This is a shocking and disappointing story... My take is predictable: young people of any religion can be knuckleheads. Still -- what a poor way to represent their faith. They should be prosecuted in Colorado and the church should take some action against them as well. Clearly, they do not share the values of the LDS church. If, in some cases, ex-communication is considered to be called for on subjects like public disagreement with the church on controversial issues, what should the punishment be for something _really_ outrageous, such as what these three men did?
I have to wonder why not one of these clowns had the good sense to say "Wait a minute guys, I know wrong when I see it. We need to not do this."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What an amazing way to not only break the law, but show an amazing amount of contempt and disrespect for another religion. I hope they are punished mightily, and at the same time, I really hope there is no backlash against the LDS church for this.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm wondering what was going through the mind of the photographer.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm wondering what was going through the mind of the photographer.
I had the same thought about that puppy video from last week. Why in the world do people photograph themselves doing things that can get them into trouble?
--j_k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the Church should ask for compensation for any physical damage, publicly forgive them, and not seek to file charges.
I appreciate the response of the LDS official in this.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Oh, man. What idiots. I am ashamed for them.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
This saddens and sickens me. However, from the things said in the article, it sounds like the young men will be facing consequences. A good overview of what usually happens in such situations can be found in this article here.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Man. I'm glad they got caught, although I'm sorry for the negative image that this gives to the LDS church in the minds of all who live in that community, attend that church or read about this act.
I seem to recall that Pres. Monson was known for giving a "don't be stupid" talk to young missionaries in the MTC; don't know if he's done that in recent years. This goes beyond stupid, though.
So much for raising the bar.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Utterly ridiculous. Were I in charge of those elders and I felt the community was not seeking to harm the missionaries I would make them clean up what they disfigured, as well as make them all apologize in person to the church heads. I'd also use LDS church funds to monetarily compensate the church for repairs.
I'd probably send all three missionaries home as well.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
This part
quote:Robert Fotheringham...in charge of the...missionary program in....the San Luis Valley, declined to release names of the missionaries.
I really don't understand. Are their daddys big muckety-mucks being protected from embarrassment, or what? If kiddies screw up, grown-ups make their kids fess up and apologize as well. Not say "Sorry. We know who did it and we'll pay ya off."
Is Fotheringham trying to pick a fight with Catholics by forcing them to turn to the law in order to find out who's responsible?
[ March 10, 2008, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I interpreted that as not releasing the names to the press, not to the Catholic Church, but it's not clear what was meant.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
ahhh... Not releasing the names to the press makes sense. I hope your interpretation is correct.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I read it as not releasing the names to the press.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
That's what everyone except aspectre read it as.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
It's unfortunate that nasty events like this are generally the ones to make it into the news. I'm surprised that individuals like this would volunteer for missionary work in the first place.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"That's what everyone except aspectre read it as."
Comes from reading and hearing too many statements from too many politicians, spin doctors, and political commentators. Then misusing that mindset when reading stuff coming from regular folks.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:That's what everyone except aspectre read it as.
Untrue. It isn't clear from the text, but my initial assumption was that he wouldn't release the identities, period. It can be interpreted either way, and to come to a conclusion either way, based on what was written, requires a small assumption on the part of the reader.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm surprised that individuals like this would volunteer for missionary work in the first place.
There is a lot of pressure for young LDS males to serve a mission. They sing songs about it when they are children and are supposed to save money for it from a very young age. It's just What You Do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "That's what everyone except aspectre read it as."
Comes from reading and hearing too many statements from too many politicians, spin doctors, and political commentators. Then misusing that mindset when reading stuff coming from regular folks.
You should also note that this maybe a sensitive religious issue requiring confidentiality. If these missionaries confessed their misdeeds to a church leader and/or if they are involved in church disciplinary hearings on this issue, then many of the details may be covered by the same sort of rules of secrecy that apply to Catholic confessionals. Please recognize that there are legitimate religious reasons for refusing to divulge confidential information that may have nothing in common with the typical public cover up of misdeeds.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Why in the world do people photograph themselves doing things that can get them into trouble?
True that. On further examination, not only did they photograph themselves but they put the pictures on photobucket (from context, I would assume a photo-sharing service like Picasa or Flickr). That somewhat implies that they felt that there might be a larger audience to share their moment with.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I'm surprised that individuals like this would volunteer for missionary work in the first place.
There is a lot of pressure for young LDS males to serve a mission. They sing songs about it when they are children and are supposed to save money for it from a very young age. It's just What You Do.
I've wondered about that in the past. It's not just What You Do, you do it at such a young age. I know there's lots of reasons to go on a mission at 18, but for me it was very difficult to have a very good conversation with missionaries so young. They were honest and well-informed about their beliefs, but the older missionaries I spoke to had a greater "normal" education and greater life experience, and were able to answer my questions in a far more satisfying way.
Anyway, I'm not sure how much sense that made, but I often wonder what benefits there might be to sending missionaries out even 2 or 3 years older.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I had to look up where this took place, as I just returned several months ago from the Denver South Mission. Luckily it was in the Colorado Springs Mission and didn't involve anyone I knew.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Anyway, I'm not sure how much sense that made, but I often wonder what benefits there might be to sending missionaries out even 2 or 3 years older.
