MANTI's Bishop backs him up...

Cougarbib wrote:
I just find it interesting that everyone wants to skewer a guy that carries tremendous responsibility in his spare time without being paid to do it and people like you are more focused on his imperfection as he tried to do the right thing than you are about the imperfections of the guy who intentionally did the wrong thing.

People saying the bishop shouldn't have said what he did and that he'll likely be released does not necessarily mean they are judging him to be a bad person. But we all know that in the church, public missteps are treated differently than private missteps, and for good reason.

Sammich wrote:

I just find it interesting that everyone wants to skewer a guy that carries tremendous responsibility in his spare time without being paid to do it and people like you are more focused on his imperfection as he tried to do the right thing than you are about the imperfections of the guy who intentionally did the wrong thing.

People saying the bishop shouldn't have said what he did and that he'll likely be released does not necessarily mean they are judging him to be a bad person. But we all know that in the church, public missteps are treated differently than private missteps, and for good reason.

You misses my point. My point is that nobody seems to have much of an issue with the criminal behavior of the perpetrator of the hoax. They just want to skewer everyone who screwed up in their handling of the hoax.



But being the Bishop is like being the football coach except unpaid. Thankless job at times. Thick skib required. Hopefully blessings will pour forth on him and his family.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
Actually, one of the player/hosts, Siloah Teo was dismissed from the team.

That was for a later DUI, not for partying with Manti.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I thought it was from a DUI from that night of the visit. I could be wrong. I had also heard that Bronco asked Shiloah if he had been drinking that night as well and told Bronco no. He was dismissed for lying to Bronco as much as anything.



And yes, we're the only ones who "continue to state" facts "despite all evidence and reason to the contrary."

Okay, I can see why you'd come to your conclusion if you thought that it was the same night. However it wasn't. The recruiting visit was in January and the DUI occurred the next August. Bronco apparently became aware or the incident 6 games into the season when Te'o had to go to court.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Cougarbib wrote:

Cougarbib wrote:
I just find it interesting that everyone wants to skewer a guy that carries tremendous responsibility in his spare time without being paid to do it and people like you are more focused on his imperfection as he tried to do the right thing than you are about the imperfections of the guy who intentionally did the wrong thing.

People saying the bishop shouldn't have said what he did and that he'll likely be released does not necessarily mean they are judging him to be a bad person. But we all know that in the church, public missteps are treated differently than private missteps, and for good reason.

You misses my point. My point is that nobody seems to have much of an issue with the criminal behavior of the perpetrator of the hoax. They just want to skewer everyone who screwed up in their handling of the hoax.



But being the Bishop is like being the football coach except unpaid. Thankless job at times. Thick skib required. Hopefully blessings will pour forth on him and his family.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I agree. Manti totally mishandled the situation by lying but that and the Bishop's vague statement a out Manti's church activity is hardly cause to skewer the guy. It's especially far fetched to conclude he wouldn't have made it at BYU. After all, short of an arrest, grades or a child, how many big name athletes have been kicked out?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

[quote="Cougarbib]nobody seems to have much of an issue with the criminal behavior of the perpetrator of the hoax. [/quote]



What crime was committed???? I've yet to hear anything pointing towards any crime. Yeah, there could be a civil suit (but it would be super shaky since damages would be a hard sell even if they found a jurisdiction that was easy on emotional harm), but nothing I've read indicates anything criminal happened.

snoscythe wrote:
[quote="Cougarbib]nobody seems to have much of an issue with the criminal behavior of the perpetrator of the hoax.

What crime was committed???? I've yet to hear anything pointing towards any crime. Yeah, there could be a civil suit (but it would be super shaky since damages would be a hard sell even if they found a jurisdiction that was easy on emotional harm), but nothing I've read indicates anything criminal happened.[/quote][/quote]



Bib also makes the huge assumption that Manti had nothing to do with perpetrating the whole thing.

