Outing other Exmos or exmo sympathisers

Post by **_Mercury** » Sat May 03, 2008 2:56 pm

Is it ethical to do so? In a realists universe it is somewhat ethical to go along with a dictatorship. What about a dictatorial religion?

What are the consequences of outing a fellow sympathiser for whom who you confided in? Is "anti-mormon" sentiment to be kept confidential both on the exmo and Mormon side of the matter?

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Sat May 03, 2008 6:59 pm

I think that the Church's official stance would be to "out" someone who is a member but having doubts. Personally, I think it is BS to do so.

If someone tells you something in confidence, then you keep that confidence. If you can't do it, then you aren't a good friend, and you have broken a trust with them. Period.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Sat May 03, 2008 7:02 pm

liz3564 wrote:I think that the Church's official stance would be to "out" someone who is a member but having doubts. Personally, I think it is b***s*** to do so.

If someone tells you something in confidence, then you keep that confidence. If you can't do it, then you aren't a good friend, and you have broken a trust with them. Period.

I don't think that is the Church's official stance at all. The only exception would be missionaries.

Post by **_Mercury** » Sat May 03, 2008 8:29 pm

The Nehor wrote:
liz3564 wrote:I think that the Church's official stance would be to "out" someone who is a member but having doubts. Personally, I think it is b***s*** to do so.

If someone tells you something in confidence, then you keep that confidence. If you can't do it, then you aren't a good friend, and you have broken a trust with them. Period.

I don't think that is the Church's official stance at all. The only exception would be missionaries.

BS

Post by **_The Nehor** » Sat May 03, 2008 10:37 pm

Mercury wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
liz3564 wrote:I think that the Church's official stance would be to "out" someone who is a member but having doubts. Personally, I think it is b***s*** to do so.

If someone tells you something in confidence, then you keep that confidence. If you can't do it, then you aren't a good friend, and you have broken a trust with them. Period.

I don't think that is the Church's official stance at all. The only exception would be missionaries.

b***s***

So you've heard talks and lessons about how you should report on everyone around you to your Bishop? Or perhaps you know some silly old busybody that spends their time spying on others in the Church? The former doesn't happen and the latter is a sinner, tolerated and ignored at best.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Sun May 04, 2008 12:00 am

The Nehor wrote:
Mercury wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
liz3564 wrote:I think that the Church's official stance would be to "out" someone who is a member but having doubts. Personally, I think it is b***s*** to do so.

If someone tells you something in confidence, then you keep that confidence. If you can't do it, then you aren't a good friend, and you have broken a trust with them. Period.

I don't think that is the Church's official stance at all. The only exception would be missionaries.

b***s***

So you've heard talks and lessons about how you should report on everyone around you to your Bishop? Or perhaps you know some silly old busybody that spends their time spying on others in the Church? The former doesn't happen and the latter is a sinner, tolerated and ignored at best.

At least one of those "silly old busybodies" is DCP. Another of them is Bob Crockett.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Sun May 04, 2008 12:17 am

Mister Scratch wrote:At least one of those "silly old busybodies" is DCP. Another of them is Bob Crockett.

Perhaps, but you're worse then both of them. You hunt down quotes, dig up dirt, and parade it before everyone who will listen with glee. You've confessed yourself that you're less interested in Mormonism and more into Apologetics. I assume by that you mean the people and not the ideas. This is borne out by the majority of your posts focusing on the 'questionable integrity' of apologists and your confession that you have 'little birdies' reporting to you about various people. You never do this to advance the progression of ideas. You do it to impugn the character of the person speaking.

You are the consummate busybody. With DCP we have some discussion of Quinn. With Crockett we have one or two instances. You do this CONSTANTLY.

Edit: I would add that if the SCMC existed in the form you imagine, you would be the ideal person to run it.

Post by **_Trevor** » Sun May 04, 2008 12:25 am

The Nehor wrote:Perhaps, but you're worse then both of them.

I quite often disagree with Scratch, and he seems a little too into this whole thing for my taste. I also quite often disagree with Bob, but he seems like a decent guy. Daniel creeps me out a little. I am not sure who is better or worse here. Maybe Scratch is worse than Bob. I don't know. But Daniel? Hmmm.

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Sun May 04, 2008 12:36 am

Trevor wrote:
The Nehor wrote:Perhaps, but you're worse then both of them.

I quite often disagree with Scratch, and he seems a little too into this whole thing for my taste. I also quite often disagree with Bob, but he seems like a decent guy. Daniel creeps me out a little. I am not sure who is better or worse here. Maybe Scratch is worse than Bob. I don't know. But Daniel? Hmmm.

I've met and spoke with Dan Peterson several times in several capacities and can say the man creeps me out in no way. I'm not a star witness, obviously, but Nehor hit the nail on the head. Scratch takes character assassination and unbelievably oversensitivity to a new level in her pursuit of DCP.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Sun May 04, 2008 12:38 am

Trevor wrote:
The Nehor wrote:Perhaps, but you're worse then both of them.

I quite often disagree with Scratch, and he seems a little too into this whole thing for my taste. I also quite often disagree with Bob, but he seems like a decent guy. Daniel creeps me out a little. I am not sure who is better or worse here. Maybe Scratch is worse than Bob. I don't know. But Daniel? Hmmm.

Awwwwww, are you saying you're not his sockpuppet?