarity to a law firm or accounting firm. (The Q12 members all have corner offices.) Still, can you think of a church of comparable or larger size that does not have a corporate feel? We Mormons are small fry compared to the Baptists and especially the Catholics.

No, you're right. It has to be that way for an organization of that size.
It just struck me - that's all.

[Rocker Ute]

It definitely has a corporate structure. When I am in the Church Office Building at 47 East So. Temple I am struck by the similarity to a law firm or accounting firm. (The Q12 members all have corner offices.) Still, can you think of a church of comparable or larger size that does not have a corporate feel? We Mormons are small fry compared to the Baptists and especially the Catholics.


Speaking of corporations, and not to hijack this thread, but one thing to get me to turn off from a church lesson is to have a powerpoint. I know people love them, but I get a gut full of these constantly at work (and 90% of people use them as a speaking crutch versus an enhancement). When the projector turns on my mind turns off.

[LA Ute]

Speaking of corporations, and not to hijack this thread, but one thing to get me to turn off from a church lesson is to have a powerpoint. I know people love them, but I get a gut full of these constantly at work (and 90% of people use them as a speaking crutch versus an enhancement). When the projector turns on my mind turns off.

One of the things I enjoy about my occasional Gospel Doctrine teaching stints is that I know there is no way on earth I am going to use Power Point. Ever.

[Applejack]

I am proud of lots of things. I am proud of not watching boring meetings on Youtube. I am proud of never having seen Titanic or any Jane Austen adaptation or Saturday's Warrior. I am proud that I had the sense to dislike Peter Breinholdt when all the other Mormons at the U loved him. I am proud that I ate two cheesesteaks in Philly this weekend.

Maybe I am most proud of the fact that I have never made a power point document.

Two? That's child's play. Once on a long weekend in Philly, I ate nothing but cheesesteaks: one for breakfast, one for lunch, one for dinner, repeat for two-and-a-half days. It was glorious!

[Rocker Ute]

So in the spirit of revelations that really don't reveal anything new... a story demonstrating my lifelong commitment to 'dick moves' as NWUF might put it.

Long long ago, at the height of Peter Breinholt popularity I found myself sitting at a wedding table with a few friends (including my best friend), some women we knew somewhat loosely, and Peter Brienholt.

Like Sancho, I had a deep dislike of this man's music which was amplified by every college-age Mormon woman I knew being deeply in love with him to the point where they would harmonize with his music while driving in their cars. If you've endured this you know it is a fate worse than death.

It was an intolerable time for all of America really.

So, Peter Breinholt being oblivious to my hatred sat there enjoying his dinner while the women fawned over him and I plotted a way to embarrass him, proving once and for all to the women there that I was undateable. I mentally poured through witty remarks, sarcasm, direct snubbing, table tipping and more. But the right moment never presented itself.

Somehow in the conversation at the table people started talking about what they did for work or were majoring in. As everyone went around Peter remained silent, presumably confident that we all knew what he did.

So after everyone had said what they are doing but Peter, innocently my best friend finally says to him, "So what do you do for work?" Immediately the women fawning over him start up, "Oh my gosh! He is the best musician ever, I can't believe you don't know him!!! The second he says his name you'll know it!!!"

So my friend says, "Oh. (Short pause as he waits for Peter to say his name, who doesn't) So what is your name?" Peter very solemnly says, "Peter. Brienholt." Apparently disgusted my friend didn't recognize him.

My buddy kind of smiles meekly and says in only the way you can when you don't know someone but are pretending you do, "Peter Brienholt. Yes, of course I've heard of you... sorry I didn't recognize you..." and looks at me and half shrugs like, "Who the hell is that?"

The fawning women begin chirping in disgust again while Peter was inadvertently put in his place far better than I could have ever orchestrated myself.

I don't know why I cared at the time, and it all seems very petty (yet still funny) now. I'm sure Peter is the nicest human being to have ever reached Mormon fame, and totally undeserving of all of this. A veritable LA Ute of the music world. It is also likely I read into his reactions far more than I should have, but a story I enjoy nonetheless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

Lol. Yes, yes they do. Keep in mind your own perceptions are warped by decades of fixation on a subject.

They sound like Greek Gods--venal, ambitious, biased, mean, bored, angry, thoroughly human.

[mUUser]

So in the spirit of revelations that really don't reveal anything new... a story demonstrating my lifelong commitment to 'dick moves' as NWUF might put it.

Long long ago, at the height of Peter Breinholt popularity I found myself sitting at a wedding table with a few friends (including my best friend), some women we knew somewhat loosely, and Peter Brienholt.

Like Sancho, I had a deep dislike of this man's music which was amplified by every college-age Mormon woman I knew being deeply in love with him to the point where they would harmonize with his music while driving in their cars. If you've endured this you know it is a fate worse than death.

It was an intolerable time for all of America really.

So, Peter Breinholt being oblivious to my hatred sat there enjoying his dinner while the women fawned over him and I plotted a way to embarrass him, proving once and for all to the women there that I was undateable. I mentally poured through witty remarks, sarcasm, direct snubbing, table tipping and more. But the right moment never presented itself.

Somehow in the conversation at the table people started talking about what they did for work or were majoring in. As everyone went around Peter remained silent, presumably confident that we all knew what he did.

So after everyone had said what they are doing but Peter, innocently my best friend finally says to him, "So what do you do for work?" Immediately the women fawning over him start up, "Oh my gosh! He is the best musician ever, I can't believe you don't know him!!! The second he says his name you'll know it!!!"

So my friend says, "Oh. (Short pause as he waits for Peter to say his name, who doesn't) So what is your name?" Peter very solemnly says, "Peter. Brienholt." Apparently disgusted my friend didn't recognize him.

