askandanswer

This afternoon the counsellor in the District Presidency reacted to a discussion I had with the Branch President last night when I mentioned that church policies were meaningless in the face of a sub poena. In his text he reminded me again of what he claimed were the church's policies and asked me not to make any mention of this to the lawyer. On a seperate but related matter, one sad thing is that this person is due in court on Thursday. Such is the level of ongoing internal chaos in, and staff departures from, the Aboriginal organisation for legal aid, this guy hasn't seen a lawyer since his first court appearance in early December, no lawyer has been assigned to him, the organisation doesn't pick up the phone and even if you go to their office in person, as the counsellor in the District Presidency did today, you still can't find anyone who will talk to you. The organisation is in total meltdown and has been for many months.

When the missionaries saw what happened, they called the counsellor in the District Presidency, who had been the Branch President at the time this person was baptised about 7 months ago.The counsellor in the District Presidency called me the next day and told me what he had been told and asked me to attend the court hearing the next day. The fact that the missionaries saw it was repeated by the Branch President a week or so later.

Witnesses have nothing to fear, this case is far too trivial to attract anyone's attention or cause anyone except the accused to fear. The difficulty stems from the strongly held view/practice/policy, call it what you will, not to have missionaries involved in legal proceedings. I have a sort of out - I can say that I am simply following the directions of my Branch President. We had this conversation last night. And even though I don't feel comfortable with that decision I can uncomfortably follow it. Some of the potentially complicating factors are that both the man and the women at the centre were baptised about 6-7 months ago, the woman instigated the incident, but it was the man who was arrested because it was the woman who had visible signs of harm, the man wants to end the relationship, the woman wants it to continue, the man believes the woman's testimony is more likely to be favourable towards him if she believes that he wants to continue the relationship so he has an interest in maintaining that belief, whatever happens, both the man and the woman will continue to be in the same branch, the witness missionary was involved in bringing them into the gospel, I can't remember if he was the one who actually taught them, both the man and the woman have a form of apprehended violence order out against each other despite the fact that they have lived together for several years, and most of the charge arose not from the original incident, but what followed between the man and the police. And the police have sent him a bill of $60,000 dollars for damage he caused to their vehicle. That seems a totally unreasonable amount but I haven't seen the damage so I can't comment on that one. What made me go hmm was some initial thoughts along the line of how much can you leave out of a truthful statement before it becomes untrue.

hmm, lots to think about here. I guess I'd have to make clear the limitations of the statement. Perhaps I could say this statement contains as much information as I am willing to provide about an incident that occurred on (DATE) at (PLACE) and then conclude with something like It may be possible to obtain further information from people involved in the incident.

This is one of the issues I am wresting with. At the moment I'm inclined not to tell in order because I know the Branch President and counsellor in the District Presidency don't want there to be any possibility of missionary involvement and that is probably the direction I will take. But it seems to me as if the right thing to do is to let the attorney know and then leave it to them to decide if/how they want to call the witness. Some time today or tomorrow I will be writing out a statement for the attorney about what the Branch President and I know about the matter but I am expecting that at this point, that statement will not make any references to the missionaries.

Yes I agree with this sentiment. Do you have any concerns about involving missionaries in criminal trials?

Its not in my nature to disseminate unfavourable information about people, hence my couching this account in hypothetical terms.

Sometimes the boundary between the points of when a person should be interested in the operation of the justice system and when they need not be interested, is difficult to discern. However, as a general rule, I see some benefits to the broader society if people maintain a degree of interest in how and how well justice is administered.

There are almost no certainties in life, no matter how obvious things might appear, so at times I am inclined to use cautious, non-judgemental language.

Thanks for this, this is a helpful and interesting read. This has partly become my business. The first counsellor in the District Presidency asked me to attend court the day after the person was arrested. I did this, and there were several phone calls between myself and the Branch President on the morning of the hearing as I kept him updated. Since then I have visited the person in prison four times, twice with the EQP and once with the Branch President. The Branch President and I have made several attempts to find emergency accommodation for this person in the hope that if he had a place to stay the judge would be more likely to release him on bail.

While I'm quite confident that the person has engaged in behaviour inconsistent with the law I'm also quite confident that the police have "overcharged" this person. That is a fairly common practice in this jurisdiction, particularly when it comes to Aborigines. Its my belief that the missionary could provide evidence that, while not clearing the person of all charges, would certainly cast significant doubt on some of the additional charges thereby leading to a reduce sentence. In this context, the current Branch President has been well aware of the situation, he accompanied me to the prison a few days ago where the accused is currently being held on remand. Both the Branch President and I have been keeping the first counsellor in the District Presidency well informed. The first counsellor was the Branch President at the time the incident occurred. He has completed a law degree but does not practice as a lawyer. The Branch President in the neighbouring Branch where the missionary has now been assigned, is a full-time senior missionary so he is well aware of the matter and it has been discussed with him on some occasions. I don't know if he has informed the Mission President, who is a former Area Seventy, but I would be surprised if he has not.