There would be lots of benefits for the missionary effort but it would be much more difficult for the missionaries. The way it is now, young men leave for their missions in the year following their high school graduation. Many leave before they start college, most leave before they are significantly involved in a particular course of study. If they left 2 to 3 years later (as the young women do) it would be a much big disruption in their education. More of them would be romatically involved and considering marriage. More of them would have responsible jobs that were harder to leave. All in all, its much easier and less disruptive for the missionaries to go when they are 19 than it would be 2 or 3 years later.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Why do the young women leave later then?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There would be lots of benefits for the missionary effort but it would be much more difficult for the missionaries. The way it is now, young men leave for their missions in the year following their high school graduation. Many leave before they start college, most leave before they are significantly involved in a particular course of study. If they left 2 to 3 years later (as the young women do) it would be a much big disruption in their education. More of them would be romatically involved and considering marriage. More of them would have responsible jobs that were harder to leave. All in all, its much easier and less disruptive for the missionaries to go when they are 19 than it would be 2 or 3 years later.
But the women manage somehow. They suffer a disrupted education or romantic/family commitments. If it's so important a thing to do, shouldn't having the best and most effective missionaries possible be a vital concern?
I do understand that it's easier. (And thank you for the gentle correction about the age missionaries leave. ) But it's those exact "difficult" experiences that would make them more effective missionaries. In my case, the women who visited made the men seem almost childish by comparison. It's easier to talk to someone who's been where you've been, or at least visited the metaphorical neighbourhood. Or maybe I'm just a tough crowd. I don't go out of my way to be so, but it seems to end up that way most of the time.
Haha, listen to the Catholic voicing concerns over the effectiveness of Mormon missionaries! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But the women manage somehow. They suffer a disrupted education or romantic/family commitments.
And far far fewer of them go missions.
quote:If it's so important a thing to do, shouldn't having the best and most effective missionaries possible be a vital concern?
But we also believe that education is important, marriage and family are important, being a productive contributing citizen is important as are many other things in life. We have to strike a balance between those things and the balance we have chosen is to send young men on missions at a point in which it is least disruptive to their education, career and family life.
We might have more effective missionaries if we sent them out at 30 after they'd studied religion for a decade, but would we have as effective husbands, fathers, wives and mothers? Would we be productive members of our communities? Would we have qualified contributing lay ministers in our congregations?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Why do the young women leave later then?
Tradition!
But seriously that's a difficult question and I've never got a fully satisfactory answer to it.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Ah, I see.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
As a young man preparing for a mission, I am utterly sickened by this. What better way to prepare to field than to make people misinterpret our beliefs, our motives, our inter-religious relations... It boggles the mind. The idiots! That single act of stupidity has probably screwed over the entire missionary effort in that town.
Boredom is no excuse. From what I've heard from returned missionaries, they don't get a lot of down time while out on the field; any spare time should be used to stretch out and find more contacts to work with, or fortify/strengthen relationships that are already in progress. If someone pleads boredom and restlessness as an excuse for vandalism, it merely means that the missionaries in question didn't work their butts hard enough to have a full schedule--which says more about them than anything else.
And the question of maturity: I think you'll find that while many missionaries are sent due to pressure from others, you'll also find some simply astounding young men out on missions. Their enthusiasm is hard to rival--most missionaries serve as the primary drive for the ward to stretch out to new individuals. If you sent out guys that have to leave full families behind for a couple of years, then they'd be far less enthusiastic about it--we need to get out there before we attain any sort of serious attachment to anyone or anything in particular. Otherwise, we'll just be distracted.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I'm genuinely not trying to be antagonistic, Rabbit. I hope I don't come off that way!
I understand, and it's a difficult balance to strike. I'm still glad most of my visits were with the young women, though. Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
MEC - Where did you serve? I live in the Golden stake.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree that, should the people involved apologize and make restitution for any damages, I would hope that no charges would need to be filed.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm horrified by this. Stupid missionaries.
I'm tempted to share other stupid missionaries stories from my mission, but nothing like this happened. There was the occasional missionary who broke mission rules concerning dating and got sent home, and there was this one braniac district leader of mine who got a tatoo from a sleazy part of town (calling your mother to tell her you need insurance information so you can get a full battery of blood tests is not fun), but nothing like this. I'm so sad that it happened.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
As far as not releasing their names to the press -- I imagine that won't last long.
Since they are missionaries, I assume they are all over 18. Since they will probably be charged with vandalism, then their names will appear in police documents as such, and will not be protected by laws covering the releasing of juvenile names.
It will be a great shame to their families. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You should also note that this maybe a sensitive religious issue requiring confidentiality. If these missionaries confessed their misdeeds to a church leader and/or if they are involved in church disciplinary hearings on this issue, then many of the details may be covered by the same sort of rules of secrecy that apply to Catholic confessionals. Please recognize that there are legitimate religious reasons for refusing to divulge confidential information that may have nothing in common with the typical public cover up of misdeeds.
If church leaders are being asked to identify people from a photograph priviledge of the confessional does not apply. (And wouldn't for a Catholic priest or other denominational clergy that hears confessions either.) It would only apply if they were asked if they knew who did it and the only way they knew was through a confession or counseling relationship. Being asked if you recognize a person in a photo has nothing to do with whether or not you've heard their confession.
Edit to note: this is something I have been trained in as a clergyperson. The legal line can be blurred in places, but this is no where close to it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm sure church officials are cooperating fully with law enforcement in this matter. However, they probably won't be too open-mouthed to the press beyond some prepared statements.
I am glad I do not have to sit through the dressing down these young men are going to get. They were representing the church's good name and instead gave the church a black eye, and not just at the PR level.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Anybody have any idea what the statute of limitations is for these guys?