My buddy kind of smiles meekly and says in only the way you can when you don't know someone but are pretending you do, "Peter Brienholt. Yes, of course I've heard of you... sorry I didn't recognize you..." and looks at me and half shrugs like, "Who the hell is that?"

The fawning women begin chirping in disgust again while Peter was inadvertently put in his place far better than I could have ever orchestrated myself.

I don't know why I cared at the time, and it all seems very petty (yet still funny) now. I'm sure Peter is the nicest human being to have ever reached Mormon fame, and totally undeserving of all of this. A veritable LA Ute of the music world. It is also likely I read into his reactions far more than I should have, but a story I enjoy nonetheless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was acquaintances with one of his siblings back in the day. I had no idea he was LDS, and had no idea he was musician until this very moment. His father was brilliant.

[LA Ute]

Meet the Greek Gods (http://rickriordan.com/extra/meet-the-greek-gods/)

[Solon]

Meet the Greek Gods (http://rickriordan.com/extra/meet-the-greek-gods/)



I'm this close to banning you for this kind of crap.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0138%3ahymn%3d1

[LA Ute]

I'm this close to banning you for this kind of crap.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0138%3ahymn%3d1

I blame Google.

[USS Utah]

I am proud of lots of things. I am proud of not watching boring meetings on Youtube. I am proud of never having seen Titanic or any Jane Austen adaptation or Saturday's Warrior. I am proud that I had the sense to dislike Peter Breinholdt when all the other Mormons at the U loved him. I am proud that I ate two cheesesteaks in Philly this weekend.

Maybe I am most proud of the fact that I have never made a power point document.

I am proud that I don't even know who this Breinholdt guy was.

[LA Ute]

I don't either, but I'm old. What's your excuse? ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Speaking of corporations, and not to hijack this thread, but one thing to get me to turn off from a church lesson is to have a powerpoint. I know people love them, but I get a gut full of these constantly at work (and 90% of people use them as a speaking crutch versus an enhancement). When the projector turns on my mind turns off.

I can't agree more with this. I was tempted to make a similar comment in another thread talking about preparation being the difference between mediocre teachers and great teachers. Too often, PPTs are used as evidence of preparation. I can't think of anything worse that reading a few scripture in white lettering with a solid royal blue backdrop.

[Ma'ake]

Speaking of corporations, and not to hijack this thread, but one thing to get me to turn off from a church lesson is to have a powerpoint. I know people love them, but I get a gut full of these constantly at work (and 90% of people use them as a speaking crutch versus an enhancement). When the projector turns on my mind turns off.

Once on a trip back to Kentucky we were jammed into the Mount Calvary Baptist Church on a humid Sunday, and my pastor father in law was preaching, and he was really digging deep - probably because he had family in town - and it was quite a ways over and beyond his typical sermon, which itself would probably overload the 911 system in any predominantly LDS area.

African Americans in the Baptist or AME or other protestant traditions can be very, *very* emotive, in their spirituality, an energy that can be startling to we of the more subdued background, like 26 year old, lilly white, Mormon-raised Ma'ake, who seriously wondered if he would witness a coronary, that first time. I've seen women speak in tongues, I saw Thomas Herrion put the entire church in the palm of his hand, by singing an old negro spiritual, I've seen preachers who jump into the choir stand and dance around on the backs of the chairs. I've never, ever fallen asleep at the black Baptist church. My kids were always eyes-wide-open, because whatever happens next is not routine, or soothing, or conducive to Zen.

Anyway, we get back to the pastor's house, are loading up our plates with chicken and ocra and greens, and all his kids are going on, "Daddy you were FULL of the spirit TO-DAY!", and the adulation was repeated by everyone on the couch, and then they got to me, and I knew the occasion would be going a different direction.

"Yes, that was amazing, and... well... that's something I would never be able to do. I would pull out a PowerPoint, and get the laser pointer, and say "OK, here's God up here, and here's you, down here, and we need to find a way to reunite..." and that's as far as I got as everyone started laughing so loud it blew all the ear wax out of my ears.

[Rocker Ute]

I've been to Southern Baptist, Pentecostal and AME services. They are amazing and the music...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solon]

I can't agree more with this. I was tempted to make a similar comment in another thread talking about preparation being the difference between mediocre teachers and great teachers. Too often, PPTs are used as evidence of preparation. I can't think of anything worse that reading a few scripture in white lettering with a solid royal blue backdrop.

On the other hand, I was in a class last week where the art teacher showed the students a powerpoint slide-show of various pieces of original art, including a nude self-portrait.
Powerpoint has its uses.

[Utah]

I am proud of lots of things. I am proud of not watching boring meetings on Youtube. I am proud of never having seen Titanic or any Jane Austen adaptation or Saturday's Warrior. I am proud that I had the sense to dislike Peter Breinholdt when all the other Mormons at the U loved him. I am proud that I ate two cheesesteaks in Philly this weekend.

Maybe I am most proud of the fact that I have never made a power point document.

Man, I miss a good cheesesteak. I also miss Nick's Roast Beef sandwiches. Got damn, I'd love one of those right now.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The New York Times weighed in on the video leak:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.html

[Solon]

Man, I miss a good cheesesteak. I also miss Nick's Roast Beef sandwiches. Got damn, I'd love one of those right now.
Me too, bro.
There is (well, was; it's been awhile) an autographed photograph of Majerus at Jim's on South Street.
Seeing it always made me homesick, and then I would drown my sorrows in cheese whiz and meat.

[arizonaute]

Speaking of corporations, and not to hijack this thread, but one thing to get me to turn off from a church lesson is to have a powerpoint .
I had to teach high priests group today. I usually build short powerpoint slides that have the scriptures i want to read and a couple of slides stressing the the points of the lesson i want to make. Saves me writing on the board. White background and black lettering. Because of this post, i did not do that today .

