I have previously made the point that the person who sees nothing wrong with anonymous public statements about living persons is a person who cannot tell right from wrong and is thus, by definition, sociopathic.
Bob you didn't really just say that did you?
Do you have any idea how idiotic this sounds? Probably not. But a sociopath is a rare person and you find them on the news after they drove they locked their children in a stationwagon before driving it into a lake, simply because their boyfriends didn't want kids.
What you're doing is begging the question: Is it wrong and immoral to post anonymously? You have never made a compelling case that it is.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Mister Scratch wrote: Yes, sort of how like wanting to defend the Church is not an excuse for dishonest and unscrupulous scholarship.
(Here: let me start my timer to see how long it takes before you go into denial mode, Bob....)
Well, click your stopwatch. I have no clue what you're talking about, so there is my denial.
Have you read my published MMM pieces? What think ye of them?
rcrocket
Distorted and dishonest. That's what I think. Better fess up now, or I'll have to tell the newbies about it! Gee, imagine it: a bishop engaging in this kind of low-ball behavior! Wow! And then, he's got the gall to go online and lecture others about how "unscrupulous" they are! How about that!
Well, I would certainly entertain chapter and verse discussions to defend myself!
I have previously made the point that the person who sees nothing wrong with anonymous public statements about living persons is a person who cannot tell right from wrong and is thus, by definition, sociopathic.
Bob you didn't really just say that did you?
Do you have any idea how idiotic this sounds? Probably not. But a sociopath is a rare person and you find them on the news after they drove they locked their children in a stationwagon before driving it into a lake, simply because their boyfriends didn't want kids.
What you're doing is begging the question: Is it wrong and immoral to post anonymously? You have never made a compelling case that it is.
Well, today to you I am just an "idiot," a "jackass". And in the past you have said that I am "stupid" and a "moron." Like I say, I don't mind being insulted. I wear it as a badge of honor on this Board. My case is what it is; I have nothing to add.
rcrocket wrote: I have previously made the point that the person who sees nothing wrong with anonymous public statements about living persons is a person who cannot tell right from wrong and is thus, by definition, sociopathic.
rcrocket
I suppose I am a sociopath because I have visited many political websites and made public statements about public figures. Often. Repeatedly.
Geez, I think I know quite a few sociopaths that do the same.
Rcrocket you stand by your statement that those who make "anonymous public statements about living persons is a person who cannot tell right from wrong and is thus, by definition, sociopath" when applied to the political arena?
Must admit that is a fairly startling comment to me.
rcrocket wrote:Well, today to you I am just an "idiot," a "jackass". And in the past you have said that I am "stupid" and a "moron." Like I say, I don't mind being insulted. I wear it as a badge of honor on this Board. My case is what it is; I have nothing to add.
rcrocket
You have no case, therefore you have nothing to add. You claim to have moral authority to criticize people on such non-issues as "anonymity." And yet we have very clear evidence of a very real Bob Crockett engaging in gross intellectual dishonesty. Tell me, Bob: do you think that we ought to treat you as you suggest that many here ought to be treated? Shall we pass along your MMM letter distortion to your Stake President? Or do you believe that your SP would be OK with this sort of deception, since it was done in the service of the Church?
Those are, after all, the only two real possibilities I can see here. Either you admit that you did wrong, and that you deserve (at minimum) censure or disfellowship from your SP, or else you admit that the Church itself is institutionally dishonest. So which is it, counselor?
asbestosman wrote:I didn't see anything libelous in mms's post even though it was crtitical and possibly worth of church discipline.
What are you referring to here?
"My major issue was the apparent belief by many over there that the average active member of the church should actually know about matters that have been intentionally avoided by the church in an effort to portray an "adoring history." It seemed so obvious to me that the church had significant responsibility and these people would be so hard on people for not knowing about polyandry and Joseph Smith's plural marriage issues, etc."
I'm not saying that such is an exommunicable offense. I'm just saying that some bishops might be less okay with such thoughts than others an may therefore consider such discipline as revoking a temple recommend or something.
You cannot seriously think that the statement above could result in church discipline, do you? Try Elder Oaks' statement on for size:
Elder Oaks wrote:[W]e’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.
On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.
So, Elder Oaks and I agree that the church has presented an "adoring history" and that at least one motivation for this was an intentional effort not to cause "doubts that didn't exist in the first place" and that the church is/should be "more and more forthright."
There is not all that much distance between what he said and what I am saying, despite the interest of some apologists to widen the gap. But what I said could lead to church discipline? I think that is a bit of a stretch.
mms wrote:You cannot seriously think that the statement above could result in church discipline, do you?
Could? Yes. Should? No. I think different bishops see similar situations quite differently.
So, Elder Oaks and I agree that the church has presented an "adoring history" and that at least one motivation for this was an intentional effort not to cause "doubts that didn't exist in the first place" and that the church is/should be "more and more forthright."
There is not all that much distance between what he said and what I am saying, despite the interest of some apologists to widen the gap. But what I said could lead to church discipline? I think that is a bit of a stretch.
Hopefully you are right, but if some bishop sees things differently, it wouldn't hurt to have that quote from Elder Oaks on hand.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO