Will September Dawn drive chapel Mormons to research more?

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

I stand in solidarity with you against anybody who alleged such a thing!

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."

Typical cluelessness.

Wow. You've elevated incomprehension to the level of high art. But I know better now than to attempt to disabuse you of your illusions. Been there, done that. Hundreds of times.

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

The stake president disclosed nothing to my friend about Quinn's homosexuality that my friend (along with who knows how many hundreds of others, Mormon and non-Mormon and ex-Mormon) hadn't already heard. And my friend disclosed nothing to me about Quinn's sexual orientation that, along with many others, I hadn't already heard. The only new thing that I learned from my friend and that my friend learned from Quinn's stake president is that Quinn's stake president was aware of something that many others were aware of.

Okay. I've resurrrected your old playground-thread for the two of you to continue your fascination with this bit of mythology for as long as you want. I've energized you again regarding the Titanic Tale that Dominates Our Time. You can rehash it and moan and groan about it and pronounce judgments about it and fantasize about it and fictionalize it and exaggerate it and get delicious conspiracy-theorist goosebumps about it there to your hearts' content. But if you think that one thread isn't enough, you're welcome to take this one over, as well. In fact, for all I care, you can take over the entire message board.

[_Mister Scratch]

The stake president disclosed nothing to my friend about Quinn's homosexuality that my friend (along with who knows how many hundreds of others, Mormon and non-Mormon and ex-Mormon) hadn't already heard. And my friend disclosed nothing to me about Quinn's sexual orientation that, along with many others, I hadn't already heard. The only new thing that I learned from my friend and that my friend learned from Quinn's stake president is that Quinn's stake president was aware of something that many others were aware of.

You appear to have learned something "new"---i.e., about the "sad incident." All of your spin-doctoring has been blown to smithereens by your foolish admission that you and your friend discussed the so-called "sad incident," which most definitely was not common knowledge. That was a major slip-up on your part, my dear friend.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The stake president disclosed nothing to my friend about Quinn's homosexuality that my friend (along with who knows how many hundreds of others, Mormon and non-Mormon and ex-Mormon) hadn't already heard. And my friend disclosed nothing to me about Quinn's sexual orientation that, along with many others, I hadn't already heard. The only new thing that I learned from my friend and that my friend learned from Quinn's stake president is that Quinn's stake president was aware of something that many others were aware of.

In another word, folks, what we English-speakers call "gossip." Thanks for finally admitting to it, Bishop Dan.

But if you think that one thread isn't enough, you're welcome to take this one over, as well. In fact, for all I care, you can take over the entire message board.

Your 11.43 posts per day habit (contrasted against my 2.11 posts per day) suggests otherwise, my dear Bishop Dan.

[_Mister Scratch]

The stake president disclosed nothing to my friend about Quinn's homosexuality that my friend (along with who knows how many hundreds of others, Mormon and non-Mormon and ex-Mormon) hadn't already heard. And my friend disclosed nothing to me about Quinn's sexual orientation that, along with many others, I hadn't already heard. The only new thing that I learned from my friend and that my friend learned from Quinn's stake president is that Quinn's stake president was aware of something that many others were aware of.

In another word, folks, what we English-speakers call "gossip." Thanks for finally admitting to it, Bishop Dan.

But if you think that one thread isn't enough, you're welcome to take this one over, as well. In fact, for all I care, you can take over the entire message board.

Your 11.43 posts per day habit (contrasted against my 2.11 posts per day) suggests otherwise, my dear Bishop Dan.

That's interesting. I'm in the 7-per-day range. Kind of interesting, especially given DCP's denials about his own "obsessive" behavior, and his claim that he is "afraid" of me due to my supposedly "obsessive" posts.

[_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.

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?

Yes I would. The acts of individuals has very little reflection on a group as a whole, especially when looking at MMM. For the JW's, I would give the same verdict as I did to the LDS. History is made by imperfect people. I can not find a history of perfection within any group of individuals. The countermos and the antis seem to bask in the acts of imperfections. It is a futile endeavor to do so.

Taken as a whole the LDS church is a wonderful institution that brings goodness to the world, through its message of God's love.

[_Sethbag]

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.

It's very interesting that the church will annotate a person's membership record even after they have been excommunicated or resigned, if the bishop and SP both sign a written note to the COB that a person has committed one of these "transgressions". Now, in the case of incest, sexual or physical abuse of a child, or stealing church property, I can see why the church would want to know; if a person tried, subsequently, to get back into the church, they'd want to know that things like this had occurred while they weren't members, for reasons involving protection of minors from predators and whatnot.

The elective transsexual operation I'm a little less sure why they need to know this, but I guess it may have to do with whether that person should or should not be eligible for the penishood (ie: woman gets transsexual operation after leaving church, gets rebaptised, wants to be ordained - I very much doubt the church would do it).

The consensual homosexual activity between adults, however, I really can't see why they'd need to know that in a person's record. In theory, that sort of thing would come up in the "worthiness" interview with the local authorities for rebaptism. The other things can all be justified on the grounds that such information could help protect people. However, such annotation seems to imply that consensual, adult homosexual activity while the person was outside of the church represent a potential danger to people if the person were to be re-baptised. It's almost like a stereotype of homosexuals as molesters or something like that; there's the assumption that homosexuals are predators. I don't agree with that, but it is revealing about church attitudes towards homosexuality that this language is in there. There is fear of homosexuals. I've seen it many times in my own family and my wife's family, when debates have come up about things like gay marriage. The TBMs in my life, with whom I've argued this stuff, all really are afraid of homosexuals.

All in all, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the church choosing to maintain a "file" on even ex-members, containing information about the private sex lives of people, on no more proof than the willingness of a bishop and a stake president to co-sign a note reporting such things to church headquarters. In addition to there not really being a legitimate need to know, what safeguards are in place to ensure that the bishop and SP even have their facts straight? What if the bishop and the SP both hear from a 3rd party they happen to trust and feel confident in, who passes along such information? That would be hearsay evidence, and the CHI doesn't seem to spell out any kind of reasonable safeguard for ensuring the accuracy of such reports.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The consensual homosexual activity between adults, however, I really can't see why they'd need to know that in a person's record.

Particularly since the CHI does not require automatic annotation for heterosexual activity, such as fornication or adultery. Even in the context of "transgression," the Church treats gay members differently than straight members.

[_why me]

The consensual homosexual activity between adults, however, I really can't see why they'd need to know that in a person's record.

Particularly since the CHI does not require automatic annotation for heterosexual activity, such as fornication or adultery. Even in the context of "transgression," the Church treats gay members differently than straight members.

Or is it God who treats gays differently? ; = :

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Or is it God who treats gays differently?

No need to blame God for man's prejudices and bias. We (including the Brethren) are very capable of screwing things up all by ourselves.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Or is it God who treats gays differently? ; = :

I wonder how God would do that?

Or how anyone would know?