[mUUser]

I had to teach high priests group today. I usually build short powerpoint slides that have the scriptures i want to read and a couple of slides stressing the the points of the lesson i want to make. Saves me writing on the board. White background and black lettering. Because of this post, i did not do that today .

Hey, people think they're experts on everything. Teach in your own way. Screw those that don't like it.....if they can do better, I'm sure they'll jump right in and offer to substitute on a permanent basis for you.

[LA Ute]

Hey, people think they're experts on everything. Teach in your own way. Screw those that don't like it.....if they can do better, I'm sure they'll jump right in and offer to substitute on a permanent basis for you.

Yeah, Arizona. Teach the way that is most comfortable for you. I use PPT all the time at work and so I just don't use it at church because I want a break. That's just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arizonaute]

I had to teach high priests group today. I usually build short powerpoint slides that have the scriptures i want to read and a couple of slides stressing the the points of the lesson i want to make. Saves me writing on the board. White background and black lettering. Because of this post, i did not do that today .

This is not a knock on Rocker. Just thought about it and decided to use the board. The week before had to sit through one with blue backgrounds, yellow writing and a transition with noises for each picture that came onto the screen . Then thought about bringing my tablet and a cable and i pulled the ripcord.

I think i would like to make a power point of potential red zone plays and give the print out to Kyle Whiittingham however. : )

[Rocker Ute]

This is not a knock on Rocker. Just thought about it and decided to use the board. The week before had to sit through one with blue backgrounds, yellow writing and a transition with noises for each picture that came onto the screen . Then thought about bringing my tablet and a cable and i pulled the ripcord.

I think i would like to make a power point of potential red zone plays and give the print out to Kyle Whiittingham however. : )

If you're going to do the PowerPoint I say go big and use ever transition you can and every sound effect you can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

If you're going to do the PowerPoint I say go big and use ever transition you can and every sound effect you can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure. Drop in some animation and YouTubes too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Star-wipe on every transition!

[mUUser]

I wonder if the median marriage age (for those that marry) has dropped for the Millennials due to a panic that the best candidates will be gone quickly? Returning home from missions younger? Other?........

Anyway, no shockers here, but, a couple of interesting factoids nonetheless.

http://religionnews.com/2017/05/24/10-things-to-know-about-millennial-mormons/

[LA Ute]

This kinda sorta fits here.

What (and what not) to say to black people in church

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1409648069056971&id=149175301770927&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2FLDSLiving%2F videos%2F1409648069056971%2F&_rdr

[UTEopia]

I never know where to post some stuff, but I guy I went to law school with and who has been a general authority was excommunicated.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/08/high-ranking-mormon-official-excommunicated-first-such-ouster-in-nearly-3-decades/

Hamula was a quiet unassuming guy who, like myself, didn't quite seem to fit the BYU law student mold. We didn't dress like we worked at IBM. It's funny, there have been 5 guys from my graduating class become GA's. Two of them, including Hamula, were nice guys. The other three were smart, but kind of dicks. They were all at the top of the class and seemed to be in a competition with 4 or 5 others to see who could get the most interviews when law firms would come to school. They were always chosen because of their class standing. They had no intention of going anywhere but where they were from, so they were simply taking interview slots from people who were really interested. I'm sure this probably happened at other schools as well, but it seemed prevalent at the BYU.

[Two Utes]

I never know where to post some stuff, but I guy I went to law school with and who has been a general authority was excommunicated.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/08/08/high-ranking-mormon-official-excommunicated-first-such-ouster-in-nearly-3-decades/

Hamula was a quiet unassuming guy who, like myself, didn't quite seem to fit the BYU law student mold. We didn't dress like we worked at IBM. It's funny, there have been 5 guys from my graduating class become GA's. Two of them, including Hamula, were nice guys. The other three were smart, but kind of dicks. They were all at the top of the class and seemed to be in a competition with 4 or 5 others to see who could get the most interviews when law firms would come to school. They were always chosen because of their class standing. They had no intention of going anywhere but where they were from, so they were simply taking interview slots from people who were really interested. I'm sure this probably happened at other schools as well, but it seemed prevalent at the BYU.

I think he was on the short list for being appointed one of the 12 last time around. They went out of their way to say he wasn't excommunicated for apostacy. So it appears he likely had a relationship out of wedlock with another woman (or guy).

[LA Ute]

I think he was on the short list for being appointed one of the 12 last time around. They went out of their way to say he wasn't excommunicated for apostacy. So it appears he likely had a relationship out of wedlock with another woman (or guy).

Very sad. Must be devastating for him and his family, and for everyone who had to be involved.

[Two Utes]

Very sad. Must be devastating for him and his family, and for everyone who had to be involved.

Agree. Very sad.

[LA Ute]

They were all at the top of the class and seemed to be in a competition with 4 or 5 others to see who could get the most interviews when law firms would come to school. They were always chosen because of their class standing. They had no intention of going anywhere but where they were from, so they were simply taking interview slots from people who were really interested. I'm sure this probably happened at other schools as well, but it seemed prevalent at the BYU.

BYU law students are well known for doing that. It ends up hurting the school. When we used to interview there we always looked for some convincing reason that the student we were interviewing were truly interested in coming to LA and weren't just looking for a fun recruiting trip or an L.A. summer. We, and other firms, had been burned too many times. For whatever reason that was not a problem at the U. law school.

[Scorcho]

looking at his list of former callings made me exhausted: Bishop, Stake Pres, Mission Pres, Seventy. That guy deserves a couple years off and then maybe get back into it as the ward magazine subscription person.

[mUUser]

..... For whatever reason that was not a problem at the U. law school.


You know the reason. Do I have to say it out loud? :rolleyes:

[LA Ute]

You know the reason. Do I have to say it out loud? :rolleyes:

:highfive:

[LuckyUte]

Agree. Very sad.