I don't understand why everyone is calling for the bishop's head? If I'm Manti, I'm fine with him going public as it validates manti's story. Assuming the bishop isn't lying, and Manti consented to him going public, I see no wrong with what he did. It sort of just sounds like people are mad that he defended Manti--enemy of cougar nation.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:
I don't understand why everyone is calling for the bishop's head? If I'm Manti, I'm fine with him going public as it validates manti's story. Assuming the bishop isn't lying, and Manti consented to him going public, I see no wrong with what he did. It sort of just sounds like people are mad that he defended Manti--enemy of cougar nation.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

It has nothing to do with Manti--it has to do with the 300+ other congregants who now have reason to doubt his ability to keep things confidential. Even if he had 100% green light from Manti, he compromised the trust everyone else has in him. That's why he'll be released.



Also, I don't think anyone is calling for his head--most of us are merely predicting that it will be the natural fallout of the interview. I don't think anyone has demanded he be released.

snoscythe wrote:
[quote="Cougarbib]nobody seems to have much of an issue with the criminal behavior of the perpetrator of the hoax.

What crime was committed???? I've yet to hear anything pointing towards any crime. Yeah, there could be a civil suit (but it would be super shaky since damages would be a hard sell even if they found a jurisdiction that was easy on emotional harm), but nothing I've read indicates anything criminal happened.[/quote][/quote]



And yet were there not statements saying this was under investigation.



I have seen kids get in trouble with the law for making prank phone calls. This was a series of prank phone calls intended to deceive the victim and only time will tell if it was just a prank or eventual fraud intent was there. We may nevet know. It may have just been a huge prank.



But here you are glossing over the behavior like it was no big deal.



Whethet criminal or not - the worst behavior in this saga was the prankster and the woyld be judges.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

snoscythe wrote:

I don't understand why everyone is calling for the bishop's head? If I'm Manti, I'm fine with him going public as it validates manti's story. Assuming the bishop isn't lying, and Manti consented to him going public, I see no wrong with what he did. It sort of just sounds like people are mad that he defended Manti--enemy of cougar nation.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

It has nothing to do with Manti--it has to do with the 300+ other congregants who now have reason to doubt his ability to keep things confidential. Even if he had 100% green light from Manti, he compromised the trust everyone else has in him. That's why he'll be released.



Also, I don't think anyone is calling for his head--most of us are merely predicting that it will be the natural fallout of the interview. I don't think anyone has demanded he be released.

Be sure to track that. Uber important you know.



Lets revisit what he said

Manti was not an active member of the congregation - public knowledge

The Bishop visited Manti on occasion and talked to the fake girlfriend himself in occasion

Manti expressed a desire to move back towards activity



Truly troubling revelations.



Did I miss some more detailed revelation?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Cougarbib wrote:

Cougarbib wrote:
nobody seems to have much of an issue with the criminal behavior of the perpetrator of the hoax.

What crime was committed???? I've yet to hear anything pointing towards any crime. Yeah, there could be a civil suit (but it would be super shaky since damages would be a hard sell even if they found a jurisdiction that was easy on emotional harm), but nothing I've read indicates anything criminal happened.

And yet were there not statements saying this was under investigation.

I have yet to see any legal authority investigating this. Even if they are, investigating fall far short of indicating a crime was committed.

I have seen kids get in trouble with the law for making prank phone calls. This was a series of prank phone calls intended to deceive the victim and only time will tell if it was just a prank or eventual fraud intent was there. We may nevet know. It may have just been a huge prank.

Prank calls are only illegal if they are harassing/sexual in nature or meant to intimidate. None of that is indicated by Manti's versions of events. They can also be grounds for fraud/wire fraud charges, but "intent" is not enough--even if the pranksters intended to eventually ask for money, if they never got that far you don't have any inchoate offense to charge them with. Manti has denied that they ever asked him for any money. At best some overzealous noob at DOJ's white collar division could look at the flowers that Manti sent, but that would be a helluva stretch under the current caselaw.

But here you are glossing over the behavior like it was no big deal.

[/quote][/quote]



No I'm not--you called it "criminal" when it's not. I'm just correcting your knee-jerk classification of the facts.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
[quote="Cougarbib]nobody seems to have much of an issue with the criminal behavior of the perpetrator of the hoax.

