David Twede has resigned his membership.

[_Blixa]

Once again, special thanks to Brad and Wonka for honestly addressing this issue.

Kudos to Brad and Wonka for bringing clarity to some of the murkiness and in a civil fashion as well.

[_Res Ipsa]

Just to clear up a potential misunderstanding. I don't know why David snipped that particular post, other than perhaps out of concern that I would start publicly prying into his private life. The only information pertinent to the chain of events was a statement that he had very strong evidence that a family member contacted Scott Gordon. He did not claim that a relative outed him to Scott Gordon. (A later post says that, but David did not.)

Families comprising Mormons and ex-mormons can have incredibly dysfunctional dynamics. I can imagine lots of valid reasons for David wanting to keep aspects that involve his family private. So I don't fault him for trying to keep that portion of the chain of events private. However, it does leave open the possibility that all of these things are true: (1) David was "outed" by starlight012; and (2) a family member contacted Scott Gordon after the NYT story was published; (3) the nature of the information David has leads him to honestly believe the contact was before he met with his local officials and not after.

From what he says, Scott was deluged with calls [Edit: contacts, not calls] after the NYT story. I don't find it far fetched to believe someone from David's family contacted him. The family member may not even have identified his/her self.

When faced with different stories, I think it's important to make a sincere attempt to reconcile the stories rather than simply conclude that someone is lying.

Edited as noted.

[_Alter Idem]

Families comprising Mormons and ex-mormons can have incredibly dysfunctional dynamics. I can imagine lots of valid reasons for David wanting to keep aspects that involve his family private. So I don't fault him for trying to keep that portion of the chain of events private.

I also can understand someone wanting privacy to protect their family, but consider what he did. He threatened the website. If he'd wanted to protect a family member, why wouldn't he contact you privately and ask you not to ask those questions? You certainly sound like a reasonable person who would have understood his concerns if they'd actually been for a family member. Instead, he threatened the board and attempted to shut off discussion to stop the questions. in my opinion, it gives more credence to the belief that he was desperately trying to protect himself, not an unidentified family member.


in my opinion, Twede showed his hand with that attack against Postmormon. He can't walk it back, it happened and it now needs to be taken into account when trying to determine events involving Twede being 'outed'. Another thing that can't be walked back was his attempt to gain National notoriety by making himself out to be some kind of martyr for his political cause.

[_dblagent007]

in my opinion, Twede showed his hand with that attack against Postmormon. He can't walk it back, it happened and it now needs to be taken into account when trying to determine events involving Twede being 'outed'. Another thing that can't be walked back was his attempt to gain National notoriety by making himself out to be some kind of martyr for his political cause.

I agree. Twede's story is about as believable as a story I once heard about a young man who said he saw God and Jesus (or an angel?) in 1820, but couldn't keep the story straight.

What David Twede has shown us perhaps is that we all have the ability to act as a pious fraud when we believe our cause is righteous enough.

[_Res Ipsa]

Alter Idem--David did contact me via PM before he made the threat. Given my status as board moderator, I won't discuss them. I only discussed part of one PM because it was a threat to postmormon.org.

My beef with David is that he could have answered my questions without disclosing family information.

[Guest]

A couple of thoughts:

1) Welcome to the board, Brad! I hope you stick around and contribute more fascinating and incisive posts.

2) That's nice that Wiki Wonka took down the entry. It seems like Wiki Wonka winds up having to clean up a lot of the messes that surface on the FAIR Wiki. E.g., does anyone else remember when they (and by "they," I mean, "Greg Smith") posted something about Bob McCue being "abusive" towards his wife, and how they had to scramble to pull it down in order to avoid a lawsuit? There is a pattern of behavior here, and all things considered, I really have to wonder why, if Wonka is such a good guy, he's continuing to hang out with this crowd, and to support what they're doing. I suppose you could look at it as being similar to, oh, I don't know--David Twede? John Dehlin?--someone who has "different" beliefs concerning the organization in question, and who hangs around in the hopes of making changes for the better. So, if that's what Wonka is up to, then good for him. But if that's the case, I hope he stands up a bit more assertively when the rest of the FAIR/Mopologist crew thinks about targeting liberal LDS who are also calling for positing changes in the Church.

[_Kishkumen]

2) That's nice that Wiki Wonka took down the entry. It seems like Wiki Wonka winds up having to clean up a lot of the messes that surface on the FAIR Wiki. E.g., does anyone else remember when they (and by "they," I mean, "Greg Smith") posted something about Bob McCue being "abusive" towards his wife, and how they had to scramble to pull it down in order to avoid a lawsuit? There is a patter of behavior here, and all things considered, I really have to wonder why, if Wonka is such a good guy, he's continuing to hang out with this crowd, and to support what their doing.

I can say that Wiki seems to be the kind of person I would genuinely like. But you have to wonder what is going on over at FAIR. Wiki consistently puts a reasonable face on what sometimes appears to be a real disaster. Does he just have a talent for fixing these situations? My personal experience of FAIR was really dodgy. In my view one of the core issues here is that you have these voluntary apologetic associations that harbor some real dillweeds, who, frankly, just aren't very nice or decent in the way they conduct apologetics. Now, the smart thing might be to toss such people out, but these same folks keep turning up like bad pennies.

For example, were I in authority in the LDS Church, I would have put an end to the FARMS Review ages ago. To me it would have been a no-brainer to conclude that the violation of basic Christian decency was counterproductive in the effort to protect and bolster faith. But year after year these shady operations are allowed to continue and they often seem to get tangled up in the most unusual situations. One wonders.

[Guest]

Yeah, I really do hope it's the case that Wonka is the good egg amidst a sea of rotters, though, again: you sort of have to wonder, given the general attitudes and atmosphere, why they haven't tossed him out on his ear. The alternative, I suppose, is that he actually condones what they do, likes it, thinks it's amusing to cause pain to people like Dehlin, Twede, etc., but is good at covering it up and working to amend whatever damage was done to the organization.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Who was on the other end of the PM's with starlight012?

It was a person named Trevor Holyoak.

[_Res Ipsa]

The guy who swooped in and took over the domain for Dave's blog when he took it down?