NOM

I know a woman who was tried at the stake level. I don't know why that was. But she was asked specific questions about the DETAILS of her sexual indiscretions. She was mortified and caught off-guard. She, with as much humility and pois as possible, gave answers. She felt like the men in the room were a "bunch of dirty old men!" (Her words).

You can't tell me abuse doesn't happen...BULLSH!T!...IT DOES.

We talk in other threads about how raising your hand in opposition is meaningless. Well, the drawing names from a hat, and having half the people there making sure you don't get abused is the same meaningless idea as well. I've seen stake presidents run roughshod over the top of people. And half the people in that room during such courts are closet masterbators/porn users themselves, so when the "moral" questions come,...its such utterly ridiculous.

I wouldn't go to the court. Skip it. Resign first. I wouldn't sign a document like that ever.

I would sign it and still record it.

There's no way it's legally binding. You're merely signing that you will honor a request to not record a private meeting in a public church building.

The law is still one party consent.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:20 pm I would sign it and still record it.

There's no way it's legally binding. You're merely signing that you will honor a request to not record a private meeting in a public church building.

The law is still one party consent.

For what it's worth, that was my recommendation as well.

Record it and post it, together with the letter and how the only way the SP would let you attend your own disciplinary hearing was on condition you did not record it.

Then send the SP a link.

That should do the trick.

Unfortunately, this couple takes seriously their obligation to be honest.

That spoils so much of the fun.

Their obligation to be honest should only be equivalent to the church's obligation to be honest.

We all know how institutionally dishonest the church is.

Record and post!

I've already decided I would resign before attending a court at all.

This agreement is basically saying, "we don't want to be accountable for our actions, and we plan to mistreat you."

I hope someone sends this on to Mormon Leaks.

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:28 pm After hearing about so many counsels like this, it seems to me they are just a proceedural thing when the decision has already been made. so I would sign it show up just to spite them and make them do the dirty deed.

On the flip side you could claim all sorts of crazy stuff after the fact and claim no recording was allowed so how could they prove you wrong.

Of the ones I've seen, this is absolutely the case. But what really turned my stomach was watching the stake presidency pretend as though they weren't discussing a person's excommunication just an hour before as if the decision hadn't been made.

Disciplinary proceedings are 100% theater. There are two audiences in any stake disciplinary council: The High Counselors along with any spectators and the member being disciplined. The High Council forms a type of brotherhood during the proceeding and make the condemnation look more universal and widespread than it actually is. They grow closer together and the sheer torture of having to watch someone humiliated and cut off from the church shores up their own loyalty and obedience out of fear. The dark secret of those attending a disciplinary council is that they can each see themselves at the end of that table, and it terrifies them.

The member being disciplined is there for the purpose of being broken. Their ego needs to become shattered and so ground into dust that the church will be able to reform them into a new person, a new ego, over the "repentance" period. Anyone who shows an ounce of self respect, or in anyway defends themselves are not properly destroyed, and the process will continue until they are. Excommunication, public shaming, and humiliation are enough to bring even the most prideful believer into line.

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:05 pm I've already decided I would resign before attending a court at all.

This was my decision. I had decided a long time ago that I wasn't going to play on their turf anymore. No more guilt tripping or threatening me with the loss of my family. No more hovering at their beck and call. When a member is "summoned" to the Bishop or Stake Pres. office and they go, they are acknowledging the authority of the corporation over their life. You are on their playing field.

The first thing you do with an entity that seeks to control all aspects of your life is to take away its power. Cut it off at the knees, castrate it, show it who's really in control, beat it back into its cage and lock the damn door. You don't play patty-cake with it or try to appease it. You don't play by their rules anymore. That deck is stacked against you from the get-go.

This turns my stomach

consiglieri wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:21 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:10 pm So what happens if you don't sign it? Court o' Love cancelled? Call a second CoL to discipline you for not signing the no-record agreement for the first one, and then expect you to sign for the second?

My understanding is that the cost of not signing is non-admittance to the court of love, which will go on with or without them.

It is the price of admission to their own kangaroo court.

Since the outcome is probably already determined the only thing that would be accomplished by attending would be a vain to make yourself understood by a roomful of men who will do their best to put you in your place and humiliate you anyway, and have you walk away without so much as a record of what happened. I stand by my plan that if it ever happened to me I would probably just send a pizza delivery boy in my place. I'm sure that would make for a better experience for everyone in the long run.