And for it to be public is even more sad as there will be all kinds of gossip and unfounded speculation that will tarnish the family for good. I really don't like that aspect of church "punishment". Why not just announce his release and move on, why even make any comment about why or not why? Baffling to me.

[tooblue]

And for it to be public is even more sad as there will be all kinds of gossip and unfounded speculation that will tarnish the family for good. I really don't like that aspect of church "punishment". Why not just announce his release and move on, why even make any comment about why or not why? Baffling to me.

The church generally doesn't just release people from the first quorum of the seventy. If they did that, the speculation would be even more rampant.

[DrumNFeather]

I don't know if this is where this should go...but the Church released an updated statement about the situation in Charlottesville: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-charlottesville-virginia


It has been called to our attention that there are some among the various pro-white and white supremacy communities who assert that the Church is neutral toward or in support of their views. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the New Testament, Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:37-39). The Book of Mormon teaches “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33).

White supremacist attitudes are morally wrong and sinful, and we condemn them. Church members who promote or pursue a “white culture” or white supremacy agenda are not in harmony with the teachings of the Church.

[LA Ute]

I don't know if this is where this should go...but the Church released an updated statement about the situation in Charlottesville: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-charlottesville-virginia

"White supremacist attitudes are morally wrong and sinful, and we condemn them. Church members who promote or pursue a 'white culture' or white supremacy agenda are not in harmony with the teachings of the Church."

Boom!

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

"White supremacist attitudes are morally wrong and sinful, and we condemn them. Church members who promote or pursue a 'white culture' or white supremacy agenda are not in harmony with the teachings of the Church."

Boom!

It's been interesting to watch the reaction to this of some of the church's more infamous members on Twitter.

[sancho]

It's been interesting to watch the reaction to this of some of the church's more infamous members on Twitter.

I don't follow any of them. Are they happy or sad or just angry?

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I don't follow any of them. Are they happy or sad or just angry?

A sampling.

2226

[DrumNFeather]

I don't follow any of them. Are they happy or sad or just angry?

She said the Church turned its back on its white members today. :blink:

[sancho]

A sampling.


Goodness. Not a fan of this lady.

[Rocker Ute]

A sampling.

2226

She has said a lot of awful stuff and continually doubles down on her racism. Remarkable that she thinks the church is being racist towards white people.

[UtahsMrSports]

A couple of days ago, she tweeted an image of those torch carrying buffoons in Charlottesville and put above it 'Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in Heaven'.

She also had a series of tweets where she talked about being in an open relationship with her husband when they were first married and how he encouraged her to date another woman and so she did, but then she found Christ or something.

Shes clearly off her rocker, or she is a simply other worldly level troll. Either way, she will be called into a CDC soon enough, I think. (I have no doubt that that update was a torpedo aimed right at her. She is the most prominent of these people and them using White Culture, a term she has practically made her personal motto was no accident).

[Sullyute]

"White supremacist attitudes are morally wrong and sinful, and we condemn them. Church members who promote or pursue a 'white culture' or white supremacy agenda are not in harmony with the teachings of the Church."

Boom!

The church is turning their backs on the Nephites.

[LA Ute]

The church is turning their backs on the Nephites.

That whole white and delightsome thing is so 19th century.

[Sullyute]

That whole white and delightsome thing is so 19th century.

:cheers:

[NorthwestUteFan]

The church is turning their backs on the Nephites.That is especially funny since the Nephites were presumably semitic.

[LA Ute]

That is especially funny since the Nephites were presumably semitic.

But they looked like light-skinned Swedes, were probably blue-eyed, and were built like NFL linebackers. Except for the 2000 sons of Helaman, who were builtlike linebackers, but had dark skin and hair.

(Note: I believe the stories, but I don't think the Arnold Friburg paintings are necessarily accurate.)

[Rocker Ute]

If Freiburg was right, Nephi had an extremely long arm. Look it goes underneath his mom's arm and in front of Lehi holding the liahona:


https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170817/178d99df98a727c980e7e3a7485ca39a.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mormon Red Death]

If Freiburg was right, Nephi had an extremely long arm. Look it goes underneath his mom's arm and in front of Lehi holding the liahona:


https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170817/178d99df98a727c980e7e3a7485ca39a.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is clearly lehi's arm

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

That is clearly lehi's arm

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Where is Pleasant Grove's arm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mormon Red Death]

Where is Pleasant Grove's arm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Next to the Spanish fork

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Scorcho]

If Freiburg was right, Nephi had an extremely long arm. Look it goes underneath his mom's arm and in front of Lehi holding the liahona:


https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170817/178d99df98a727c980e7e3a7485ca39a.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nephi with the earliest evidence of a mullet,

and with that headband he would have never played for Jerry Sloan

[mUUser]

.....and with that headband he would have never played for Jerry Sloan


Reminds me of possibly my favorite one line zinger in all of moviedom.....

"You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?" -- Major League 1989

[Rocker Ute]

That is clearly lehi's arm

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


We are going to just have to agree to disagree.

[LA Ute]

We are going to just have to agree to disagree.

Both of you need to think outside the box. Just imagine the great discussion you could have in high priest group meeting about this.

[Scorcho]

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46222189&nid=148&title=mormon-baptisms-on-holocaust-victims-celebrities-violated-church-policy

found this interesting

difficult challenge

[LA Ute]

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46222189&nid=148&title=mormon-baptisms-on-holocaust-victims-celebrities-violated-church-policy

found this interesting

difficult challenge

20 Holocaust victims in 5 years is a great record. I wonder what the delta on that number is? (How many total vicarious baptisms in those 5 years?)

