Kids send dirty pictures to each other

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by marsupial

A bomb is illegal. Naughty photos are not. So, a school has authority over a student's actions when they are not at school and it is not a school day? So, could they get suspended for having sex at Squaw Peak on a Saturday night?

The point is not the making of the bomb, it is the sending of it to school. Sex at Squaw peak is outside the school's purview. SENDING pictures of the sex act to school (what the girls did) and then possessing them (what the guy did) would be in the school's purview. That is whyI thought it might be important whether they meant to send them to school or whether it was reasonably forseeable that they would be recieved there.

Also, possessing child pornography is illegal, although merely viewing it is not. If the girls possessed pornographic pictures of themselves and each other, I believe that is a crime.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This sounds awefully pedantic and paternalistic. I see the protection aspect as extending to wife and children, not to women in general. In fact, if I were to voice that my duty as a priesthood holder is protect women, I'd be laughed into the ground. We're adults. If one party consents with another to have sex, we're both to share in the responsibility.

Pedantic or not, it is the way I feel the women of the church are treated by the Priesthood--like they are supposed to be protected by them. Sometimes this "protection" seems chivalrous, other times it seems annoying or even controlling.

I don't think we completely disagree on this issue. My original post was merely intended to counter Rocky's whining, but somehow I mixed myself up in a debate for which I, thankfully, have no firsthand experience. I am fine with woman offenders being treated like their Priesthood counterparts. I know this will probably sound a little wishy washy, but, as long as men hold the governing power in the church, I am also fine with women receiving a milder rebuke for the same offense.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

The point is not the making of the bomb, it is the sending of it to school. Sex at Squaw peak is outside the school's purview. SENDING pictures of the sex act to school (what the girls did) and then possessing them (what the guy did) would be in the school's purview. That is whyI thought it might be important whether they meant to send them to school or whether it was reasonably forseeable that they would be recieved there.

Also, possessing child pornography is illegal, although merely viewing it is not. If the girls possessed pornographic pictures of themselves and each other, I believe that is a crime.

Did the OP say they sent the pictures to him while he was at school? Perhaps I missed that. I assumed they were sent at another time and he just brought them to school and proceeded to forward them there.

Nonetheless, I did not know that it was illegal for a minor to take sexually explicit photos of herself. It makes sense though. Thanks for the legal explanation.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by marsupial

Pedantic or not, it is the way I feel the women of the church are treated by the Priesthood--like they are supposed to be protected by them. Sometimes this "protection" seems chivalrous, other times it seems annoying or even controlling.

I don't think we completely disagree on this issue. My original post was merely intended to counter Rocky's whining, but somehow I mixed myself up in a debate for which I, thankfully, have no firsthand experience. I am fine with woman offenders being treated like their Priesthood counterparts. I know this will probably sound a little wishy washy, but, as long as men hold the governing power in the church, I am also fine with women receiving a milder rebuke for the same offense.

Well if men could shirk their responsibility, they would. Oh wait, many do.

[MikeWaters]

viewing child porn is not a crime? so if someone is browsing child porn that is not a crime? but if the images are cached then it is a crime?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by marsupial

Pedantic or not, it is the way I feel the women of the church are treated by the Priesthood--like they are supposed to be protected by them. Sometimes this "protection" seems chivalrous, other times it seems annoying or even controlling.

I don't think we completely disagree on this issue. My original post was merely intended to counter Rocky's whining, but somehow I mixed myself up in a debate for which I, thankfully, have no firsthand experience. I am fine with woman offenders being treated like their Priesthood counterparts. I know this will probably sound a little wishy washy, but, as long as men hold the governing power in the church, I am also fine with women receiving a milder rebuke for the same offense.

What you perceive as whining, is in reality, actual firsthand experience, that of which you admittedly have no experience. And yes it does make a huge difference.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe excommunication works, as only five percent of those ex'ed ever return. The process is too long and arduous to be worth it.

Where did you get your 5% figure? Just curious...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Where did you get your 5% figure? Just curious...

From one of the Twelve in Stake Conference, confirmed again to me by my stake conference and my bishop just recently.

Basically, by excommunicating, you're saying goodbye to the member. It takes up to seven years to be back in good standing with blessings reinstated.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

From one of the Twelve in Stake Conference, confirmed again to me by my stake conference and my bishop just recently.

Basically, by excommunicating, you're saying goodbye to the member. It takes up to seven years to be back in good standing with blessings reinstated.

A girl I went on a date with in St. George on my way down to the MWC Conference has only been ex'd for 1 1/2..maybe it's 2 1/2 years I can't quite remember....anyways she's already getting re-baptized May 5th.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

A girl I went on a date with in St. George on my way down to the MWC Conference has only been ex'd for 1 1/2..maybe it's 2 1/2 years I can't quite remember....anyways she's already getting re-baptized May 5th.

That's not full fellowship. The next stage, reinstatement of blessings lasts a long, long time. It requires a General Authority to perform it.