Some people are gullible (baseball player)

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Unfortunately, in our culture, you are correct.

Most mainstream members will do this:

Assume the bishop is correct and the kid is lying.

Assume it was a sexual morality issue,

and forever brand the kid.

When in reality, checking behind the scenes sources reveals it really is an attendance issue and a power struggle between a silly kid and a mullah bishop.

When the bishop is your source I'll believe you. Until, then I'm calling BS.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

When the bishop is your source I'll believe you. Until, then I'm calling BS.

I'm comfortable with the source til now. Go ahead and take the mullah position, we'd expect nothing less from you.

There are other sources with knowledge of what has occurred. The Athletic Department, and others are also aware.

There are those who believe that attendance at a non-home ward is a legitimate means to yank an EE.

I do not share that view. It is petty and this bishop acted in a petty, divisive manner as a show of power. The silly kid should have acted more intelligently, but if it's between a bishop having a cooler head and a kid, I expect the bishop to take the high road.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Unfortunately, in our culture, you are correct.

Most mainstream members will do this:

Assume the bishop is correct and the kid is lying.

Assume it was a sexual morality issue,

and forever brand the kid.

When in reality, checking behind the scenes sources reveals it really is an attendance issue and a power struggle between a silly kid and a mullah bishop.

I'm about as anti-authority as it comes, but this story just sounds odd. I'm not forever branding the kid. In my book, a young adult going too far with his girlfriend ranks about as serious in the severity of sin scale as say the average self righteous Tex post.

I'm on record saying, IF it happened like it said in the news article, that the bishop and stake prez are nazi jerks and something should be done to correct the situation.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'm about as anti-authority as it comes, but this story just sounds odd. I'm not forever branding the kid. In my book, a young adult going too far with his girlfriend ranks about as serious in the severity of sin scale as say the average self righteous Tex post.

I'm on record saying, IF it happened like it said in the news article, that the bishop and stake prez are nazi jerks and something should be done to correct the situation.

It's hard enough to fill those rentabishop positions, nothing will be done. The story is mostly accurate. The kid had some notice, but apparently didn't believe he could have his EE pulled for low attendance. It wasn't a non-attendance, but a low attendance issue. As I computed it, it was about once every two weeks and no calling. The stake president probably didn't bother to review and just supported his bishop.

I'm very comfortable at this time, unless some shocking revelation hidden from many materializes, that it had NOTHING to do with sex. It had nothing to do with Alcohol. That part should be dispelled. I agree if a kid has sex with his girlfriend, it's not something I can see as truly bothersome, but in our culture it can carry a heavy, negative stigma for the mullah types like Smails.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's hard enough to fill those rentabishop positions, nothing will be done. The story is mostly accurate. The kid had some notice, but apparently didn't believe he could have his EE pulled for low attendance. It wasn't a non-attendance, but a low attendance issue. As I computed it, it was about once every two weeks and no calling. The stake president probably didn't bother to review and just supported his bishop.

I'm very comfortable at this time, unless some shocking revelation hidden from many materializes, that it had NOTHING to do with sex. It had nothing to do with Alcohol. That part should be dispelled. I agree if a kid has sex with his girlfriend, it's not something I can see as truly bothersome, but in our culture it can carry a heavy, negative stigma for the mullah types like Smails.

I love how anyone who supports BYU or the Honor Code or Ecclesiastical leaders on this board is automatically branded a "mullah".

In all seriousness, I don't know a single alum who has as much vitriol for all things BYU as several members of this board headlined by Waters and Archaea. You guys are seriously an enigma to me. I have never met a person in real life who went to BYU and has anything but positive things to say about the whole experience (and I know a lot of BYU grads).

Unless you guys have been putting on an act for all these years, I suppose the anti-BYU alums are truly out there. But I've certainly never met them. Possibly because I'm drawn to people who tend to have a positive outlook on life.

If "mullah" = reserving judgment against the bishop until hearing his version of events (which we'll never get), then I'll wear the mullah badge with honor.

If "mullah" = not using the term "rentabishop", then sign me up for some more of that. It's definitely unique to be a BYU bishop, and they, like all bishops are not perfect, but I have too much respect for the office to ever use such a term.

Listen, it's possible this is a rogue bishop. If that is the case (again, we'll never know), and if I have been given ALL the facts at this point, then I would say he made a poor judgment. It's much more logical that there is much more the bishop is aware of - probably somewhere between attitude/disobedience and major sin. I don't know what it was.