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eisenoxyde: MEC - Where did you serve? I live in the Golden stake.
I never got to serve in the Golden stake, I served predominantly in Denver and Aurora. I also spent six months in Craig and the surrounding area.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:If church leaders are being asked to identify people from a photograph priviledge of the confessional does not apply.
To the press, though? I can certainly see doing so to officials, and if I ran the zoo, to the injured parties themselves rather than being compelled by the state.
I think cutting the head off a statue should carry some kind of criminal charge.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
So much for the religious Christian belief in repentance and forgiveness. All I see right now is retribution and shame - that goes for the Catholic Church in this case who did vote for legal action.
Really, what did these missionaries do? From the information I have gathered they might have broken the head off of a statue and perhaps (I can't confirm) some graffiti. That is serious. However, from the looks of the statue I am not sure they did it; even if one of the photos said they did. What did they do it with, a tote bag? The cut is pretty clean for a swift kick to the marble head.
What these missionaries did was not becoming a missionary, but there is something fishy going on. I sense a witch hunt.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Try putting the shoe on the other foot, Occasional. Also, the church had never taught that forgiveness obviates the need for reparations. Reparations are as much for the sinner as the injured.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I sense nothing but some idiot missionaries.
Sometimes when people criticize Mormons, we actually deserve it. Case in point...
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I suppose investigation will have to show whether the missionaries had a role in the vandalism of the shrine, but that doesn't discount the severe disrespect they showed to what others consider sacred. I don't blame the community for being hurt and offended at their actions. They didn't prove to be any better than whoever did the vandalism, if it were indeed somebody else.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:If church leaders are being asked to identify people from a photograph priviledge of the confessional does not apply.
To the press, though? I can certainly see doing so to officials, and if I ran the zoo, to the injured parties themselves rather than being compelled by the state.
The priviledge of the confessional is not necessary to decide not to talk to the press. Anyone can choose not to answer their questions in any circumstances.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
If the culprits are charged, it may well be based on the identification of them from video by the church officials (to police, not privileged by confessional under contexts noted above by dkw).
Once formally charged, that would be a matter of public record. The press would not need to speak to church officials to establish identity, as that would already be done. Should the press ask for a statement from church officials, of course -- as dkw notes -- they could decline to speak to them.
But the identification would likely have been separate, assuming charges are made formally in the criminal justice system. (If not, then another context applies.) In that case, the connection for identification from press to church officials is indirect through the police, and mere identification from video would not be privileged.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Were I in the position of the missionary leader, I think my response to being asked to identify the people in the picture by the press would be something along the lines of "Why would you think I would ever tell you that?" Actually, it would probably just be a flat refusal, but I'd certainly think that.
I think they'd have a responsibility to give that information to the people wronged, though.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: If church leaders are being asked to identify people from a photograph priviledge of the confessional does not apply. (And wouldn't for a Catholic priest or other denominational clergy that hears confessions either.) It would only apply if they were asked if they knew who did it and the only way they knew was through a confession or counseling relationship. Being asked if you recognize a person in a photo has nothing to do with whether or not you've heard their confession.
Edit to note: this is something I have been trained in as a clergyperson. The legal line can be blurred in places, but this is no where close to it.
Thanks for the clarification. But several confounding factors might make the line in this case more blurred than it seems. They did not identify the church office of the official they interviewed. If it was a local authority, it is unlikely that he would recognize the missionaries from the photos although he might know their identity through confidential church sources. Its also possible that he might not know the identity of the missionaries at all even though he was familiar with the events.
If it was the mission president, things get more complicated. Mission Presidents normally rotate every 3 years so there is a reasonable chance that the person they interviewed wasn't present in Colorado in 2006 when the incident occurred and would not recognize the missionaries involved from their photos.
Since most LDS church leaders aren't professional clergy, they probably haven't had the specific training in these issues you have. As a result, I can understand that they might be cautious about what they tell the media or the police and would likely seek counsel from higher authorities or even legal authorities before releasing information.
I don't know if any of those scenarios are true. All I know is that the official in question wouldn't tell the press the names of the missionaries involved. I only wanted to point out that when a church is involved with an incident like this there are considerations that wouldn't apply if this were a business or other organization. As a result, when ever I hear of church officials refusing to provide information to the media or the police, I give them a benefit of a doubt because I respect their special obligations.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not saying what they did was innocent. What I am saying is that there is still too many questions everyone seems to think have already been answered. Even if they did do the vandalism, I think what they are facing is going to make repentance (making them "better citizens") almost impossible. Have you seen the charges on top of LDS Church discipline?
As a comment at "Deseret News" said:
quote: Also, though I say to forgive, I don't say that because they are LDS. And I understand fully that what they did was wrong. I'm only worrying about the boys and their futures. That should matter more than anything to everyone. Human life is more important than ANY statue. Don't dare say otherwise! I worry for them. The town will eventually heal. These boys may pay for more than they took.
We will be measured by how we measure others.
Their future is in the towns hands. So far I've read that they want to charge them with felony, conspiracy, and 4 more.
Another good point made previously is that if we pursued everything like this online, there would be no end. I can see some validity. This is an issue of hurt feelings.
I understand the other opinions here and respect them. The religion-to-blame arguments are irrelevant.
I feel sorry for the town and church but I would ask that they forgive these boys.
The question is if this has been blown out of proportion. I think at this point it has. That isn't to say my mind is made up, but the visciousness of the attacks on these former missionaries is as staggering as what they are accused of doing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
According to the Deseret News article, "charges could include desecration of a venerated object, criminal trespass, defacing property and bias-motivated crime." Which of these crimes is it wrong to charge them with?
