Will September Dawn drive chapel Mormons to research more?

[_Dr. Shades]

The article in question (that people have been referring to) was an online version of an official BYU journal, perhaps BYU Studies or the Daily Universe.

In it, a professor (not DCP) was discussing the More Good Foundation and its aims and purpose. He casually mentioned that "the church monitors over 1,500 anti-Mormon websites[.]"

After this quotation was broadcast far and wide at RFM and elsewhere, voila! The article disappeared. Go figure.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Further, we know from the CHI (at least, I think it's in the CHI), that certain things result in "instant annotation" on one's membership record. Thus, if there is report of homosexual activity from some stool-pigeon member, then this bit of petty gossip will go into a member's record, potentially setting him or her up for all kinds of personal harm. Surely as a Bishop, you know about these "automatic annotations." Right?

I've seen absolutely nothing of the kind.

Then you haven't read your copy of the CHI very closely. Go to the "Records and Reports" section, and then to the subsection entitled "Records with Annotations." It reads, in part:

Church headquarters will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president or bishop:

1. Submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action showing that the person was disciplined for incest, sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child, plural marriage, an elective transsexual operation, repeated homosexual activity (by adults), or embezzlement of Church funds or property.

2. Submits written notification that the person has been criminally convicted for one of these transgressions.

Church headquarters also will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president and bishop jointly submit written notification that the person has committed one of these transgressions before or after excommunication or name removal. In addition, the stake president and bishop may jointly recommend that a person's membership record be annotated for other conduct that threatens the well-being of other persons or of the Church.

In all cases, annotation of membership records is removed only with First Presidency approval upon request of the stake president.

[_why me]

Of course anyone who actually believes that any human history can be perfect will have to have their head examined. MMM was a tragedy caused by the actions of imperfect people. Nothing more. However, to see the event without the connection to Mormons being persecuted before their arrival to Utah would be a drastic mistake.

I have never had a testimony of church history. History is a chain of events sponsored by human beings. And since we humans are fallible it is not impossible to find sore spots in LDS history. But then again, can anyone here show me a perfect history of a people who lived in perfection? I don't think so.

MMM is history and nothing more. Tragic yes, but understandable when looking at human nature.

[_Dr. Shades]

Of course anyone who actually believes that any human history can be perfect will have to have their head examined. MMM was a tragedy caused by the actions of imperfect people. Nothing more. However, to see the event without the connection to Mormons being persecuted before their arrival to Utah would be a drastic mistake.

I have never had a testimony of church history. History is a chain of events sponsored by human beings. And since we humans are fallible it is not impossible to find sore spots in LDS history. But then again, can anyone here show me a perfect history of a people who lived in perfection? I don't think so.

MMM is history and nothing more. Tragic yes, but understandable when looking at human nature.

why me, would you be looking at the MMM just as charitably if it had been carried out by, say, the Jehovah's Witnesses instead of the Mormons?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I figured that it wouldn't be long before Other Scratch showed up. Unfortunately, you'll have to do your tag-team act without me. I'm busy -- and I'm done interacting with Scratch Senior in any case.

Then you haven't read your copy of the CHI very closely. Go to the "Records and Reports" section, and then to the subsection entitled "Records with Annotations."

You're right. I haven't read the CHI closely enough to find the procedures for incorporating "petty gossip" from any and all "stool-pigeon members" into a person's permanent Church record. I couldn't find that procedure in the passages you quoted, either.

[_Mister Scratch]

I figured that it wouldn't be long before Other Scratch showed up. Unfortunately, you'll have to do your tag-team act without me. I'm busy -- and I'm done interacting with Scratch Senior in any case.

Then you haven't read your copy of the CHI very closely. Go to the "Records and Reports" section, and then to the subsection entitled "Records with Annotations."

You're right. I haven't read the CHI closely enough to find the procedures for incorporating "petty gossip" from any and all "stool-pigeon members" into a person's permanent Church record. I couldn't find that procedure in the passages you quoted, either.

