Davies out for HC violation

Gunk wrote:
Repentance and things of a spiritual nature belong and should stay with the Bishop. On occasion, because of the grievance of the sin civic authorities have to be notified and worked with. There are very specific rules and procedures for such and not an ounce of repentance or spiritual guidance is lost on having to follow them.



I do not see, especially since HC violations carry more civic type consequences in regards to a student's eligibility, why set rules and procedures can not be put in place as to when a Bishop needs to involve the HC Office.



Church and state need to be separate, but on occasion they have to collaborate and when they do, it's helpful to have some guidelines in place. I actually think if you were to ask BYU Bishops, they'd welcome the policies.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

Repentance and things of a spiritual nature belong and should stay with the Bishop. On occasion, because of the grievance of the sin civic authorities have to be notified and worked with. There are very specific rules and procedures for such and not an ounce of repentance or spiritual guidance is lost on having to follow them.



I do not see, especially since HC violations carry more civic type consequences in regards to a student's eligibility, why set rules and procedures can not be put in place as to when a Bishop needs to involve the HC Office.



Church and state need to be separate, but on occasion they have to collaborate and when they do, it's helpful to have some guidelines in place. I actually think if you were to ask BYU Bishops, they'd welcome the policies.

Very well put.



(Now go join the catholic church! :P ;) :) )

BlueIsBetter wrote:

BlueIsBetter: I think you have mistaken me and taken something I said personally when it wasn't intended as such.



The point has been made by some people that Bishops should have set rules for how to handle HC violations and when to involve the HC Office and when not to. Likewise the HC Office should have specific set rules for how they handle each offense.



I don't like that idea. It removes the spirit of discernment from those who have the keys to use it (Bishops). I like the idea that Bishops and the HC office review each case on a case by case basis and mete out discipline as whispered to by the spirit.



There is another religion out there that doesn't do that, but instead has a proscribed penalty for every 'sin.' The Catholic Church. Have premarital sex? Say 36 Hail Mary's and you're done, every time, no matter what the circumstances.



Thats the entirety of what I mean.

First off, I didn't make that point. I said there could be a set "level" where BYU and the HCO need to be involved (ie, pregnancies - repeat offenders that seem unrepentant, and unwilling to change through numerous attempts - I'm sure there are others I can think of given time) because some Bishops overact sometimes, and can sometimes be biased (yes, even racist or jealous of athletics).



- Your response was that I "should Join the Catholic church."



Then you claimed that I was "telling a bunch of people who (how) to live their lives"

- I asked you where, and you didn't tell me (because i wasn't previously)



Then you tell me that I am "trying to take control of priesthood powers" and that it is my "plan" etc etc etc.



I'm just wondering how and why any of this came about. I am not the one doing the misunderstanding here... I'm the one being told to join the catholic church, and that I am trying to seize priesthood keys that don't belong to me.



???

Mars wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
BlueIsBetter: I think you have mistaken me and taken something I said personally when it wasn't intended as such.



The point has been made by some people that Bishops should have set rules for how to handle HC violations and when to involve the HC Office and when not to. Likewise the HC Office should have specific set rules for how they handle each offense.



I don't like that idea. It removes the spirit of discernment from those who have the keys to use it (Bishops). I like the idea that Bishops and the HC office review each case on a case by case basis and mete out discipline as whispered to by the spirit.



There is another religion out there that doesn't do that, but instead has a proscribed penalty for every 'sin.' The Catholic Church. Have premarital sex? Say 36 Hail Mary's and you're done, every time, no matter what the circumstances.



Thats the entirety of what I mean.

First off, I didn't make that point. I said there could be a set "level" where BYU and the HCO need to be involved (ie, pregnancies - repeat offenders that seem unrepentant, and unwilling to change through numerous attempts - I'm sure there are others I can think of given time) because some Bishops overact sometimes, and can sometimes be biased (yes, even racist or jealous of athletics).



- Your response was that I "should Join the Catholic church."



