Posted on 12/30/2013 12:28:31 AM PST by Colofornian
POCATELLO — A Cedar City, Utah, man convicted of felony injury to a child stemming from inappropriate contact with a 16-year-old child in 2012, was placed on probation Monday and sentenced to spend the next 10 days in Bannock County Jail.
Derrick Starley was serving a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Chubbuck when the incident occurred. He was originally charged with sexual battery of child 16 or 17 years old...
Starley pleaded guilty to the reduced charge in early November as part of a plea agreement through which prosecutors agreed that they would not oppose probation but also said they would likely ask for local jail time.
JaNiece Prices, assistant chief deputy prosecutor for Bannock County did just that. She said that based on the presentence investigation report and psycho-sexual evaluation, Starley did not appear to be a substantial risk to re-offend, but that he did need treatment for an addiction to pornography.
She asked Sixth District Judge Robert Naftz for local jail time and that the treatment be a part of Starley’s conditions for probation. She also recommended Starley’s probation be a lengthy term to assure he has time for that treatment.
The victim’s father then spoke to the judge, conveying the depth to which the incident has affected the victim and their family. He then said the family has forgiven Starley and only hopes that he gets the treatment he needs.
SNIP
The judge sentenced Starley to serve 10 days in the Bannock County Jail in addition to the five days he spent in jail when first arrested, meaning he will spend Christmas in jail.
“You affected people by your conduct,” Naftz told Starley. “There has to be some kind of consequence so you understand.”
(Excerpt) Read more at idahostatejournal.com ...
You say venom for “Mormons”.
He has venom for Mormonism. There is a very big difference.
Don't you have this turned upside-down by checking on how Jesus id'd folks?
Let me get this straight:
Jesus referenced the legalists of His day by telling them: 33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (Matthew 23)
And yet a poster who readily id's contemporary legalism (Mormonism) is himself a snake?
I guess for religious consistency sake -- and for you to avoid the same religious hypocrisy Jesus cited the Pharisees for all throughout Matthew 23 -- perhaps you should scold Jesus, too for the "venom" in which He went after the legalists of His day, eh?
You are correct. He was originally charged with Sexual Battery of a Child Sixteen of Seventeen Years of Age, Idaho Stat. 18-1508A. That's a sex crime.
However, he pled guilty to a lesser charge of felony injury of a child, which is not a sex crime. He shouldn't appear on any sex offenders' registry as a result.
We don't know why the prosecutors agreed to the reduced plea. The fact he is only faced with therapy for pornography addiction suggests to me a community with strong teachings against the viewing of pornography. That's about as specific as I'd like to be.
I do not advocate church-based anything. Our Constitution does not, and I do not, recognize any religion or religious group as having any authority, moral or legal, over US citizens.
Any religion or religious group attempting to exert "authority" over any citizen of the USA is attempting to impose some "form of tyranny over the mind of man" that violates the rights of free citizens.
I do not care what religion you escaped from, or what religion you are now enslaved by, or what religion dominates your obsessions, whether for or against.
In this country, people have a right to worship as they see fit, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others in the process. Unfortunately, most religions and religious people are not content to respect the rights of others.
In My Not-So-Humble Opinion, churches and religions are for those who cannot, or choose not to, believe in God. The church or religion serves as an idol for those people to worship until they are ready to believe, if ever. People can flee from one church to another, from one set of lies to another, and they will still find that any group of people will be corrupted just like any other group of people.
If the zealots could or would read for themselves, they could find one of those Bibles with red letters in the New Testament for the parts that Christ said, and black letters for everything that the idiot disciples made up to fill in the blanks.
Christ had pretty much the same opinion of organized religion as I have expressed above. The idiot disciples went out and created exactly what he told them to avoid, and subsequent centuries of idiots have propagated the idiocy. Relatively few have ever paused to ask God to help them see the truth; relatively few have recognized or accepted any piece of truth that God has revealed in the past two millenia; relatively few have any interest in seeking truth or honesty. Watch. More idiots will spring forth below to prove my point, babbling the same nonsense someone else told them to babble, and which they have never had the faith, courage, or integrity to personally question or investigate.
Uh, actually, not He didn't. You just posted inconsistent drivel.
How is it inconsistent? On the one hand, you attempt to sanction the "red letters" of Jesus...well, a few of those "red-letter" Jesus phrases reads thusly:
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."/I> (Jesus, Matthew 16:18)
So here Jesus claimed that HE would build a "forever" church...one that couldn't be overtaken by His spiritual enemies.
On the other hand, you've apparently 100% negated the reality that a church built by Jesus could sustain itself all these centuries -- and citing "Meads 3:16" -- have come up with an "anti-gospel":
"In My Not-So-Humble Opinion, churches and religions are for those who cannot, or choose not to, believe in God. The church or religion serves as an idol for those people to worship until they are ready to believe, if ever...the New Testament...black letters [are] for everything that the idiot disciples made up to fill in the blanks."
So which is it Meads? Do Jesus' red letters actually stand the test of time and have ANY authority over you? (Like Matthew 16:18?) Or is that just lip service by you and you now live 100% as your own "god" -- your own lord/spiritual authority in your life?
Where's the coherency and consistency in these statements above that openly clash?
Again, you are sadly mistaken because you have no nuanced understanding of "authority." There's LEGAL authority; and then there's SPIRITUAL authority.
