Inconsistent Application of Church Discipline - Why? - Page 7 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

jay santos · 07-02-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm still waiting for the argument that consistency is desirable.
Fairness? Yes.
Consistency? No.

How can fairness not equal consistency?

I definitely believe consistency is desirable.

SoonerCoug · 07-02-2007, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm still waiting for the argument that consistency is desirable.
Fairness? Yes.
Consistency? No.

I think there could be some more specific guidelines without having mandatory sentencing. That might help.

Indy Coug · 07-02-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Come on, dude. He was an endowed, older, RM EQ President. She was a freshman. Do the math. He was the first guy she had ever even kissed. And I know for a fact that she went in first.

Did they have the same ecclesiastical leader?

SoonerCoug · 07-02-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Did they have the same ecclesiastical leader?

Yes.

JohnnyLingo · 07-02-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Come on, dude. He was an endowed, older, RM EQ President. She was a freshman. Do the math. He was the first guy she had ever even kissed. And I know for a fact that she went in first.

I don't know why you fail to understand why discussing this with such limited and biased information is a fruitless effort.

You seem smarter than that.

Indy Coug · 07-02-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Yes.

Then I think there is simply more to the story than we (and possibly you) know.

Jeff Lebowski · 07-02-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I don't know why you fail to understand why discussing this with such limited and biased information is a fruitless effort.

You seem smarter than that.

And I don't know why you are trying so hard to stop this thread. You seem more heterosexual than that.

JohnnyLingo · 07-02-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And I don't know why you are trying so hard to stop this thread. You seem more heterosexual than that.

I'm not trying to stop this thread. I'm trying to show Sooner that his example won't help this discussion go anywhere. It's irrelevant.

SoonerCoug · 07-02-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Then I think there is simply more to the story than we (and possibly you) know.

Because there is no way that a bishop could simply be unreasonable? Or there is no way that a bishop wouldn't want to publicly sacrifice his recently ordained, beloved EQ president?

Plenty of guys on this board seem to think that women can be quite predatory and that men are often innocent victims in law of chastity violations. I'd argue that usually it's the opposite. But maybe this bishop thought the girl was corrupting his righteous EQ president and therefore she deserved a greater punishment.

No matter what the truth is with this particular story, the overall point remains valid. Sometimes, maybe even rarely, punishments are too arbitrary. Sometimes punishments are so unreasonable that they can do more harm than good.

Sleeping in EQ · 07-02-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What about being consistently fair?

SC has been wrestling with consistent outcomes of disciplinary councils. I'm interested in people being considered as individuals, which will not produce consistent outcomes.

If you see always approaching disciplinary situations individually as consistent, then sure. But I would caution that the way one might consider individuality is bound to shift over time and with new experiences.