Come on, Prof. P.---pull your head out. What I said in my original comment was that a member's record could get permanently "annotated" on the basis of gossip, such as gossip about someone's homosexuality. Incidentally, this is precisely what you and your "circle" were doing about Mike Quinn. Perhaps that's why you're so insistent on overlooking this portion of the CHI.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You're right. I haven't read the CHI closely enough to find the procedures for incorporating "petty gossip" from any and all "stool-pigeon members" into a person's permanent Church record. I couldn't find that procedure in the passages you quoted, either.

If the gossip leads to discipline for homosexual behavior, then said behavior will automatically be annotated on the member's record, which was MS's point.

Let's just hope that in your role as bishop, and unlike Quinn's SP, you'll not discuss your members' private sex lives with your "circles."

[_Daniel Peterson]

If the gossip leads to discipline for homosexual behavior, then said behavior will automatically be annotated on the member's record, which was MS's point.

Just as it will if mere gossip leads to conviction in a government court of a serious crime. That you apparently think that "petty gossip" from random "stool-pigeon members" is commonly enough to lead to formal Church disciplinary action -- and that, by similar logic, you may even imagine that "petty gossip" from any chance "stool-pigeon citizen" who happens to wander into a police station or a courtroom commonly suffices to send people to prison -- is a fascinating self-disclosure, but, without considerable supporting evidence, doesn't necessarily tell us anything at all about either Church disciplinary councils or the American judicial system. I once met somebody who believes that the moon landing was faked on a NASA soundstage. I know somebody who believes that cancer is caused by germs that attach themselves to "junk-food molecules" and can only be extracted by frequent cancer-fighting enemas.

Let's just hope that in your role as bishop, and unlike Quinn's SP, you'll not discuss your members' private sex lives with your "circles."

I haven't and won't discuss anything learned under confidential circumstances with anybody who has no right or need to know it, just as, so far as I can tell -- and I believe that I'm your only source on this matter -- Mike Quinn's stake president never did.

Just in case you want to re-open the eternally fascinating subject of my supposed participation in the supposed official smear-campaign against Mike Quinn, I'm going to take the liberty of topping that thread for you again. I do it for your convenience, not because I intend to participate in it any further. Enjoy!

[_Rollo Tomasi]

If the gossip leads to discipline for homosexual behavior, then said behavior will automatically be annotated on the member's record, which was MS's point.

Just as it will if mere gossip leads to conviction in a government court of a serious crime.

Homosexual behavior is not a crime, "serious" or otherwise.

That you apparently think that "petty gossip" from random "stool-pigeon members" is commonly enough to lead to formal Church disciplinary action -- and that, by similar logic, you may even imagine that "petty gossip" from any chance "stool-pigeon citizen" who happens to wander into a police station or a courtroom commonly suffices to send people to prison -- is a fascinating self-disclosure, but, without considerable supporting evidence, doesn't necessarily tell us anything at all about either Church disciplinary councils or the American judicial system.

Typical red herring. There's no comparison between homosexual behavior and a crime punishable by prison. The fact you seem to think so, however, is quite "a fascinating self-disclosure."

Let's just hope that in your role as bishop, and unlike Quinn's SP, you'll not discuss your members' private sex lives with your "circles."

I haven't and won't discuss anything learned under confidential circumstances with anybody who has no right or need to know it, just as, so far as I can tell -- and I believe that I'm your only source on this matter -- Mike Quinn's stake president never did.

Well, except for the SP's disclosing it to your friend, who then passed it on to you, etc., etc., etc.

[_Mister Scratch]

Let's just hope that in your role as bishop, and unlike Quinn's SP, you'll not discuss your members' private sex lives with your "circles."

I haven't and won't discuss anything learned under confidential circumstances with anybody who has no right or need to know it, just as, so far as I can tell -- and I believe that I'm your only source on this matter -- Mike Quinn's stake president never did.

Then why did you see fit to say that you "believed" that Quinn's homosexuality "was known to his [i.e., Quinn's] stake president"? It was because he had leaked the information, quite unscrupulously. I hope Pres. Hanks has repented for this.