[Scorcho]

https://www.ksl.com/article/46501361/documents-show-byu-officer-shared-other-police-agencies-reports-with-schools-honor-code-office

The police officer who violated individuals rights and anyone who signed off on this from BYU's Honor code side need to face church discipline. I'd much rather see excommunications for this type of behavior than I would people openly questioning/opposing doctrine.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

https://www.ksl.com/article/46501361/documents-show-byu-officer-shared-other-police-agencies-reports-with-schools-honor-code-office

The police officer who violated individuals rights and anyone who signed off on this from BYU's Honor code side need to face church discipline. I'd much rather see excommunications for this type of behavior than I would people openly questioning/opposing doctrine.

I agree. This need to try and ruin some kid’s college career seems like a really grotesque motivation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

I agree. This need to try and ruin some kid’s college career seems like a really grotesque motivation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The "honor code" office needs to consist of one person who reports any related issue to a students bishop and it ends there, instead of the gestapo-like techniques they currently employ.

It boils down to this and this is all that SHOULD matter to them: do they have an ecclesiastical endorsement or not?

There is no honor code office for church employees, members or anything else and according to our own doctrine it is the bishop who is called as a common judge and entitled to discernment on this matter.

I had a buddy who now has a very public and distinguished career that involves the church who had an "honor code violation" that had those goons trying to expel him. He made a youthful mistake (actually dragged an old vacuum behind his car at high speeds as a prank in a dorm parking lot when he was 18) but those people wanted to pull the rug out from underneath him completely. I doubt he'd be doing what he does today had that been allowed to happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if all of this bad press leads to some sweeping changes there and a severe reduction in the role of the HC office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

The "honor code" office needs to consist of one person who reports any related issue to a students bishop and it ends there, instead of the gestapo-like techniques they currently employ.

It boils down to this and this is all that SHOULD matter to them: do they have an ecclesiastical endorsement or not?

There is no honor code office for church employees, members or anything else and according to our own doctrine it is the bishop who is called as a common judge and entitled to discernment on this matter.

I had a buddy who now has a very public and distinguished career that involves the church who had an "honor code violation" that had those goons trying to expel him. He made a youthful mistake (actually dragged an old vacuum behind his car at high speeds as a prank in a dorm parking lot when he was 18) but those people wanted to pull the rug out from underneath him completely. I doubt he'd be doing what he does today had that been allowed to happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if all of this bad press leads to some sweeping changes there and a severe reduction in the role of the HC office.

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion...."

Sorry, couldn't resist!

[mUUser]

Don't know what to think about the wierd subculture the church has carved out at BYU. The gap between normal and BYU seems to be ever widening.

[LA Ute]

Don't know what to think about the wierd subculture the church has carved out at BYU. The gap between normal and BYU seems to be ever widening.

We don’t do well when there are too many of us concentrated in one place.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Even though this subject title hurts my spirit, I guess this is the best place for this. The aftermath of President Nelson’s commitment to the official name of the church continues to reverberate. This morning they announced that LDS.org will officially be ChurchofJesusChrist.org. Not only is that super fun to type, but if you accidentally Google it or put it in proper grammatical context, then you discover that TheChurchofJesusChrist.org takes you to a completely separate location. And eventually, the Terrestrial kingdom.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190305/10f9d9396c71357f2ee7ff750041f539.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190305/f53ac5993d9fe01e97134b24b4023820.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Even though this subject title hurts my spirit, I guess this is the best place for this. The aftermath of President Nelson’s commitment to the official name of the church continues to reverberate. This morning they announced that LDS.org will officially be ChurchofJesusChrist.org. Not only is that super fun to type, but if you accidentally Google it or put it in proper grammatical context, then you discover that TheChurchofJesusChrist.org takes you to a completely separate location. And eventually, the Terrestrial kingdom.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190305/10f9d9396c71357f2ee7ff750041f539.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190305/f53ac5993d9fe01e97134b24b4023820.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm. Makes me think someone didn't do their homework. Rare for the Church in these situations.

[LA Ute]

Even though this subject title hurts my spirit....

I just changed it, with an explanatory note to help avoid confusion among the uninformed. I hope that helps. [emoji851]

[U-Ute]

This doesn't sound good.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/d3n73w/duty-to-report-the-mormon-church-has-been-accused-of-using-a-victims-hotline-to-hide-sexual-abuse-claims?utm_medium=vicenewstwitter

[tooblue]

This doesn't sound good.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/d3n73w/duty-to-report-the-mormon-church-has-been-accused-of-using-a-victims-hotline-to-hide-sexual-abuse-claims?utm_medium=vicenewstwitter

What a mess of an article; rambling and incoherent in its focus. It reads more like a hit piece than an in-depth expose. Why? Outside of the fact children were abused and there is a help line that goes directly to law offices who represent the church, any of the other supposed facts presented are supposition. Supposition representative of one specific agenda driven perspective.

Also, why release it on a Friday—to hide the fact that it is so poorly written and that the conclusion drawn from the title, but not supported by facts is at best inaccurate?

Here's the thing about the help line: Bishops are under legal obligation to report abuse without equivocation. That's not negotiable. That's why when they call the help line they speak to a lawyer, who informs them that they are personally, legally liable of consequences if they choose not to report the abuse to authorities. The hotline doesn't protect the church. It is designed to inform the Bishops who in some circumstances do not head the legal advice given to them.

And before anyone attempts to castigate me and my perspective on this subject, I am both a victim of childhood sexual abuse and I have served as a Bishop. I understand the severity of such situations very well.

[Sullyute]

What a mess of an article; rambling and incoherent in its focus. It reads more like a hit piece than an in-depth expose. Why? Outside of the fact children were abused and there is a help line that goes directly to law offices who represent the church, any of the other supposed facts presented are supposition. Supposition representative of one specific agenda driven perspective.

