Public Apology Issued on Behalf of Scott Gordon

[_why me]

I don't understand this gobbledygook from Scott. Is he saying that Twede, using a sock puppet, exposed himself?

He is not saying it. But it was discovered at LDS.net when they did a IP check. And picked up by FAIR.

[_Darth J]

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.

Within the biblical narrative, Judas Iscariot did not say anything about Jesus that was false. Jesus did in fact---according to the Bible---say he was the Son of God. All Judas did was tell the Sanhedrin where Jesus was located.

That is not comparable to what Twede or anyone at MormonThink does. MormonThink is saying that it is the LDS Church that is treacherous to its own members by misrepresenting its history and the facts surrounding its truth claims.

(Inicdentally, Pahoran, there's a thread somewhere around here inviting board members to point out a factual claim on MormonThink that is false. Please feel free to contribute to that thread at your leisure.)

When Pahoran ludicrously analogizes Mormons who do not like the LDS Church misrepresenting its foundational claims to Judas, what Pahoran really means is that objective reality is inimical to his cherished beliefs. Thus, anyone who points out that the LDS Church engages in fraudulent nondisclosure as a matter of course is a traitor to the cause (of lying so people will give you money, which is all you are doing when you misrepresent facts so people will pay tithing).

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.

Well, yeah, Christianity is somewhat irrelevant to Mormonism. I'll give you that.

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.

One of the cardinal presenting behaviors of rabid zealotry is the inability to maintain coherency or logical consistency. Here, Pahoran asserts that scriptures decrying unethical acts in secular settings are not relevant to how a Latter-day Saint acts in church. And he continues with this assertion:

Also, 1 Corinthians 6:1-7,

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

So Everybody Wang Chung's canonical and extra-canonical citations are said to be inapplicable because Scott Gordon did not "'denounce' your fellow-apostate to any secular authorities," but Twede and Everybody Wang Chung are comparable to Judas. The thing is, though, that Judas denounced Jesus to secular authorities. The Sanhedrin had secular as well as ecclesiastical subject-matter jurisdiction, what with separation of church and state being an unknown concept to 1st century Jews. So if Everybody Wang Chung's quotes are irrelevant because they only pertain to secular courts, then Pahoran's evocative depiction of Twede and Everybody Wang Chung as modern Judases is also irrelevant, because they did not tell theocratic authorities where they could find Thomas S. Monson so he could be charged with a crime.

Note also some of the underlying assumptions in Pahoran's reasoning (such as it is). First is his conflation of Jesus with the Church. Judas did not betray "the Church." He betrayed Jesus. By comparing the personal betrayal of Jesus to criticism of the corporate entity that is the LDS Church, Pahoran is implying that the organization and God are one and the same. And, quite frankly, it is obvious that in his mind, that is the case.

Second, Pahoran's dismissive attitude of Christian teachings about one's ethics in a secular setting as inapplicable to one's behavior in ecclesiastical matters shows that Pahoran consciously or unconsciously believes that God has different ethical standards for how one acts in worldly affairs and how one acts within the Church. That is, the Bible and extra-canonical teachings speak out against bearing false witness in secular matters, but since the scriptures are silent on bearing false witness in church, it must be okay to lie in Church. And, quite frankly, it is obvious that in Pahoran's mind, that is the case.

Because it is the character of Twede's apostasy that is the issue for most outside observers. He is not habitually teaching false doctrine, like FAIR does. And MormonThink does not, as far as I have seen, tell people to leave the LDS Church. All MormonThink does is present evidence and invite readers to draw their own conclusions. To the extent that MormonThink does draw conclusions that the LDS Church misrepresents its history and foundational claims, those conclusions are well-taken. Anyone who thinks otherwise has the burden of rebutting those conclusions (note: an effective rebuttal would be persuasive contrary evidence, not a litany of "Nuh-uh!"). So what Twede's alleged apostasy amounts to is a tacit admission that evidence and reason are antithetical to the teachings of the LDS Church.

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?

That's an interesting question, Pahoran. What passage from the scriptures supports your charges of being apostate for telling the truth about Mormon history? Wait, let me guess. Is it, "Some things that are true are not very useful"?

[_Kishkumen]

I can't believe I am saying this, but I want to thank "why me" for bringing this bizarre narrative about David Twede over here. It is much more helpful than the opaque narrative at the FAIR wiki.

So, this seems to be what this account is indicating:

David Twede orchestrated his own disciplinary hearing and its coverage in order to make the LDS Church and Mitt Romney look bad at a time when he could get maximum attention focused on himself.

If true, that is completely despicable behavior.

If true, that completely vindicates Pahoran's read on David Twede and his motives.

You know, I can understand people being upset with the LDS Church and deciding it is not for them. I do not so much get why it is people engage in this kind of internal subversion.

It reminds me very much of Flatlander and his letter campaign, something else I had almost no sympathy for.

These shenanigans are completely counterproductive. And, I hate it when people live up to the very worst stereotypes of LDS apologists.

If true, then this Twede affair is exactly the kind of thing that provokes apologetic aggression against struggling members of the LDS community.

If true, then those of us who genuinely struggle and doubt should be those most outraged by Twede's behavior.

ETA: I will also add that in spite of the fact that I don't like the regularity with which Pahoran and others like him see internal enemies all around, the LDS Church most definitely does have enemies of this kind. If this information is true, then Twede is most certainly one of them. I have encountered other "Mormons" online who have similar motives with regard to the LDS Church. They are in a small minority, but it is these folks who add fuel to the fire of paranoia, anger, and bile that one sees in some LDS apologetics.

It is also striking, by the way, that Twede has been a big supporter of Grant Palmer.

[_Chap]

...