There might be a member who, later this week, might be asked to plead guilty or not-guilty to a set of charges that resulted initially from a minor domestic violence incident but which were added to because of the nature of the interaction between him and a number of police officers who showed up in response to the initial call. If this person pleaded guilty he could end up spending a year or more in jail. This person’s legal representation might come from a non-government, community based organisation whose level of funding is far less than the completely inadequate funding provided to government Legal Aid organisations. In this country, there is no right to legal representation. If you can’t afford a lawyer, and if you don’t fall under the remit of one of the government or non-government organizations that attempt to provide legal representation, you’re on your own, although in practice, that doesn’t happen very often. There may have been a missionary, and perhaps even his companion, who witnessed this interaction between the member and the police. It is possible that this missionary could give evidence that could be different, in several key aspects, to the narrative of the numerous police officers who might be the only other source of information on this matter. There could be a strong reluctance from church leaders to have missionaries involved in this matter in any way. The police have not sought a statement from him/them. The lawyer who may end up handling the matter on behalf of the accused is not aware that there are one or two missionaries who might have witnessed much of the actions upon which the charges are based and whose testimony could influence either the verdict or the sentence. It may be the case that the church has had to choose between, on the one hand, maintaining its practice of preventing missionaries from serving as witnesses in criminal trials and concealing, or not making available, important evidence that could result in an impoverished person with a clean criminal record receiving a sentence that would be harsher than it might otherwise have been, or on the other hand, allowing the missionary to testify, thereby serving the interests of justice and reducing the severity of the sentence that is likely to be given, and that the church has chosen to protect the missionary to the detriment of the accused. My question is what is the moral and ethical thing to do in this situation. Should I let the lawyer know that there might be one, possibly two witnesses who could provide evidence that may run counter to the police narrative, or should I follow the church line and say nothing to anybody about the missionaries? And if I say nothing, would I then be complicit in what could be labelled a conspiracy of silence aimed at influencing the course of justice in a manner that is likely to adversely impact on a poor and highly vulnerable person? My inclination at present is to follow my Priesthood leaders and keep quiet about the missionaries. How might you handle such a matter?

More likely an Australian passport

From a purely logical viewpoint, my priorities, in this order, would be My own testimony My spouse/s testimony The testimony of my active, believing children The thoughts, beliefs and actions of my opposing children. I would be hesitant about engaging in actions for the benefit of a lower priority in circumstances when that might endanger a higher priority.

This is what's happening in Eden: One feature of our retail grocery sector is that it's dominated by two large chains, Coles and Woolworths, who between them, control about 70% of the market. Aldi showed up about 25 years ago and they have about 20% although their range of producers is much more limited. And then you have the IGA - Independent Grocers Association of Australia with about 10% or less. A few weeks ago, the media was full of stories about a recently announced plan by the federal government to review the operations of our supermarket sector. Farmers have been trying to figure out why there is such a huge difference between what the supermarkers offer them for their produce, and how much customers are then being charged by the supermarket. The Albanese government is finalising plans to launch the first full-scale price-setting review of Australian supermarkets in almost two decades, conducted by the consumer watchdog with compulsory information-gathering powers and backed by ministerial decree. I don't think anyone is holding out any real hope that a government inquiry will result in lower prices. The government doesn't have much ability to influence prices. Assistant Minister for Competition Andrew Leigh tells The Saturday Paper “Duopolies can do one of two things: they can squeeze the consumers or squeeze their suppliers. And I think a read of the economic consensus over the last 20 years would have been that there was more squeeze being placed on suppliers than consumers,” Leigh says. “But right now the anger seems to be quite hot in both directions: a concern from farmers that they’re not getting as much for their produce as they feel is fair and concerns from consumers that they’re paying more than they should.

In another thread it was suggested that there might be some problems in the church. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't, I don't know. But what I do know is that if there are problems in the church they're not my problems, they're God's problems, because its His church, and its for Him to solve them, not me. I just need to keep doing what I've always been doing, but do it more and better because I still see the occasional hint of an imperfection in myself (an almost imperceptible hint ). I feel no need to get engaged or involved in whatever problems there might be. They're not my problems.

Delete

The Stake President's actions here are entirely consistent with one of my all-time favourite talks, given by President Benson at BYU in 1980 when he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/ Here is part of that talk: Second:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works. President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith: I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.” When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [In Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19] It always surprises me that people are more willing to give heed to the words of prophets from thousands of years ago in totally foreign cultures, than they are to the words of prophets living here and now.

Well I think the latest data from the James Webb telescope is that every 487 years, on Thursdays, there is a brief moment of transubstantiation when the moon actually turns into cheese, although the coloUr is still a bit uncertain. And interestingly, the person who made this discovery, actually was a wife in her early 60's.

I've posted before something along the lines that if the prophet says the moon is blue on Tuesday, but to me it looks green, then it is obviously blue no matter what I see. And if on Wednesday the prophet says the moon is orange and it has always been orange but to me it still looks green, then that one goes in the too hard for now basket and I need to start thinking about getting my eyes checked. Almost any other attitude creates risks.

Says the guy whose icon features a crocodile with a wide open mouth full of teeth

I remained active in the church because in my mid teens I prayed for and received a spiritual assurance that the church was true. I like to think that it would take a similar experience for me to leave the church - not a change in teaching or doctrine or leadership or communications directors - but a spiritual experience, as clear and as reliable as the experience that first led me to continue coming to church. Anything less would be open to questioning and doubt.

Well if its any comfort to you Zil2 I think your'e twice the person that Zil was. But then again, maybe its just the Spirit?

I think its important and helpful to have the kind of faith whereby you can say, after an appropriate degree of analysis, that I don't understand this particular issue, so I'm going to put it in the too hard basket for now, and move onwards, unperturbed, with an undivided focus on the final destination and the things that matter most.

Just a clarification. You mentioned that "there are very few doctrinal paper that I wouldn't trust" but my guess is that you meant to say there are very few doctrinal paper that you would trust. Is that what you meant to say?