As I said above, I don't think the Church should seek criminal charges. But I'm concerned by the attitude that the existence of LDS punishment or the difficulty criminal charges will add to repentance is a reason for the civil authority to treat them lightly.
If the roles were reversed, I would not call on the LDS Church not to press charges - I wouldn't feel it appropriate for me to do so. I would call on the Catholic Church to apologize, assist in the investigation, and see that restitution is paid. I would call on the missionaries to submit to civil authority on this matter. I would also call on the Church to make sure the missionaries were protected and given good legal counsel.
Because the roles are not reversed, I call on my Church to seek restitution, to forgive, and to not advocate for criminal charges. It should be noted that the prosecutors can prosecute whether the Church wants them to or not.
There do seem to be some vicious attacks elsewhere aimed at the missionaries. I haven't seen such attacks here, though. Moreover, I don't see why other people behaving badly should lessen the consequences for these men.
Edit: it's hard to see how this qualifies as blown out of proportion. What happened was staggeringly disrespectful. The LDS Church has forthrightly acknowledged this. Do you disagree with their assessment?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
So, stupidity of these missionaries has been established for sure. Having known many many missionaries I can tell you that stupid photo ops are standard missionary procedure. However, we really don't know all the facts around this thing. I mean, there is little knowledge of what actually happened here aside from what was seen in the pictures (which was quite obviously wrong), and everyone automatically assumes that the missionaries cut the head off the statue. What if the statue's head was already loose or had been cut off previously without the knowledge of anyone? Unless there was also a picture of one of the missionaries taking a baseball bat or a hacksaw to the statue, there really isn't much more than circumstantial evidence. I'd be perfectly happy to see these missionaries having to defend themselves in court and tell the whole story of what happened here. I think we should be a little more willing to give the missionaries some leeway here. Without a complete knowledge of what happened with these missionaries, the only thing we can say they are guilty of is stupidity and poor taste in photo opportunities. And probably trespassing.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Dagonee, I just don't agree right now that they did what they are accused of at this point. Guess it goes back to my belief that trial by publicity comes close to going against the rights of the accused. I think the LDS Church is, without trying to cover up any complicity and acting within the strictures of modern media, doing some serious PR work. So, yes, I guess I do disagree with the assessment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think trial by publicity is staggeringly unfair. I'm glad the names of the missionaries haven't been released.
I would like to know what actually happened. I don't think we do. What charges may be appropriate depends on what actually happened.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I just don't agree right now that they did what they are accused of at this point.
They certainly did some of it. The only real unknown is whether they broke the statue.
Regardless of whether they broke the statue, though, they were still staggeringly disrespectful. I'm sad that you don't see this, although not particularly surprised.
quote:Guess it goes back to my belief that trial by publicity comes close to going against the rights of the accused.
This isn't trial by publicity. This is publicity about bad actions that were posted on the world wide web for all to see, publicity about the apology of an organization taking responsibility for people it sends out into the field, and publicity about an investigation into possible criminal acts.
Note the last part again: this is an investigation. The parish council did not call for punishment, but for an investigation. The men have not been charged - rather, possible charges have been listed. All of this is appropriate for public reporting.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I just want to say that I agree with what you said, Dagonee. We believe in being subject to the laws of the land. If those missionaries broke the law, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be charged and tried. Facing the consequences of your actions is part of the repentance process.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Regardless of whether they broke the statue, though, they were still staggeringly disrespectful. I'm sad that you don't see this, although not particularly surprised."
I have NOT once said they were innocent. The very opposite in fact. I am just questioning the legalities and force of conviction of their guilt.
"This isn't trial by publicity. This is publicity about bad actions . . ."
Is there a difference? Again, it comes down to what one thinks of the media I suppose. It would be nice if the media brought up a few questions themselves (that they often do) rather than how it has currently been reported.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Dagonee, I just don't agree right now that they did what they are accused of at this point. Guess it goes back to my belief that trial by publicity comes close to going against the rights of the accused. I think the LDS Church is, without trying to cover up any complicity and acting within the strictures of modern media, doing some serious PR work. So, yes, I guess I do disagree with the assessment.
So you say that there are too many questions that haven't been answered, and then you say that you don't think they did it? I really don't get how your prejudgement is really that different from the prejudgements you are complaining about.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Jon Boy, I guess I mean legalities rather than mere actions. In other words, I am not denying that they did some things that were disrespectful. I am just wondering if it is to a seriousness needing church action or especially legal action. It seems obvious to me that news reports and people's oppinions are in the affirmative.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Well, I'm sure the legal system will sort that part out.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Even if they did do the vandalism, I think what they are facing is going to make repentance (making them "better citizens") almost impossible.
What is the definition of repentance that you are using here? This sentence doesn't really make sense to me based on the definition I use.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have NOT once said they were innocent. The very opposite in fact. I am just questioning the legalities and force of conviction of their guilt.
I didn't say you did. You said you disagreed with the LDS Church's assessment, which was that what was done was staggeringly disrespectful. If you meant some other assessment, I apologize for the confusion.
quote:Is there a difference? Again, it comes down to what one thinks of the media I suppose. It would be nice if the media brought up a few questions themselves (that they often do) rather than how it has currently been reported.