What crime was committed???? I've yet to hear anything pointing towards any crime. Yeah, there could be a civil suit (but it would be super shaky since damages would be a hard sell even if they found a jurisdiction that was easy on emotional harm), but nothing I've read indicates anything criminal happened.

And yet were there not statements saying this was under investigation.

I have yet to see any legal authority investigating this. Even if they are, investigating fall far short of indicating a crime was committed.

I have seen kids get in trouble with the law for making prank phone calls. This was a series of prank phone calls intended to deceive the victim and only time will tell if it was just a prank or eventual fraud intent was there. We may nevet know. It may have just been a huge prank.

Prank calls are only illegal if they are harassing/sexual in nature or meant to intimidate. None of that is indicated by Manti's versions of events. They can also be grounds for fraud/wire fraud charges, but "intent" is not enough--even if the pranksters intended to eventually ask for money, if they never got that far you don't have any inchoate offense to charge them with. Manti has denied that they ever asked him for any money. At best some overzealous noob at DOJ's white collar division could look at the flowers that Manti sent, but that would be a helluva stretch under the current caselaw.

But here you are glossing over the behavior like it was no big deal.

[/quote][/quote]



No I'm not--you called it "criminal" when it's not. I'm just correcting your knee-jerk classification of the facts.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]



How bout conspiracy to commit fraud? I get that he is innocent until proven guilty - and perhaps ithe investigation will fail to find or prove any criminal act. But sorry - even if he gets a pass because he got interrupted before he could blackmail Teo or do whatever he intended - intent to harm us still criminal because of intent to commit a crime.



It was criminal what he did even if no crime was committed. In the eyes of the ultimate judge, what this guy has admitted doing was criminal.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Actually, it may in fact be criminal behavior.



From Steward Mandell on twitter:

I tweeted too soon. According to Daily News, a California law went into effect Jan. 1 making it a crime to create a false identity online.

snoscythe wrote:

I don't understand why everyone is calling for the bishop's head? If I'm Manti, I'm fine with him going public as it validates manti's story. Assuming the bishop isn't lying, and Manti consented to him going public, I see no wrong with what he did. It sort of just sounds like people are mad that he defended Manti--enemy of cougar nation.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

It has nothing to do with Manti--it has to do with the 300+ other congregants who now have reason to doubt his ability to keep things confidential. Even if he had 100% green light from Manti, he compromised the trust everyone else has in him. That's why he'll be released.



Also, I don't think anyone is calling for his head--most of us are merely predicting that it will be the natural fallout of the interview. I don't think anyone has demanded he be released.

How would releasing non confidential information (Manti's consent makes it not confidential), make 300 members worry about the bishop's a ability to keep confidential information?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

How would releasing non confidential information (Manti's consent makes it not confidential), make 300 members worry about the bishop's a ability to keep confidential information?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Manti's consent in the matter is not clear, only assumed by some. We might all be saying differently if the Bishop had said Manti gave him permission to reveal everything.

Sammich wrote:

How would releasing non confidential information (Manti's consent makes it not confidential), make 300 members worry about the bishop's a ability to keep confidential information?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Manti's consent in the matter is not clear, only assumed by some. We might all be saying differently if the Bishop had said Manti gave him permission to reveal everything.

Yes--i totally agree with this. If there was no consent, it's clearly wrong and I'd expect him to be out ASAP. Y



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

He needed credible allies. He found a perceived one. However, even if he had consent from Manti, he would not likely have had consent from his chain of authority. This is too visible for the Church's liking. But, not all Bishops seek permission first before speaking out.

Here's what I think. We as BYU fans read things different than most of the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world will have no problem with what the Bishop said. And, most of the rest of the world will think us crazy for reading as much into what he said as we have done.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
He needed credible allies. He found a perceived one. However, even if he had consent from Manti, he would not likely have had consent from his chain of authority. This is too visible for the Church's liking. But, not all Bishops seek permission first before speaking out.

Why would the Church want to withhold information if this Bishop really talked to the "girl"?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">