Our LDS culture: why does it breed such extremes, or does it?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

High Councils are the same as execution councils, and parole boards.

Why do you say this?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Why do you say this?

Here is why.

In a bishop's council, the individual is usually known personally by the bishop, so a fair evaluation of the offense can be evaluated lovingly and personally. There is a risk of a hardnosed guy in there, but usually not.

In a high council, the odds are one or several will not have been bishops, many can be young or old, with hardliner attitudes about offenses without every knowing the individual or individuals. These hardliners, never forgive the sinner, always "he or she deserves what she got" types are statistically more probably on high councils than in bishoprics. Yes, my analysis may be less than sophisticated, but it comes for observations.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I agree. I think compassion and love are two of the dominant themes of Mormonism. I am sure this will set some people off here, but I wonder if some of the coldness demonstrated by many Mormons stems from their strong affiliation with the Republican party which, at the edges, is as far removed from compassion as you can get. The party views things in terms of earning your rights, despising the loafers of society, etc. While some of those views may make sense from a political perspective, they are in many ways incompatible with dominant Christian themes.

I don't know what politics have to do with a lack of forgiveness, compassion and humanity.

It may be the frontier's life that created a lack of sensitivity and compassion. That sounds sociologically more reasonable.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Here is why.

In a bishop's council, the individual is usually known personally by the bishop, so a fair evaluation of the offense can be evaluated lovingly and personally. There is a risk of a hardnosed guy in there, but usually not.

In a high council, the odds are one or several will not have been bishops, many can be young or old, with hardliner attitudes about offenses without every knowing the individual or individuals. These hardliners, never forgive the sinner, always "he or she deserves what she got" types are statistically more probably on high councils than in bishoprics. Yes, my analysis may be less than sophisticated, but it comes for observations.

Perhaps my stake is aberrational, but I am quite confident that your description is not accurate for our HC. To the contrary, it is actually a pretty mellow group and has been for some time even during a period when we had a very conservative stake president. I have insufficient knowledge or experience to speak more broadly than my own current stake, however, where I have lived for over 14 years.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Perhaps my stake is aberrational, but I am quite confident that your description is not accurate for our HC. To the contrary, it is actually a pretty mellow group and has been for some time even during a period when we had a very conservative stake president. I have insufficient knowledge or experience to speak more broadly than my own current stake, however, where I have lived for over 14 years.

Obviously, my knowledge is limited to the stakes in which I reside or resided.

The fact that exUte is a high councilor should give one pause enough.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I have been involved (as a counselor in a single's ward Bishopric) in several disciplinary councils, and am aware of the details of the proceedings of some High Council disciplinary deliberations. One conclusion is inescapable:

Regardless of what has been done to bring you to that council, it's easier for the council to be harsh on you if you are belligerent.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Regardless of what has been done to bring you to that council, it's easier for the council to be harsh on you if you are belligerent.

THis is absoluitely true, again within my limited experience. Attitude is =probabyl worth much more than 50% in terms of a predictive factor of the outcome.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The party views things in terms of earning your rights, despising the loafers of society, etc. While some of those views may make sense from a political perspective, they are in many ways incompatible with dominant Christian themes.

I have always thought this was a strawman. No one wants people to starve or be left out in the cold. Conservatives (and I realize you said Republicans not conservatives) simply think that it is better to incentivize people to provide for themselves if possible. Giving various goodies away may hurt in the long run more than it helps as the failed great society programs have proved so amply.

Where, perhaps, some take it too far is in not realizing that at the margins there are those who truly cannot provide for themselves. In the main, however, I don't believe that government give-aways are nearly as good at providing for needy as they are at assuaging the guilt of the wealthy.

Moreover, dispising sloth is not incompatible with Christianity.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Here is why.

In a bishop's council, the individual is usually known personally by the bishop, so a fair evaluation of the offense can be evaluated lovingly and personally. There is a risk of a hardnosed guy in there, but usually not.

In a high council, the odds are one or several will not have been bishops, many can be young or old, with hardliner attitudes about offenses without every knowing the individual or individuals. These hardliners, never forgive the sinner, always "he or she deserves what she got" types are statistically more probably on high councils than in bishoprics. Yes, my analysis may be less than sophisticated, but it comes for observations.

i've only participated in one stake, so my experience is pretty useless.
however, it seemed that the SP controlled everything. Luckily, he was a very compassionate man. The HC had at least a few hardliners. The HC just seemed to rubber-stamped him.

sadly, all the courts i sat in on, the person on trial was/had been experiencing moderate to severe depression.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Moreover, dispising sloth is not incompatible with Christianity.

Does it ever occur to Conservatives that there is not necessarily a direct correlation between sloth and poverty, and between wealth and industriousness? I know lots of poor people who work a lot harder than I do. It just so happened that I was born white, attended good schools in good neighborhoods, had parents who were able to participate in my education and could afford to send me to college. Industriousness plays a part, but most of it is just dumb luck.