Can you point to a section of a news article on this topic that states things as fact that are still questionable? All of the ones I've read make it clear that the investigation continues and its not known if the missionaries harmed the statue.
quote:I just want to say that I agree with what you said, Dagonee. We believe in being subject to the laws of the land. If those missionaries broke the law, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be charged and tried. Facing the consequences of your actions is part of the repentance process.
Thanks. If I had to summarize, my Catholic self says that the Church should not seek criminal charges as a public expression of forgiveness. My would-be-prosecutor self says that an investigation is appropriate, as are charges if the actions of the missionaries amount to the elements of one or more crimes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'll add here that I'm in fully agreement with everything Dagonee has said on this issue.
As a Latter Day Saint, I'm particularly distressed by the behavior of these young men. Those who serve as missionaries need to fully understand that they are full time representatives of not only our Church but also our Lord and Savior. As such, when they do something stupid, disrespectful and criminal they bring shame not only on themselves but also on their church and their God. This is a very serious thing and all Missionaries need to understand that.
As I understand the principle of repentance, accepting the consequences of ones actions, even if those consequences mean jail time or loss of ones standing in the church, doesn't make repentance harder -- it is an absolutely essential part of repentance.
Forgiveness is a wonderful thing, but it is always the prerogative of those who were sinned against and not a right owed the transgressor. It is the duty of transgressors to seek restitution for crimes and to accept any associated punishments.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Does this quote from the apology strike a (minor) wrong note with anyone else?
quote:I should have known better because I have seen many of the same types of blasphemies made against my own church and I have been appalled
edit:
quote:As I understand the principle of repentance, accepting the consequences of ones actions, even if those consequences mean jail time or loss of ones standing in the church, doesn't make repentance harder -- it is an absolutely essential part of repentance.
Forgiveness is a wonderful thing, but it is always the prerogative of those who were sinned against and not a right owed the transgressor. It is the duty of transgressors to seek restitution for crimes and to accept any associated punishments.
That's pretty much how I see repentance too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Rabbit.
Squick, it depends on how it's meant (or interpreted). It can be read as increasing the amount of culpability being assumed by the apologizer based on his direct knowledge of the effects of such acts, and in reading it that way, it seems appropriate.
What was the wrong note it struck with you?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I'm only worrying about the boys and their futures. That should matter more than anything to everyone. Human life is more important than ANY statue. Don't dare say otherwise! I worry for them. The town will eventually heal. These boys may pay for more than they took.
Why is human life on the line? I'm sure these people mean the waste of life that would occur with incarceration, but if they are so worried about that, they need to get out volunteering with some of the distressed minorities around them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I'm not completely sure. It just sounded wrong. The part about acts being taken against LDS doesn't feel like it belongs there at all.
I'm not sure if it's because it sounds like a ploy for sympathy/preliminaries to playing the victim or because the reason he should have known better has nothing to do with what has been done to his church, but rather a basic respect for other people or something else. The inclusion of that in that way just strikes me wrongly.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess I can see that, that one shouldn't need to have been a victim to know not to harm others.
P.S. I can't actually think of an instance of similar blasphemy except for that preacher from another church who gets some of the priesthood garments to do strange things to every conference. And while that doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy, I kind of take it in stride as part of our peculiarity.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"If I had to summarize, my Catholic self says that the Church should not seek criminal charges as a public expression of forgiveness."
My point is that I agree with this. However, the church did vote to pursue criminal charges. My sympathies were toward the church and far less on the missionaries until the vote. If the criminal charges were simply a matter of secular pursuit I would still have far more sympathies with the church than the missionaries. However, the vote and the LDS Church actions and the legal charges and finally the public scrutiny has tipped the scale for me toward the missionaries.
I know what I am about to say is going to boil some blood, but this has become a religious war by proxy. There is repentance by restitution that everyone here is lauding so strongly. For me at this point what is happening to the missionaries is feeling too close to retribution and vengance.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did the perpetrators offer repentance and restitution? Or did it become necessary to press charges in order to get the situation investigated?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No charges have been pressed - it's being investigated for possible criminal prosecution at the request of the Church.
It seems that once the incident became public, the LDS responded pretty darn quickly, and the news accounts don't seem to suggest that any legal maneuvering was made to spur that response.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Thinking about it, I don't think I would have had any problem if he had talked about how reflecting on how it would (and does) feel when people attack his religion made he realize the extent of what he did.
I changed the context a little to get "I'm sorry that I beat up John. I should have know better because there was this kid who used to bully me in 3rd grade." sounds self-centered and deflective to me. It doesn't sound as if the person is really facing up to what they did and why it was wrong.
I think it is really the deflective aspect that feels wrong to me.
That's not to say that a more charitable interpretation isn't more correct, just how it struck me on first reading.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I know what I am about to say is going to boil some blood, but this has become a religious war by proxy.
Get off yourself, dude.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Did the perpetrators offer repentance and restitution?"
I don't think they did. That is why I was at first against the missionaries for what they did.
"Or did it become necessary to press charges in order to get the situation investigated?"
If this is the case then there are two problems. First, the incompetance and lack of respect for the church by law enforcement. Second, the church feeling they needed to take some actions by using the arm of the state.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I changed the context a little to get "I'm sorry that I beat up John. I should have know better because there was this kid who used to bully me in 3rd grade." sounds self-centered and deflective to me. It doesn't sound as if the person is really facing up to what they did and why it was wrong.
I think it is really the deflective aspect that feels wrong to me.
That's a plausible interpretation. I couldn't articulate it that well, but it matches what I alluded to in noting it depended on how that sentence was meant.