I don't care who your sources are, unless they are the bishop and the kid (direct source - BOTH sides of story - we actually have neither at this point). If this kid confessed something to the bishop , your "sources" would NOT know about it. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

This is a classic case of a one-sided story fitting your opinion of BYU and you and your ilk running with it. I refuse to make a judgment based on one side of the story.

That is all.

Late.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

This is a classic case of a one-sided story fitting your opinion of BYU and you and your ilk running with it. I refuse to make a judgment based on one side of the story.

Yes Smails, it is far nobler to brand the kid a fornicator because that fits your opinion of BYU, and then you and your ilk run with it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

I love how anyone who supports BYU or the Honor Code or Ecclesiastical leaders on this board is automatically branded a "mullah".

In all seriousness, I don't know a single alum who has as much vitriol for all things BYU as several members of this board headlined by Waters and Archaea. You guys are seriously an enigma to me. I have never met a person in real life who went to BYU and has anything but positive things to say about the whole experience (and I know a lot of BYU grads).

Unless you guys have been putting on an act for all these years, I suppose the anti-BYU alums are truly out there. But I've certainly never met them. Possibly because I'm drawn to people who tend to have a positive outlook on life.

If "mullah" = reserving judgment against the bishop until hearing his version of events (which we'll never get), then I'll wear the mullah badge with honor.

If "mullah" = not using the term "rentabishop", then sign me up for some more of that. It's definitely unique to be a BYU bishop, and they, like all bishops are not perfect, but I have too much respect for the office to ever use such a term.

Listen, it's possible this is a rogue bishop. If that is the case (again, we'll never know), and if I have been given ALL the facts at this point, then I would say he made a poor judgment. It's much more logical that there is much more the bishop is aware of - probably somewhere between attitude/disobedience and major sin. I don't know what it was.

I don't care who your sources are, unless they are the bishop and the kid (direct source - BOTH sides of story - we actually have neither at this point). If this kid confessed something to the bishop , your "sources" would NOT know about it. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

This is a classic case of a one-sided story fitting your opinion of BYU and you and your ilk running with it. I refuse to make a judgment based on one side of the story.

That is all.

Late.

"mullah" = anyone CG the rent-a-intellectuals disagree with

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Judge Smails

I love how anyone who supports BYU or the Honor Code or Ecclesiastical leaders on this board is automatically branded a "mullah".

In all seriousness, I don't know a single alum who has as much vitriol for all things BYU as several members of this board headlined by Waters and Archaea. You guys are seriously an enigma to me. I have never met a person in real life who went to BYU and has anything but positive things to say about the whole experience (and I know a lot of BYU grads).

Unless you guys have been putting on an act for all these years, I suppose the anti-BYU alums are truly out there. But I've certainly never met them. Possibly because I'm drawn to people who tend to have a positive outlook on life.

If "mullah" = reserving judgment against the bishop until hearing his version of events (which we'll never get), then I'll wear the mullah badge with honor.

If "mullah" = not using the term "rentabishop", then sign me up for some more of that. It's definitely unique to be a BYU bishop, and they, like all bishops are not perfect, but I have too much respect for the office to ever use such a term.

Listen, it's possible this is a rogue bishop. If that is the case (again, we'll never know), and if I have been given ALL the facts at this point, then I would say he made a poor judgment. It's much more logical that there is much more the bishop is aware of - probably somewhere between attitude/disobedience and major sin. I don't know what it was.

I don't care who your sources are, unless they are the bishop and the kid (direct source - BOTH sides of story - we actually have neither at this point). If this kid confessed something to the bishop , your "sources" would NOT know about it. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

This is a classic case of a one-sided story fitting your opinion of BYU and you and your ilk running with it. I refuse to make a judgment based on one side of the story.

That is all.

Late.

Nice rant, too bad most of it is not on point or relevant.

Neither Mike nor I have vitriol for BYU, just some of the provincial idiosyncrasies inherent in a school placed in Utah. If certain predictions are true, and I don't know enough, the situation may reverse itself.

[myboynoah]

Nobody's talking now.

I bet this soon gets resolved in the positive. Harmon suggests this got out into the media midstream in some kind of appeals process.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...250315,00.html

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Yes Smails, it is far nobler to brand the kid a fornicator because that fits your opinion of BYU, and then you and your ilk run with it.

Show me where I said the kid fornicated and I'll gladly print a retraction.

Drama queen.