Also, why release it on a Friday—to hide the fact that it is so poorly written and that the conclusion drawn from the title, but not supported by facts is at best inaccurate?

Here's the thing about the help line: Bishops are under legal obligation to report abuse without equivocation. That's not negotiable. That's why when they call the help line they speak to a lawyer, who informs them that they are personally, legally liable of consequences if they choose not to report the abuse to authorities. The hotline doesn't protect the church. It is designed to inform the Bishops who in some circumstances do not head the legal advice given to them.

And before anyone attempts to castigate me and my perspective on this subject, I am both a victim of childhood sexual abuse and I have served as a Bishop. I understand the severity of such situations very well.

I don’t have any issues with the helpline. I am just glad that piece of #!*%? is rotting in jail for the next 35 years.

[UTEopia]

What a mess of an article; rambling and incoherent in its focus. It reads more like a hit piece than an in-depth expose. Why? Outside of the fact children were abused and there is a help line that goes directly to law offices who represent the church, any of the other supposed facts presented are supposition. Supposition representative of one specific agenda driven perspective.

Also, why release it on a Friday—to hide the fact that it is so poorly written and that the conclusion drawn from the title, but not supported by facts is at best inaccurate?

Here's the thing about the help line: Bishops are under legal obligation to report abuse without equivocation. That's not negotiable. That's why when they call the help line they speak to a lawyer, who informs them that they are personally, legally liable of consequences if they choose not to report the abuse to authorities. The hotline doesn't protect the church. It is designed to inform the Bishops who in some circumstances do not head the legal advice given to them.

And before anyone attempts to castigate me and my perspective on this subject, I am both a victim of childhood sexual abuse and I have served as a Bishop. I understand the severity of such situations very well.


The Utah bar should investigate the Kirton lawyers claim about the sexual abuse related calls being forwarded to Kirton to see if any legal and ethical rules were violated. If the Bishop revealed confidential communications, which I imagine occurs, Kirton should possibly be precluded from advising or representing the Church in any legal proceedings that result. In my lawyer mind the complications of this process are troubling.

[tooblue]

The Utah bar should investigate the Kirton lawyers claim about the sexual abuse related calls being forwarded to Kirton to see if any legal and ethical rules were violated. If the Bishop revealed confidential communications, which I imagine occurs, Kirton should possibly be precluded from advising or representing the Church in any legal proceedings that result. In my lawyer mind the complications of this process are troubling.

A Bishop is not only the spiritual leader representative of a geographic area called a Ward, but he is also, legally speaking, the representative of the church in that area. They don't only lay hands upon the individuals head, set him apart and pronounce a blessing, and then it is over. Once that part of the 'calling' is done and the handshakes and hugs are over, the Bishop sits down and signs a bunch of legal documents.

I have a close friend who was recently called as Bishop. A short while later I asked him jokingly: "how did you like the part where you signed your life away, in blood."

By law, especially where I live, individuals in a position such as the Bishop of a Ward can be criminally charged by authorities if they do not report abuse when told to them by a congregant. That's where the article gets this whole situation wrong. Privacy is paramount. The type of transparency the article is calling for could violate attorney client privilege, if the conversation between the Bishop and lawyer is privileged. It also could obliterate many other individuals privacy. So who better to have the conversation with than with a lawyer?

[Rocker Ute]

A Bishop is not only the spiritual leader representative of a geographic area called a Ward, but he is also, legally speaking, the representative of the church in that area. They don't only lay hands upon the individuals head, set him apart and pronounce a blessing, and then it is over. Once that part of the 'calling' is done and the handshakes and hugs are over, the Bishop sits down and signs a bunch of legal documents.

I have a close friend who was recently called as Bishop. A short while later I asked him jokingly: "how did you like the part where you signed your life away, in blood."

By law, especially where I live, individuals in a position such as the Bishop of a Ward can be criminally charged by authorities if they do not report abuse when told to them by a congregant. That's where the article gets this whole situation wrong. Privacy is paramount. The type of transparency the article is calling for could violate attorney client privilege, if the conversation between the Bishop and lawyer is privileged. It also could obliterate many other individuals privacy. So who better to have the conversation with than with a lawyer?

No, actually, bishops do not sign a bunch of legal documents - unless you count a signature card with the bank so they can sign checks.

The bishop in this story made a critical mistake though that was against church policy. Any accusation of abuse need to be reported through the hotline and bishops need to comply with local laws, that means you have to also report it to authorities. As mentioned, the hotline serves for that purpose. For the protection of the victim, the bishop and the church they don't want bishops doing their own thing and making things worse (like this bishop did).

Yes you do speak to attorneys at Kirton McConkie who basically walk you through all that you must do and must report. The first question is if you assured the victim or victims are safe and the second is have you reported it to proper authorities. Under no circumstances do they discourage you from reporting abuse to authorities. You also speak to clinical specialists who help walk you through how to help the victim and provide resources for the protection and recovery.

They of course are then interested in the protection of the bishop and the church, but that protection is aligned with the law.

From the handbook:

"In the United States and Canada, the Church has established a confidential abuse help line to assist stake presidents and bishops (hotline number). These leaders should promptly call the help line about every situation in which a person may have been abused—or is at risk of being abused. Stake presidents and bishops should also call the help line if they become aware of the viewing, purchasing, or distributing of child pornography.

This help line is available for bishops and stake presidents to call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, when addressing situations involving any type of abuse.

When stake presidents or bishops call the help line, legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions and provide instructions about how to assist victims, comply with local laws and requirements for reporting abuse, and protect against further abuse."

(Emphasis theirs)

[tooblue]

No, actually, bishops do not sign a bunch of legal documents - unless you count a signature card with the bank so they can sign checks.