It's also why I likely wouldn't include such a sentence in an apology I wrote. However, I know there are lots of people who tend to communicate more metaphorically than I am generally comfortable doing. Alluding to a similar situation is seen as a way of demonstrating that one really understands.
There are enough people that do that and mean well in doing so that I'll adopt the charitable interpretation.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Get off yourself, dude."
Go read the comments at the newspapers where this was reported. Self flagulation by the Mormons and accusitory finger pointing by the non-Mormons. I am not just talking about what has been said at the "Hatrack" bubble.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: There is repentance by restitution that everyone here is lauding so strongly. For me at this point what is happening to the missionaries is feeling too close to retribution and vengance.
Am I missing something? What exactly is going on here that goes beyond legal action?
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I must admit that once I got over the initial shock and outrage, I had more of a sanguine view of what happened and my belief was that they probably hadn't done any actual vandalism and was it really any worse than the missionaries in my mission who bought priests garb and wore it for Halloween (which I was appalled by but wouldn't have made a huge Internet incident out of).
But then I began to think about it more. And these troubling aspects remain:
They posted the photos.
And one of the photo captions suggests that they knocked the head (perhaps accidently, perhaps not) off the statue.
And then I got more information:
According to some of the comments in the Bloggernacle*, this is a poorer area of Colorado that is mainly white Mormon and Hispanic Catholic. The two sides have a history of tension.
This wasn't just a couple of missionaries serving in a big city who, for example, wander into a synagogue or cathedral while they're out tracting and take some stupid touristy pictures that could possibly offend but not to the level of desecration that this was.
The war was already going on. And so it becomes much more difficult to see this as lacking any sort of maliciousness or intent to offend. And that makes a huge difference, imo.
*The LDS sector of the blogosphere
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Jon Boy, I thought I made a pretty good general list from the post you quoted.
Zalmoxis, if that is the case then that might tip my feelings away from the missionaries again, but I have my doubts. Are the missionaries from that place? Missionaries are often not part of the community they serve and I find it hard to believe they would have been part of the cultural war to that extent.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Second, the church feeling they needed to take some actions by using the arm of the state.
Why is this a problem? It's not like the we've never sought reparations through the law, and I'm pretty sure it was all for property since folks didn't really put a price on suffering and lost life back then.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps "press charges" is the wrong term. Did the Church have to bring the police into the situation in order to get the perpetrators to pay for whatever damage they had done? Have the missionaries made restitution? Did they admit to what was done? Do they repent? If so, I would hope the matter would be closed. If not, then involving the police seems reasonable.
If little Tommy breaks my window and comes to me to own up and offer to pay for it, I'm not going to sic the cops on him. If we have to track down an unrepentant Tommy and get a judge to make him pay for the window, that's another story.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:I know what I am about to say is going to boil some blood, but this has become a religious war by proxy.
Get off yourself, dude.
Agreed.
The Boxer Rebellion? That's a religious war triggered by missionaries.
This? This is small potatoes. Property damage and vandalism mostly, the Catholic church's response (and those on Hatrack) seems to be perfectly reasonable so far, even if they do press charges.
Let's not exaggerate the smallest of incidents into a religious war, lest we forget exactly how gruesome that can really get.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Occassional, I think you're being a bit obtuse. As far as I can tell reading the article, no charges have been filed, and the vote hadn't even taken place yet.
Do you disagree that that is what has happened (so far)? Or do you have an update?
-Bok
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Let's not exaggerate the smallest of incidents into a religious war, lest we forget exactly how gruesome that can really get.
Amen!
Occasional, You seem to be jumping to all kinds of conclusion about what actually happened and will happen. Wait for the facts to come forward in the investigation and to see what punishments are actually meted out by either the legal system or the LDS Church before you get yourself all worked up about it.
At this point, the actions taken both by the Catholic Church (seeking an investigation and possible criminal charges) and the LDS Church (public apology and promise to investigate and possibly punish) are reasonable and warranted.
While there is the potential for unfairness towards the missionaries, it just hasn't happened yet and it seems silly to get your undies in a bunch over something that may not ever happen.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: If this is the case then there are two problems. First, the incompetance and lack of respect for the church by law enforcement. Second, the church feeling they needed to take some actions by using the arm of the state.
How has law enforcement disrespected the church? Law enforcement has legitimate reasons for getting involved in this case. I'm not saying that I would advocate pressing charges against the offenders but I understand why the police may choose to do so. The offenders committed a crime and their actions cost police time and money. It's a similar situation with high school. School's are given discretion as to whether or not to report a fight to the police but have no such power when it comes to a kid pulling the fire alarm.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Mr. Squicky, that line in the apology struck me the same way. I thought it was a way of saying "Y'know, people do this stuff to Mormons all the time." I almost posted about it as well, but decided to give the guy the benefit of the doubt--especially because I am one of those people Dagonee mentioned who tends to allude to similar situations to indicate understanding.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Threads, I am getting tired of people reading into things what I haven't said. My point was that if what I quoted was correct, then the police were not doing their job if it took pressure or request by the church to investigate vandalism. Then again, maybe Dagonee can enlighten me if the police had any choice in the matter and had to wait for consent by the church for such an investigation.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Wow I totally missed the quoted part. Sorry.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Apology accepted.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Occasional, I believe it is standard procedure for police to wait for a request from the injured party before investigating property crimes. At least in my experience, police don't investigate theft or vandalism unless the property owner reports the crime and requests and investigation or they happen to come across the crime while its in progress.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Then again, maybe Dagonee can enlighten me if the police had any choice in the matter and had to wait for consent by the church for such an investigation.