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:03 amThe first thing you do with an entity that seeks to control all aspects of your life is to take away its power. Cut it off at the knees, castrate it, show it who's really in control, beat it back into its cage and lock the damn door. You don't play patty-cake with it or try to appease it. You don't play by their rules anymore. That deck is stacked against you from the get-go.

Right! Like take off their underwear and stop paying them money!

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:36 amI stand by my plan that if it ever happened to me I would probably just send a pizza delivery boy in my place. I'm sure that would make for a better experience for everyone in the long run.

Ooh, this is good! I suppose that a pizza delivery person could also deliver a letter of resignation. Make sure to give them a really good tip!

Include something in the letter like: Hey guys, thanks for thinking of me. Lets just make this easy: I'm done, and so are you. Now have a quick bite and head home to your families instead of wasting your time telling me now awful I am. Don't forget to bless the pizza!

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:26 am Right! Like take off their underwear and stop paying them money!

Hold on for a question of phrasing and 5th grade grammar! In your sentence it's not clear who is wearing the underwear at the time you remove "their" underwear. Are you wearing underwear that belongs to someone else? Are you removing underwear that they are wearing at the time? Are you not in control of your own underwear? Do you have control over someone else's underwear? Is this what Mormonism has come to? (Answer: yes)

I suppose that underwear confusion is why I would be the duplicitous malcontent that would sign the agreement then record the disciplinary hearing anyway. I have absolute respect for the principled individuals in this discussion that would simply resign first. But I am planning attend my own disciplinary council if/when it occurs because I think it would be interesting. I will probably bring donuts.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:37 am The member being disciplined is there for the purpose of being broken. Their ego needs to become shattered and so ground into dust that the church will be able to reform them into a new person, a new ego, over the "repentance" period. Anyone who shows an ounce of self respect, or in anyway defends themselves are not properly destroyed, and the process will continue until they are. Excommunication, public shaming, and humiliation are enough to bring even the most prideful believer into line.

It keeps many inline, yes. But there are some who it tempers. It can be the turning point of no return back, and can actually strengthen some. IN this latter case, however, it is a total backfire from the intended purpose which you mention.


I know several who have gone through discipline. Glad the church is so good at forcing others to be honest, and justifying "in the Name of the Lord" institutional dishonesty.

Corsair wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:28 am But I am planning attend my own disciplinary council if/when it occurs because I think it would be interesting. I will probably bring donuts.

LOL. DUDE!....that would totally take the wind out of the SP and HC sails. Hillarious!.....they would accuse you of being totally under the influence of Satan or drugs...OR WAIT...Being a closet masterbator!. YOU EVIL MAN YOU!!!!!! THAT EXPLAINS IT!

hmmmm....Well, back on topic.

Their power is what people give them. They can't force you into anything. But they can shure be pr!cks about it all.

Just sign it with a really sloppy signature that reads "Korihor Van AntiChrist"

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:20 pm I would sign it and still record it.

There's no way it's legally binding. You're merely signing that you will honor a request to not record a private meeting in a public church building.

The law is still one party consent.

That's what I'd do, as well. And if the document was brought up later, I'd point out that I'd signed it "under duress" as they had convinced me that I would not be allowed to attend my own col without signing it, a court that would send my very soul into the depths of eternal hell.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:37 amAnyone who shows an ounce of self respect, or in anyway defends themselves are not properly destroyed, and the process will continue until they are. Excommunication, public shaming, and humiliation are enough to bring even the most prideful believer into line.

Crap, you make me glad I resigned instead of throwing myself to the wolves.

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:03 am The first thing you do with an entity that seeks to control all aspects of your life is to take away its power. Cut it off at the knees, castrate it, show it who's really in control, beat it back into its cage and lock the damn door. You don't play patty-cake with it or try to appease it. You don't play by their rules anymore. That deck is stacked against you from the get-go.

(applause) (boom!) I think this needs to be shouted from the housetops.

Corsair wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:28 am

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:26 am Right! Like take off their underwear and stop paying them money!

Hold on for a question of phrasing and 5th grade grammar! In your sentence it's not clear who is wearing the underwear at the time you remove "their" underwear. Are you wearing underwear that belongs to someone else? Are you removing underwear that they are wearing at the time? Are you not in control of your own underwear? Do you have control over someone else's underwear? Is this what Mormonism has come to? (Answer: yes)

Omigosh! That gave me an image of Red Ryder taking off the leaders' underwear while they were all tied up on the floor.

Corsair wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:28 amBut I am planning attend my own disciplinary council if/when it occurs because I think it would be interesting. I will probably bring donuts.

I know some people who brought cookies or brownies (I forget which).