The bishop in this story made a critical mistake though that was against church policy. Any accusation of abuse need to be reported through the hotline and bishops need to comply with local laws, that means you have to also report it to authorities. As mentioned, the hotline serves for that purpose. For the protection of the victim, the bishop and the church they don't want bishops doing their own thing and making things worse (like this bishop did).

Yes you do speak to attorneys at Kirton McConkie who basically walk you through all that you must do and must report. The first question is if you assured the victim or victims are safe and the second is have you reported it to proper authorities. Under no circumstances do they discourage you from reporting abuse to authorities. You also speak to clinical specialists who help walk you through how to help the victim and provide resources for the protection and recovery.

They of course are then interested in the protection of the bishop and the church, but that protection is aligned with the law.

From the handbook:

"In the United States and Canada, the Church has established a confidential abuse help line to assist stake presidents and bishops (hotline number). These leaders should promptly call the help line about every situation in which a person may have been abused—or is at risk of being abused. Stake presidents and bishops should also call the help line if they become aware of the viewing, purchasing, or distributing of child pornography.

This help line is available for bishops and stake presidents to call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, when addressing situations involving any type of abuse.

When stake presidents or bishops call the help line, legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions and provide instructions about how to assist victims, comply with local laws and requirements for reporting abuse, and protect against further abuse."

(Emphasis theres)

That's only one of the documents I signed. You also sign it when you are called as a counsellor, or as a clerk. I signed a few other documents as well that I never signed as a counsellor or clerk. That's the plain and simple truth.

[Rocker Ute]

In other news, all missionaries for the Church are now pre-approved for the BYU-Pathways program (their online college). I mentioned on this board a while back that I thought the future of church education was through this program, and I think that is another indicator.

[sancho]

In other news, all missionaries for the Church are now pre-approved for the BYU-Pathways program (their online college). I mentioned on this board a while back that I thought the future of church education was through this program, and I think that is another indicator.

But they are still too ashamed of it to allow graduates to call themselves BYU graduations. They are still merely the inferior "BYU Idaho" graduates.

[sancho]

The bishop in this story made a critical mistake though that was against church policy.

It's not clear to me if the following is a doctrinal mistake of the bishop or a mistake from the reporter, but this seems like another critical mistake of the bishop.


Mormons believe that bishops have a spiritual gift known as the power of discernment that allows them to divine if someone is telling the truth.

[tooblue]

In other news, all missionaries for the Church are now pre-approved for the BYU-Pathways program (their online college). I mentioned on this board a while back that I thought the future of church education was through this program, and I think that is another indicator.

My son is currently serving. The rumour according to him is that during down times missionaries will be encouraged to continue with their school work, which may include being enrolled in Pathways courses.

[Rocker Ute]

That's only one of the documents I signed. You also sign it when you are called as a counsellor, or as a clerk. I signed a few other documents as well that I never signed as a counsellor or clerk. That's the plain and simple truth.

No that is not the plain and simple truth. You must have had a rogue stake president or something. Or maybe things are different in Canadia. What other specific legal documents did you sign?

[Rocker Ute]

It's not clear to me if the following is a doctrinal mistake of the bishop or a mistake from the reporter, but this seems like another critical mistake of the bishop.

Interestingly the FBI official had it right:

"You can pray for guidance about how to handle sexual abuse,” said Huizar. “But you can pray and also report it to public authorities.”

Which is what you should do.

[tooblue]

No that is not the plain and simple truth. You must have had a rogue stake president or something. Or maybe things are different in Canadia. What other specific legal documents did you sign?

I was there. I know what I read through and what I signed. It was more than the card for the bank authorizing my signature. I had already done that serving as both a counsellor and clerk. Perhaps it is peculiar to my area, but there are other considerations to account for ... the authority to perform legal marriages; who can legally speak for the church with regards to church owned properties; the distribution of welfare in an area etc.

My point is, a Bishop isn't exclusively the spiritual leader of a Ward.

[sancho]

Bishop fight!

[Rocker Ute]

I was there. I know what I read through and what I signed. It was more than the card for the bank authorizing my signature. I had already done that serving as both a counsellor and clerk. Perhaps it is peculiar to my area, but there are other considerations to account for ... the authority to perform legal marriages; who can legally speak for the church with regards to church owned properties. The distribution of welfare in an area etc.

My point is, a Bishop isn't exclusively the spiritual leader of a Ward.

I've been there too. I didn't sign anything more than a signature card. You do get a certificate from church HQ that states you are a bishop that you could use to whatever official was requiring it (like to visit someone in jail or to perform a marriage - although in Utah that isn't required to produce that document). But I signed no legal documents, and nothing as dramatic as signing my life away as you originally described.

[Rocker Ute]

Bishop fight!

I wouldn't fight tooblue or any man who drinks milk from a bag. Those type of guys are too unpredictable. ;)

And I'm disagreeing with all the love in my heart.

[tooblue]

I've been there too. I didn't sign anything more than a signature card. You do get a certificate from church HQ that states you are a bishop that you could use to whatever official was requiring it (like to visit someone in jail or to perform a marriage - although in Utah that isn't required to produce that document). But I signed no legal documents, and nothing as dramatic as signing my life away as you originally described.

I did state that I was joking about signing my life away, in blood ;-) At the time I also joked: "is this the point where I stand up and say I'm not ready for this, let me out of here." That went over about as well as one would imagine.

Setting all that aside, there are levels of complexity to these issues that go beyond: "Religions are evil! There must be transparency! The Mormon church hides abuse!"

The system isn't perfect, but in my experience it works well. Some individuals do not head the counsel given to them and that's tragic.

[UTEopia]

A Bishop is not only the spiritual leader representative of a geographic area called a Ward, but he is also, legally speaking, the representative of the church in that area. They don't only lay hands upon the individuals head, set him apart and pronounce a blessing, and then it is over. Once that part of the 'calling' is done and the handshakes and hugs are over, the Bishop sits down and signs a bunch of legal documents.