Then you claimed that I was "telling a bunch of people who (how) to live their lives"

- I asked you where, and you didn't tell me (because i wasn't previously)



Then you tell me that I am "trying to take control of priesthood powers" and that it is my "plan" etc etc etc.



I'm just wondering how and why any of this came about. I am not the one doing the misunderstanding here... I'm the one being told to join the catholic church, and that I am trying to seize priesthood keys that don't belong to me.



???

I think this is what I've been talking about. One mod personally attacks a poster, another mod supports them in doing so, and no one going back to delete those posts. Obviously no suspensions for mods. I find it unfair and hypocritical that board rules only apply to some groups of contributors but not to others. And I find it appropriate to point this out when proof exists and should be looked at by those involved. If the mods involved disagree, delete this post from the thread and PM me why.

Mars wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
BlueIsBetter: I think you have mistaken me and taken something I said personally when it wasn't intended as such.



The point has been made by some people that Bishops should have set rules for how to handle HC violations and when to involve the HC Office and when not to. Likewise the HC Office should have specific set rules for how they handle each offense.



I don't like that idea. It removes the spirit of discernment from those who have the keys to use it (Bishops). I like the idea that Bishops and the HC office review each case on a case by case basis and mete out discipline as whispered to by the spirit.



There is another religion out there that doesn't do that, but instead has a proscribed penalty for every 'sin.' The Catholic Church. Have premarital sex? Say 36 Hail Mary's and you're done, every time, no matter what the circumstances.



Thats the entirety of what I mean.

First off, I didn't make that point. I said there could be a set "level" where BYU and the HCO need to be involved (ie, pregnancies - repeat offenders that seem unrepentant, and unwilling to change through numerous attempts - I'm sure there are others I can think of given time) because some Bishops overact sometimes, and can sometimes be biased (yes, even racist or jealous of athletics).



- Your response was that I "should Join the Catholic church."



Then you claimed that I was "telling a bunch of people who (how) to live their lives"

- I asked you where, and you didn't tell me (because i wasn't previously)



Then you tell me that I am "trying to take control of priesthood powers" and that it is my "plan" etc etc etc.



I'm just wondering how and why any of this came about. I am not the one doing the misunderstanding here... I'm the one being told to join the catholic church, and that I am trying to seize priesthood keys that don't belong to me.



???

I think this is what I've been talking about. One mod personally attacks a poster, another mod supports them in doing so, and no one going back to delete those posts. Obviously no suspensions for mods. I find it unfair and hypocritical that board rules only apply to some groups of contributors but not to others. And I find it appropriate to point this out when proof exists and should be looked at by those involved. If the mods involved disagree, delete this post from the thread and PM me why.

jonnylingo wrote:
I feel bad for Davies.

Matty-B wrote:

I feel bad for Davies.

Why? What happened?

taekwondave wrote:
Nobody is arguing against the church continuing that practice. They're arguing against them extending the practice to be included in the University. I don't see how people can't separate these two.

Y 4 Ever wrote:

jonnylingo wrote:
I feel bad for Davies.

Why? What happened?

He just discovered that Michelle Peralta is his cousin.

hawkwing wrote:

Gunk wrote:
Repentance and things of a spiritual nature belong and should stay with the Bishop. On occasion, because of the grievance of the sin civic authorities have to be notified and worked with. There are very specific rules and procedures for such and not an ounce of repentance or spiritual guidance is lost on having to follow them.



I do not see, especially since HC violations carry more civic type consequences in regards to a student's eligibility, why set rules and procedures can not be put in place as to when a Bishop needs to involve the HC Office.



Church and state need to be separate, but on occasion they have to collaborate and when they do, it's helpful to have some guidelines in place. I actually think if you were to ask BYU Bishops, they'd welcome the policies.

Very well put.



(Now go join the catholic church! :P ;) :) )

I agree with BlueIsBetter, you should join the Catholic Church! But really, as Urroner brought up elsewhere, how do you tell the BYU students they must live chaste lives, if breaking that sin is only between the student and the bishop? What about those who aren't LDS and chastity isn't a big issue? Or drinking?