So, this seems to be what this account is indicating:

David Twede orchestrated his own disciplinary hearing and its coverage in order to make the LDS Church and Mitt Romney look bad at a time when he could get maximum attention focused on himself.

If true, that is completely despicable behavior.

...

You know, I can understand people being upset with the LDS Church and deciding it is not for them. I do not so much get why it is people engage in this kind of internal subversion.
...

I'd say that one likely motive for people doing such things (assuming they have been done, which remains to be determined) might be a wish to redress the balance of power between a single dissident individual, and the huge organization with which they are dealing, an organization whose past record does not suggest it is likely to play softball with people who it sees as likely to get in its corporate way.

In deciding to discipline Twede at the time it did, the CoJCoLDS exercized its Free Agency. They acted under no constraint, but made a decision that was clearly very naïve. They could have acted more prudently and waited until after the election, but did not. That demonstrates something about the organization, I think.

(by the way, like Darth J. on another thread, I find it hard to believe that somebody like Twede who manages a website would not be well aware that creating a sock puppet from the same IP address would be easily detectable by website administrators. I also note that he has denied doing any such thing.)

[_Kishkumen]

I'd say that one likely motive for people doing such things (assuming they have been done, which remains to be determined) might be a wish to redress the balance of power between a single dissident individual, and the huge organization with which they are dealing, an organization whose past record does not suggest it is likely to play softball with people who it sees as likely to get in its corporate way.

In deciding to discipline Twede at the time it did, the CoJCoLDS exercized its Free Agency. They acted under no constraint, but made a decision that was clearly very naïve. They could have acted more prudently and waited until after the election, but did not. That demonstrates something about the organization, I think.

OK, granted that his is an effective way to manufacture attention and give the Church a small black eye, but, supposing this narrative is factually accurate, I personally have little sympathy for what Twede has done.

It seems like Twede is coming from a position of one who pretty much believes none of the faith claims of Mormonism, but that he is going to take it upon himself to punk the whole Church in order to....

What?

Show that the LDS disciplinary process has problems?

Bring attention to his website?

Grab his fifteen seconds of notoriety?

Prevent Mitt Romney from getting a few votes?

Well, he doesn't tell us, and he can't, because if he did the jig would be up, and he would lose all of the attention he apparently manufactured for himself.

And I have to say that he was incredibly shortsighted in his approach.

[_Chap]

I'd say that one likely motive for people doing such things (assuming they have been done, which remains to be determined) might be a wish to redress the balance of power between a single dissident individual, and the huge organization with which they are dealing, an organization whose past record does not suggest it is likely to play softball with people who it sees as likely to get in its corporate way.

In deciding to discipline Twede at the time it did, the CoJCoLDS exercized its Free Agency. They acted under no constraint, but made a decision that was clearly very naïve. They could have acted more prudently and waited until after the election, but did not. That demonstrates something about the organization, I think.

OK, granted that his is an effective way to manufacture attention and give the Church a small black eye, but, supposing this narrative is factually accurate, I personally have little sympathy for what Twede has done.

It seems like Twede is coming from a position of one who pretty much believes none of the faith claims of Mormonism, but that he is going to take it upon himself to punk the whole Church in order to....

What?

Show that the LDS disciplinary process has problems?

Bring attention to his website?

Grab his fifteen seconds of notoriety?

Prevent Mitt Romney from getting a few votes?

Well, he doesn't tell us, and he can't, because if he did the jig would be up, and he would lose all of the attention he apparently manufactured for himself.

And I have to say that he was incredibly shortsighted in his approach.

You seem disinclined to give any weight to this statement on the main thread:

No, these are silly accusations. But the information there is interesting. Either a family member outed me or they're making excuses.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't understand this gobbledygook from Scott. Is he saying that Twede, using a sock puppet, exposed himself?

He is not saying it. But it was discovered at LDS.net when they did a IP check. And picked up by FAIR.

I'm no IT wizard, so this "IP check" stuff is over my head, but I deduce from all this that the evidence strongly suggests that Twede set himself up to be outed and disciplined. Why do that? For some press? I know Twede has suggested that perhaps a family member outed him, so it should be easy for Twede to figure out the identify of the person using Twede's own computer, right?

[_Chap]

I'm no IT wizard, so this "IP check" stuff is over my head,

Don't let it be. The IP check is just like a check on the address a letter is written from. If I sign on to a message board from my computer under six different names, each using a different (say) Google Mail address to receive sign-on details, the administrators will still be able to see that all the posts under different names come from the same computer.

Of course, any person who runs a big website will know ways to get round it - which makes it hard to believe that Twede would let himself get caught in this way even if he was posting under multiple names.

but I deduce from all this that the evidence strongly suggests that Twede set himself up to be outed and disciplined. Why do that? For some press? I know Twede has suggested that perhaps a family member outed him, so it should be easy for Twede to figure out the identify of the person using Twede's own computer, right?

Not really. If several people use the computer Twede posts from, it would not necessarily be easy to determine which user was signing on to a website, unless each family member had their own log-on identity and the computer could not be used unless the user logged in. Few families impose such controls.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Not really. If several people use the computer Twede posts from, it would not necessarily be easy to determine which user was signing on to a website, unless each family member had their own log-on identity and the computer could not be used unless the user logged in. Few families impose such controls.

But Twede would still know it was someone in his family who was the snitch, correct?

[_Chap]

Not really. If several people use the computer Twede posts from, it would not necessarily be easy to determine which user was signing on to a website, unless each family member had their own log-on identity and the computer could not be used unless the user logged in. Few families impose such controls.

But Twede would still know it was someone in his family who was the snitch, correct?

On the assumption that only Twede's family members could use the computer, yes.