Any religion or religious group attempting to exert SPIRITUAL authority is exposing that authority to a group of people; it has not the LEGAL authority to be imposing. You sadly seem ill-advised to know the distinction between the two.
Every commercial you see on TV, radio, the Web, billboards, etc. is a marketer's attempt to expose their worldview to us. They don't "impose" tyranny upon us.
Likewise, any message that has a religious underpinning may "expose" some kind of "frown" upon what you're doing or not doing, but that hardly constitutes either "tyranny" or militating vs. the "free rights of citizens"...unless you want to provide some strictly SPECIFIC LEGAL examples for discussion.
In this country, people have a right to worship as they see fit, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others in the process. Unfortunately, most religions and religious people are not content to respect the rights of others...I do not care what religion you escaped from, or what religion you are now enslaved by, or what religion dominates your obsessions, whether for or against."
Actually, it's apparent you do care, after all...otherwise you wouldn't be tossing around words like "tyranny" and "violate" -- all minus ANY examples whatsoever of where religious folks have ACTUALLY imposed certain LEGAL tyrannies or violations upon others.
And, hey, I've got news for you: A legal right to practice religion doesn't come with a legal mandate to others that all others MUST respect the worldviews that accompany that religion.
If you elect you worship the tulips in your backyard, I respect your LEGAL right to practice it; that doesn't mean I have to respect the veracity of it -- and that your tulip-worship is somehow immune to critique. (That's BOTH ludicrous and hypocritical...because somebody's "right to worship as they see fit" often includes the religious worshipful to critique competing worldviews!)
Unfortunately, most religions and religious people are not content to respect the rights of others.
You simply need to clarify this statement. If you accuse religious people of ACTUALLY taking away LEGAL rights of others, then be specific vs. generic/vague in your accusations. If, instead, you simply mean that because you've detect a "frown" upon the faces of some religious people over how others utilize their religious rights, then sorry...you don't have the legal OR moral authority to mandate how people's faces are to be arranged while they assess others' religious worldviews.
Otherwise, since you seem to frown yourself upon how some of us on FR choose to "worship" in the form of how we express our religious vantage points on FR, you would thereby be guilty of the very disrespect you generically accuse others of!
So this was a case of WWJSD?
I do not think he meant something that would be contrary to other things he said and taught.
expunged from the records.
OK, let's say your link is 100% correct: That upon the Rock of revelation (& personal confession), Christ is building His Church upon that.
How would this interpretation change what you said in post#64?:
In My Not-So-Humble Opinion, churches and religions are for those who cannot, or choose not to, believe in God. The church or religion serves as an idol for those people to worship until they are ready to believe, if ever. People can flee from one church to another, from one set of lies to another, and they will still find that any group of people will be corrupted just like any other group of people...Christ had pretty much the same opinion of organized religion as I have expressed above.
Matthew 16:18 assumes an ever-durable church of Christ...one NEVER given over to TOTAL apostasy.
(Now that doesn't mean every church is true, just as every green $100 bill portending to be authentic is genuine currency...yes, counterfeits exist in ALL facets of life).
Matthew 16:18 seems to assume, from your implied post, that a church built upon a "rock of revelation" would generationally persevere.
So have you sought out that church? And, why does your post #64 seem to assume that 100% of churches are...
...geared for unbelievers who remain unbelievers...?
...idolaters who remain idolaters...?
...full of corrupt people who remain corrupt?
It seems to me, Christ doesn't agree with your "opinion" that 100% of people in churches remain corrupt, remain idolaters, and remain unbelievers.
“He has venom for Mormonism. There is a very big difference.”
So now you are speaking for “HIM?” Don’t you think that that’s a little presumptuous?
“And yet a poster who readily id’s contemporary legalism (Mormonism) is himself a snake?”
Oh now I get it, you are a member of The Church of the Gooey Death, Baptismal Car Wash, and Discount House of Sin!!!
(Serious issues on your part on how to “vet” someone, Vette)
I'm on a diet - what MORE do you want?
That was my intention!
Mormonism can show nothing restored.
It lies.
Hold...
Me...
Back...
“(Serious issues on your part on how to “vet” someone, Vette)”
You know I try to adhere to the posting rules here on FR. But I can’t abide people of “one faith (or religious persuasion)” trashing someone else’s religion (or faith or whatever you choose to call it). Until each of us dies, we don’t KNOW the truth about a supreme being (or for some, if there is even a supreme being at all). So all this religious hubris is really a disgrace for those who practice it. It seems to me that it is a misuse of this exceptional forum for people to use it to further their views of religion at the expense of others.
The corollary to this crap are those who think that the whole solution to our country’s problems is to get rid of California (or whatever state or city floats their hatred boat). Because, despite the leadership in these “places they despise,” there is a very large group of decent people who don’t like their political circumstances very much either and are trying their best to change things.
So the biblical admonition “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” applies to all these folks. I had to laugh when I read recently here a comment by someone from Texas who said “that Texas was fast becoming California, with guns!” So we had better start trying to make things better by stopping all the religious and geographical hypocrisy and start pulling on the same rope!!
“It lies.”
Elsie, you are a religious bigot! I just can’t imagine how you can conjure up the amount of hatred you have for the Mormons! You must be one sick puppy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.