Public Apology Issued on Behalf of Scott Gordon

[_madeleine]

To me, calling someone a snitch is stupid. Do you know how many crimes and abuses go unreported because of attitudes like this? Gordon, given his position, saw something that concerned him. He reported it. They acted. They could have chosen to do nothing about his reporting, but apparently, they shared his concerns. I have no problem with his actions.

So, whistleblower, not snitch?

I just wonder if this exhortation was followed first:

1 Cor 5

15 “If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.


I can only think, if not, then the whistleblower had already decided that the *other* was no longer a brother. I can't see how that determination was his responsibility.

Whistleblower type of behavior raises red flags for this Catholic. :-) Seems rather inquisition-like, when there is no crime and no abuse.

[_Kevin Graham]

Finally, I believe that lying, intentionally misleading and fabricating evidence when making public presentations is contrary to the teachings of the Savior.

It's too bad that you and Scott Gordon feel that there is nothing wrong with these types of behaviors.

No kidding! Who could forget Pahoran's attempt to spin John Taylor's deception in France. These folks really care nothing about truth and they'll insult everyone's intelligence if that is what it takes to maintain their bullet proof testimony, or at least the perception that they really have one. All they care about is trying to create truth with rhetoric. That's it.

[_Kevin Graham]

Well for one thing, you can't rightly snitch without judging someone to be worthy of being snitched on. And we all know what the Bible says about judging.

Well, not Pahoran, obviously.

[_Darth J]

Well no, it doesn't fall on you; as you know, you have no standing to apologise on behalf of any Latter-day Saint anywhere. You are merely grandstanding for the entertainment of your fellow apostates and Mormon-haters.

That's funny, Pahoran, because you have no standing to speak on behalf of the LDS Church on any topic. You are merely grandstanding for the entertainment of your fellow religious fanatics. That, and you desperately want to label any challenge to the truth value of your cherished beliefs as being equivalent to anti-Semitism.

I guess that means people who think Scientology might be fictitious are.....xenophobes.

[_Darth J]

Up to this point, I was willing to believe your claims that you are a Bishop. Now, I seriously question your assertion.

A Bishop is called as a Judge in Israel, but he understands that his jurisdiction is to his own congregation. Yet, you choose to judge and convict Scott Gordon, a man outside your Ward. A Bishop understands the chain of authority and would defer to the man's own church leaders who have jurisdiction over him. Likewise, A Bishop would not take on himself some supposed right to speak for the church in the form of a public apology.

I agree, Alter Idem. A real Mormon bishop would never concede that personal integrity is in any way relevant to someone's righteousness.

A Bishop is endowed with the gift of Discernment. Have you even looked at Twede's website? Have you read his 'conclusions' section? If you have, I do not know how a Bishop, who has the gift of discernment, could ever miss Twede's clearly stated intents and purposes.

What a blessing that our bishops have access to supernatural powers to discern what MormonThink is getting at, such that God will allow them to understand the site's clearly-stated intents and purposes---a feat they could not otherwise accomplish with basic reading comprehension.

Incidentally, would you care to speculate on why, in fact, Twede's bishop was not able to use the gift of discernment to smoke him out, but had to rely on Scott Gordon being a tattle-tale?

[_Darth J]

A Bishop is called as a Judge in Israel, but he understands that his jurisdiction is to his own congregation. Yet, you choose to judge and convict Scott Gordon, a man outside your Ward. A Bishop understands the chain of authority and would defer to the man's own church leaders who have jurisdiction over him. Likewise, A Bishop would not take on himself some supposed right to speak for the church in the form of a public apology.

vs.

Read the 'Conclusions' section of their website and you will see that Mormonthink appears to encourage members who have lost their faith to stay in the church and try to change and influence members minds to bring them around to their way of thinking--critical and unbelieving of mainstream church claims, doctrines and practices. This has the potential to undermine the church from within and makes members vulnerable to apostasy.

In other words, we can all sit in judgment of Twede, but not Gordon.

[_Gadianton]

To me, calling someone a snitch is stupid. Do you know how many crimes and abuses go unreported because of attitudes like this? Gordon, given his position, saw something that concerned him. He reported it. They acted. They could have chosen to do nothing about his reporting, but apparently, they shared his concerns. I have no problem with his actions.

So, whistleblower, not snitch?

This is the grain of what A.I. is saying but it's wrong. A "whistleblower" exposes corruption at huge personal risk. A snitch turns in friends or foes alike out of respite and/or for personal gain. If one still can't tell the difference between the two, the guy taking his family into witness protection is probably the whistleblower and the guy gloating in the New York Times is probably the snitch.

[_Pahoran]

And now: CFR that "Snitching is... harshly condemned in the Bible," please.

Hello Pahoran,

What else was Judas Iscariot, in the end, but a snitch?

Thank you for asking.

I'll tell you: he was a traitor. One who pretended to believe but actually did not. A saint in name only who cosied up to the Church's enemies. Like you. And Twede.

One of the first Christian "stop snitching codes" was established at the Synod of Elvira:

"A Christian who denounces someone who is then ostracized or put to death may not commune even as death approaches. If the case was less severe, he or she may commune in less than five years. If the informer was a catechumen (someone who was investigating Christianity) , he or she may be baptized after five years."

Not in the Bible, hence irrelevant to your claims.

Ostracism in the ancient world was a legal sanction imposed by the secular authorities. Scott did not "denounce" your fellow-apostate to any secular authorities, so this irrelevant prooftext is doubly irrelevant.

Incidentally, Kishkumen knows that perfectly well; but we could all grow old waiting for him to inform you of a relevant fact that undermines your case; his partisan loyalties won't let him.

Also, 1 Corinthians 6:1-7,

Says nothing about "snitching." It talks about lawsuits in the secular courts.

Hebrews 10:30,

And since this is shorter, I will quote it in full:

"30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people."

Again, it says nothing about "snitching," but says that the Lord will be the one handing out judgements.

Didn't you say you wished you could hold a Disciplinary Council for Scott Gordon? What hermeneutic of this passage supports your wishful thinking while condemning Scott's honesty?

Mathew 16:15,

Eh?

15 He saith unto them, But whom say aye that I am?

This is part of Jesus' conversation with the apostles that led to Peter's famous testimony. What on earth are you talking about?

Leviticus 9:18,

18 He slew also the bullock and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings, which was for the people: and Aaron’s sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled upon the altar round about,

You're just pulling references out of the air now, aren't you?

Romans 10:13.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Yep, that's what you're doing.

I could go on and on and on,

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with irrelevant prooftexts that don't support your claims

but I think you get the picture.

You're right; I do.

You cannot find a single passage that says anything that amounts to "It is wrong to tell the leaders of the Church what apostates are up to."

So you bluff, instead.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Now people who previously didn't know much about the LDS church have learned that it does not tolerate dissent. You can't buy that kind of positive press.

Well, I must say, for those who yearn for witch trials, this is about as close as they are going to get in America these days. So, it ought to be a real hit with the demographic that goes for such things.

Two points:

First of all, Twede's surreptitious apostate activities were in no sense "dissent." They are best described as "clandestine infiltration."

Secondly, a Church disciplinary council is in no sense a "witch trial." The behaviour of the "critics" here toward anyone who has the temerity to defend the Church of Jesus Christ against the hateful rantings of the inmates comes a lot closer.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

What is the difference, I wonder, between what Twede was doing, and people like juliann and Calmoriah openly stating that they wished that they could pass the sacrament? What is the difference between Twede saying that he wants people to know "the truth" about Mormonism versus, say, Royal Skousen basically writing his own version of the Book of Mormon, in spite of GA admonitions?