Well, they needed to be informed of it somehow before investigating. In practice, few investigations for minor crimes like this occur absent the consent of the victim. But it's not needed - both investigation and prosecution can proceed in the face of the victim not wanting them to. In the most extreme case, the victim can be subpoenaed and forced to testify.
I have prosecuted domestic violence in the face of an uncooperative victim. It's not easy, but I think it's necessary.
In this case, I can't think of a compelling reason to proceed without the Church's agreement.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Rabbit, if what I predict (and assumed had already happened) does happen, can I get upset? I personally don't see any other direction this could go other than where it is already pointing. If it doesn't then I can feel relief and properly humbled.
"minor crimes like this"
That is kind of my point of contention. If it is a minor crime, why are so many treating the missionaries like major criminals? You know, lay down the law. Throw the book at them. That kind of attitude I am feeling has been expressed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That is kind of my point of contention. If it is a minor crime, why are so many treating the missionaries like major criminals? You know, lay down the law. Throw the book at them. That kind of attitude I am feeling has been expressed.
Major criminals - murderers, rapists, etc. - have a much heavier book thrown at them. That doesn't mean that the book associated with this crime shouldn't be thrown at them.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think a little of the "attitude" you sense is probably the contempt that people tend to feel for stupid criminals. Like the kind that post pictures of themselves committing a crime on the internet.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I have prosecuted domestic violence in the face of an uncooperative victim. It's not easy, but I think it's necessary.
Dag, Out of curiousity, I would consider violent crimes in a different category than property crimes but I'm not sure why? Is there any legal precedence for that? Can you think of any cases where you or other prosecutors would prosecute theft or vandalism of private property if the victim did not request it?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Rabbit, if what I predict (and assumed had already happened) does happen, can I get upset? I personally don't see any other direction this could go other than where it is already pointing. If it doesn't then I can feel relief and properly humbled.
As I understand it, you were thought criminal charges had already been brought against these young men. I still can't understand why you find that so outrageous. There is sufficient evidence to suspect that these young men are guilty of several crimes and I see no reason they should be considered above the law. So no, I don't think you would be justified in being upset solely because charges are brought against these young men.
If these young men go to court and receive a sentence that is disproportionate relative to their crime and exceeds sentence commonly given to people who vandalize holy sites -- then you'd be justified in your anger. But I see that as both highly unlikely and a long way off.
I'm curious -- what direction do you see this inevitably heading? I can see a large number of possibilities and really don't have a clue what you alluding to.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Speaking as a Roman Catholic...
The man quoted in the meeting as saying "turning the other cheek" means no revenge, but it's good to file charges for accountability, is missing something. The part of the Epistles that says believers shouldn't take each other to court, but resolve disputes among themselves instead. That's what I think should be done.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: ... Like the kind that post pictures of themselves committing a crime on the internet.
Technically, Photobucket (from a cursory reading of the rules) does support private accounts protected by a password. On the other hand, they did go out of their way to caption the photos which seems to hint that they intended to distribute (or allow viewing) of the photos beyond their small group of three (why caption photos for yourself). That plus the fact that they got caught in the first place leaves open the possibility that they were public.
The optimist in me hopes that one of their friends or associates (that they mis-judged to be appreciative of this sort of thing) got an invitation to view the photos privately and then blew the whistle on them.
How long were the photos up? Did anyone come across details as to how they were discovered in the first place?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Resolving disputes among themselves would be great. Is there anything that indicates that the missionaries are willing to do that?
There may very well be, but I haven't read it yet.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"'m curious -- what direction do you see this inevitably heading? I can see a large number of possibilities and really don't have a clue what you alluding to"
I think I have more than hinted at the direction this could go; religious war. Mormons trying to apologize for the stupidity of a few with many others using them as an example of how secretly evil Mormons are. The missionaries just become proxy for the larger battles.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Eh. Even a huge scandal with several Catholic priests abusing boys didn't manage to start anything approximating a religious war. A couple goofball Mormon missionaries isn't going to do much.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Wow, if that's your definition of war, what do you call conflicts where people actually die? What you describe is more on the level of snippy high school cliques. Not to mention the fact that Sangre de Christo really seems sadder than vindictive about all this.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Even a huge scandal with several Catholic priests abusing boys didn't manage to start anything approximating a religious war."
I beg to differ. Those scandals, no matter how horrible the reality of the crimes are, have been used for a secret religious war for a long time. Perhaps no blood is drawn, but there are battle lines none the less.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think I have more than hinted at the direction this could go; religious war. Mormons trying to apologize for the stupidity of a few with many others using them as an example of how secretly evil Mormons are. The missionaries just become proxy for the larger battles.
Oh good grief.
We as latter day saints choose to send out immature young men to represent our religion. That is our choice and we have to be willing to accept the consequences on those occasions when our missionaries act like the immature young men they are and do stupid, offensive and criminal things. If those consequences mean we have to issue public apologies that some people won't believe -- it hardly warrants the whining and complaining you've been doing.
This isn't a religious war and its not about to become one. No one has yet publicly claimed that this represents views of the church as a whole, sued the church or asked for sanctions against the church. No one has suggested that this represents a flaw inherent in the Mormon belief system or has left the church over it. And quite frankly, I think its pretty far fetched to believe thats going to happen.