I have a close friend who was recently called as Bishop. A short while later I asked him jokingly: "how did you like the part where you signed your life away, in blood."

By law, especially where I live, individuals in a position such as the Bishop of a Ward can be criminally charged by authorities if they do not report abuse when told to them by a congregant. That's where the article gets this whole situation wrong. Privacy is paramount. The type of transparency the article is calling for could violate attorney client privilege, if the conversation between the Bishop and lawyer is privileged. It also could obliterate many other individuals privacy. So who better to have the conversation with than with a lawyer?


There are two privileged relationships here. Bishop - Member and Bishop - Attorney. If the Bishop violates the privilege that exists between him and the member in discussions with an attorney, it could later bar that attorney from representing the Bishop and the Church. Have the conversation with a lawyer. No problem. Just not the lawyer who might be asked to represent Bishop or the Church. The Church has in-house lawyers coming out the ears, funnel these calls to one of those.

[tooblue]

There are two privileged relationships here. Bishop - Member and Bishop - Attorney. If the Bishop violates the privilege that exists between him and the member in discussions with an attorney, it could later bar that attorney from representing the Bishop and the Church. Have the conversation with a lawyer. No problem. Just not the lawyer who might be asked to represent Bishop or the Church. The Church has in-house lawyers coming out the ears, funnel these calls to one of those.

Where I live, by law, there is no presumption of privilege between a Bishop and congregant. Thus, there is no violation in the first place. I am also a post-secondary teacher. There is also no presumption of privilege between myself and a student.

[LA Ute]

That's only one of the documents I signed. You also sign it when you are called as a counsellor, or as a clerk. I signed a few other documents as well that I never signed as a counsellor or clerk. That's the plain and simple truth.

I this this must be something for Canadia. I've been a counselor and a clerk -- very recently -- in California and all I had to sign were the bank signature cards.

[tooblue]

I this this must be something for Canadia. I've been a counselor and a clerk -- very recently -- in California and all I had to sign were the bank signature cards.

It was more than twenty years ago. I was young, but I distinctly remember thinking yikes. Now, a few years prior to me being called, a Bishop of a different Ward embezzled money from the church and ended up going to jail. So, maybe that had some bearing on what was going on at the time. Also a lot has changed since then. At that time the hotline was relatively new.

[LA Ute]

From the Guardian:

Salt Lake City offers glimpse of socialism, Mormon-style

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/jul/02/salt-lake-city-socialism-mormon-style-utah

Although the writer’s application of the term “socialism“ is simply wrong, it’s an interesting article.

[sancho]

From the Guardian:

Salt Lake City offers glimpse of socialism, Mormon-style

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/jul/02/salt-lake-city-socialism-mormon-style-utah

Although the writer’s application of the term “socialism“ is simply wrong, it’s an interesting article.

I posted this on our Discord site, but you never came :(

[LA Ute]

I posted this on our Discord site, but you never came :(

Sorry! I was too busy trying to get this site working! How do I get to Discord?

[LA Ute]

This series of tweets provides another J.D. Williams moment.

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1147868854598668291?s=21

[sancho]

The LDS Church announced the start of its new youth program. They will discontinue most the EFY program at BYU and will instead rebrand stake youth conferences as EFY-type experiences. Great change, in my opinion. Too many families/kids were starting to believe EFY was an essential experience. Now if they just discontinue trek and BYU, they'll really be on to something.

[Rocker Ute]

I this this must be something for Canadia. I've been a counselor and a clerk -- very recently -- in California and all I had to sign were the bank signature cards.

Stakes were asked to cancel youth conferences AND treks they may have had scheduled in conflict of these new FSY conferences. If they are every other year I really don't see how they will be able to hold trek anymore unless they take a slot for ward youth activities - which I think would be a mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

Stakes were asked to cancel youth conferences AND treks they may have had scheduled in conflict of these new FSY conferences. If they are every other year I really don't see how they will be able to hold trek anymore unless they take a slot for ward youth activities - which I think would be a mistake.


My stake does a stake youth conference every year in addition to stake girls' camp and individual ward young men's camps. So it would be possible for us to do this rotation:

FSY, Stake Youth Conf, FSY, Trek

I think I've said before that I would like to either do away with trek or to modify it to be less weird.

[LA Ute]

President Nelson to national NAACP convention: We want to be 'dear friends'

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900080599/president-russel-m-nelson-national-naacp-convention-latter-day-saints.html

Complete transcript:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-naacp-convention-remarks

This would have been inconceivable to me when I was in college. It makes me very, very happy.

[LA Ute]

https://youtu.be/DieFDK0J9v8

[LA Ute]

“All is well.”


https://youtu.be/LWBHAv30nHc

[USS Utah]

The following link is currently being blocked by Facebook for violating its Community Standards:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/religious-freedom/religious-freedom?lang=eng

[U-Ute]

The following link is currently being blocked by Facebook for violating its Community Standards:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/religious-freedom/religious-freedom?lang=eng

I have been wondering if this is legit or if it is Internet Legend.

Have you tried posting it?

[USS Utah]

I have been wondering if this is legit or if it is Internet Legend.

Have you tried posting it?

Yes, and it was indeed blocked with the explanation that it violated FB's community standards.

[Rocker Ute]

Yes, and it was indeed blocked with the explanation that it violated FB's community standards.

I tried it too and same thing. I wonder what triggered that with Facebook, because other pages from that site are posted all the time. Wonder if it met some algorithm for saying 'religious freedom' too much. But the content is about being respectful to others etc.

I personally don't believe it was a direct target, but as mentioned some sort of filtering algorithm.