I'm certain that those who already have negative views about the Mormons aren't going to suddenly adopt a positive view because the church apologized for the behavior of their missionaries. I'm confident that those who are looking for one more reason to dislike the Mormons will find it here. That doesn't make this a religious war
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, Out of curiousity, I would consider violent crimes in a different category than property crimes but I'm not sure why? Is there any legal precedence for that? Can you think of any cases where you or other prosecutors would prosecute theft or vandalism of private property if the victim did not request it?
I don't think it's an official category, but domestic violence, murder, and assaults that render the victim incapable of consent are the only crime I'm aware of that are prosecuted absent the victim's consent as a matter of course.
I can imagine property crimes being prosecuted in the face of victims objections in situations where violence is possible. For example, imagine a protection racket breaking windows of shopkeepers who won't pay up. But, even there, there's a violent backdrop even though it's not an element of the crime.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I think far more harm would come to these young men if they -didn't- face the full secular and spiritual consequences of what they've done.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dags, is the distinction between crimes against persons and crimes against property only a matter of police divisions, not law?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I agree with Puffy, but at the same time it is incidents like this that set back missionary work in an area somewhere on the order of decades. People in Taiwan know about the missionary vandalism of the Buddhist statue in Thailand, and that happened something like 20 years ago in another country.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Yup, it sets back church efforts a long way but its not like we have anyone to blame but ourselves (and the stupid missionaries).
We choose as a church to send out immature young men as missionaries knowing that once in a while they will behave in a manner that embarrasses the church. When you look at the way typical 19 & 20 year old guys behave, I think we are very lucky (divinely blessed?) that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often.
As I said before I think its very important for all missionaries to understand that as long as they are full time missionaries, they are representatives of their church and their God, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. When they do something shameful, they shame not only themselves but the church and God they represent.
Its really unfair for Church members to complain that the media is unfair and people are unfair if the whole church is damaged because of the actions of a few bad apples. The Church has called those young men to be our representatives to the world. We bare responsibility. Rather than complain, we just need to dig in and try harder to do a better job of following Jesus Christ.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Huh, I knew this exaggerated "war" rhetoric sounded vaguely familiar:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: It is clear there is a war in the United States, and it is between atheists and theists. Considering what I am reading, bullets and bombs might have to come into play someday.
quote:However, the vote and the LDS Church actions and the legal charges and finally the public scrutiny has tipped the scale for me toward the missionaries.
...
quote:I know what I am about to say is going to boil some blood, but this has become a religious war by proxy.
.....................
umm
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, we see what we wanna see.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:My take is predictable: young people of any religion can be knuckleheads.
To be fair, older people of any religiong can often be knuckleheads too - sometimes to an even greater degree.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dags, is the distinction between crimes against persons and crimes against property only a matter of police divisions, not law?
The distinction is often encoded into the chapter headings of the criminal code, but in general those headings have no legal effect.
There are quite a few provisions that make a distinction between violent and non-violent crimes, such as gun laws, but that distinction often doesn't track the chapter headings in the code.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Occasional, if you're so excited about the chance to shoot people not of your religion, I suggest working off the aggression in another way. Maybe join a kick-boxing class.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Dags, is the distinction between crimes against persons and crimes against property only a matter of police divisions, not law?
The distinction is often encoded into the chapter headings of the criminal code, but in general those headings have no legal effect.
I had no idea. I find that rather disturbing, although I realize the distinction can be blurry at times.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What do you find disturbing about it?
I ask because I'm thinking I might have left an inaccurate impression and will clarify if I can.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
IMO, crimes against persons should automatically be viewed as deserving of harsher penalties -- not to mention get more police/DA/etc. time and resources -- than those against property.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:IMO, crimes against persons should automatically be viewed as deserving of harsher penalties -- not to mention get more police/DA/etc. time and resources -- than those against property.
That's pretty much reflected in the law, but it's done by assigning specific punishments to specific crimes, rather than on a categorical basis. And they definitely get more police/DA resources.
A good example is larceny v. robbery. Larceny is a crime against property - it means taking something that doesn't belong to you. Robbery is a crime against the person - it's an assault for the purpose of committing larceny. Robbery generally has much stiffer penalties. It's also more likely to be part of career criminal legislation than larceny.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:My take is predictable: young people of any religion can be knuckleheads.
To be fair, older people of any religiong can often be knuckleheads too - sometimes to an even greater degree.
How about, "people can be knuckleheads"?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:IMO, crimes against persons should automatically be viewed as deserving of harsher penalties -- not to mention get more police/DA/etc. time and resources -- than those against property.
That's pretty much reflected in the law, but it's done by assigning specific punishments to specific crimes, rather than on a categorical basis. And they definitely get more police/DA resources.
A good example is larceny v. robbery. Larceny is a crime against property - it means taking something that doesn't belong to you. Robbery is a crime against the person - it's an assault for the purpose of committing larceny. Robbery generally has much stiffer penalties. It's also more likely to be part of career criminal legislation than larceny.
Ok. All that makes sense.
Thanks. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I try to not act like a knucklehead. Then I talk. Generally, at that point, the effort fails.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Occasional, if you're so excited about the chance to shoot people not of your religion, I suggest working off the aggression in another way. Maybe join a kick-boxing class.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) But it's those exact "difficult" experiences that would make them more effective missionaries. In my case, the women who visited made the men seem almost childish by comparison. It's easier to talk to someone who's been where you've been, or at least visited the metaphorical neighbourhood. Or maybe I'm just a tough crowd. I don't go out of my way to be so, but it seems to end up that way most of the time.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)