Page 1 of 2
Why doesn't the church sue those who push obvious lies?
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:30 pm
by Dr. Shades
We're all probably aware of some egregious lie or other about various LDS leaders. This is a new one that I recently came across:
The Left-Hand Path
It's a very long document, so click "Ctrl+F" and type in "Left-Hand," then click "Enter."
It references President Monson, who was deceased before the site went up (which was apparently in 2021), so maybe there is less motivation to do so, but I'm scratching my head over why the church doesn't sue the pants off the guy pushing such obviously made-up lies. Or any of the other people who spread clear and obvious falsehoods about members of the hierarchy, for that matter.
My only guess is that the church wishes to avoid bringing publicity to such claims, false though they may be, but wouldn't it be better off putting out a clear and obvious disincentive to those who might be tempted to publish such things in the future?
Any insights will be welcome.
Re: Why doesn't the church sue those who push obvious lies?
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:25 pm
by msnobody
I suppose they recognize this was allegedly written by someone with a mental health condition brought on by possible early childhood abuse that resulted in DID.
Re: Why doesn't the church sue those who push obvious lies?
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:58 pm
by drumdude
For all Mormonism’s faults, they don’t seem to be as litigious as say, Scientology.
It’s not worth highlighting something small that hasn’t done much damage. This guy probably doesn’t have much money so any judgement against him wouldn’t accomplish much. Also, defamation is a high bar. The first amendment isn’t lightly thrown to the side just because someone is upset at what someone writes.
Re: Why doesn't the church sue those who push obvious lies?
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 9:46 pm
by Gadianton
I read the entire thing and found the storyline compelling and sincere. Certain passages that weren't meant to be funny had me laughing pretty hard because of the incredible sincerity with which they were written. The most unbelievable part of the story, what made me question whether he is really Mormon at all was the mention of "black suits" and overplaying the importance of young men wearing suits all the time (who aren't fulltime missionaries). But he eventually hit enough Mormon themes well enough that I think he probably is Mormon.
To answer Shades as to why the Church lets this fly, allow me to quote from the main page:
Personally, believing these to be matters of importance I also wrote to the United States President at the time, Donald J. Trump; I had written to him several times while he was in office.
I have not written to President Biden as after all I have been through and seen, I do not trust this man.
As a Republican with fairly standard Republican beliefs about the world, he's guaranteed to vote Republican the rest of his life and the amount of good he does for the Church by a vote that generally allows churches to evade accountability is greater than the harm he's doing by weaving church leaders into the general narrative that most mainstream Republicans believe. A Monson or Eyring getting mixed up in the story is an "occupational hazard", as it were.
Re: Why doesn't the church sue those who push obvious lies?
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:46 pm
by Everybody Wang Chung
What a strange story. So, according to this guy, he was forced into an arranged marriage with billionaire heiress, Nicky Hilton? And, he was forced to make a porn film with Nicky Hilton? Poor guy, my heart goes out to him.
On this trip I would also see the young woman that I was engaged to marry through the Central Intelligence Agency, Byrd, and my family: i.e. it was intended that I was to be in an arranged marriage with Nicky Hilton, the girl who had hurt her ankle at the beginning of The Most Dangerous Game. I would see Nicky at the hotel which I was staying at in Salt Lake City with my parents and little brother and I would be taken to a room on the top floor of the hotel with Nicky and we were made to make a porn video together..
Re: Why doesn't the church sue those who push obvious lies?
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 1:45 am
by Shulem
Dear Dr. Shades,
The reason the Church does not sue individuals or identities responsible for slander against the Church (whether provable or not) is because of the counter lawsuits that would be returned and up the anti. The Church is a great resource of MONEY in which it can be sued and bled by those who can prove they have been victimized and deserve compensation for losses they have incurred.
Indeed, the Church could pull their resources and sue many a people and make things difficult but their lawyers know full well that the reverse would be more expensive and painful to the institution in which they have been hired to protect.
I hope that helps answer your question.
Shulem
Re: Why doesn't the church sue those who push obvious lies?
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:05 am
by Gadianton
So, serious question for anyone who has some psychiatric knowledge. It may sound like I'm just trying to be sarcastic, but I swear, in this instance, I'm totally serious, and I'm really curious what the answer might be. I may have to start another thread on this, but for now, this will do.
Begin with a small town as one would find in rural Utah or Idaho filled with unhinged right-wingers. These are people who otherwise are normal; they run farms, have businesses, and enjoy prosperous lives, but live in a fantasy world, which in recent years has become synonymous with QAnon. Rich liberals run a worldwide pedophile ring, dine on children and drink their blood and it goes down from there. A normal conversation with a neighbor or around the family dinner table with grandma and grandpa might consist of stories about Hollywood elites or deep state political opposition to Donald Trump engaging in utter human depravity; and such stories are swapped matter-of-factly. If you ever watch Jordan Klepper interview attendees at Trump rallies you get a glimpse into an entire world that one would think is certified cluster A, but it's really just LARPing at scale. People who are otherwise normal enough are able to compartmentalize the real world and fantasy Trump land so their lives don't fall apart. People who tend to be more literalistic end up suffering heavier personal consequences if they get too far down the rabbit whole.
But what happens if a person who just happened to be unlucky enough to be born cluster A is raised in a right-wing town where everybody talks like they're cluster A? What happens if a person is legitimately paranoid, and they are brought up in an environment where everybody is constantly talking conspiracy theories, as if the wildest conspiracies are as real as sunflowers blooming? As the illness sets on, the person feels something is wrong, goes and sees a therapist, but the therapist is a right-wing Christian who practices a mix of psychology and New Age quackery?
I guess the question is, can the wrong environment catapult an ill person way over the edge, or do ill people find their way to these extremes independent of environment?
Re: Why doesn't the church sue those who push obvious lies?
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:47 am
by drumdude
Gadianton wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:05 am
So, serious question for anyone who has some psychiatric knowledge. It may sound like I'm just trying to be sarcastic, but I swear, in this instance, I'm totally serious, and I'm really curious what the answer might be. I may have to start another thread on this, but for now, this will do.
Begin with a small town as one would find in rural Utah or Idaho filled with unhinged right-wingers. These are people who otherwise are normal; they run farms, have businesses, and enjoy prosperous lives, but live in a fantasy world, which in recent years has become synonymous with QAnon. Rich liberals run a worldwide pedophile ring, dine on children and drink their blood and it goes down from there. A normal conversation with a neighbor or around the family dinner table with grandma and grandpa might consist of stories about Hollywood elites or deep state political opposition to Donald Trump engaging in utter human depravity; and such stories are swapped matter-of-factly. If you ever watch Jordan Klepper interview attendees at Trump rallies you get a glimpse into an entire world that one would think is certified cluster A, but it's really just LARPing at scale. People who are otherwise normal enough are able to compartmentalize the real world and fantasy Trump land so their lives don't fall apart. People who tend to be more literalistic end up suffering heavier personal consequences if they get too far down the rabbit whole.
But what happens if a person who just happened to be unlucky enough to be born cluster A is raised in a right-wing town where everybody talks like they're cluster A? What happens if a person is legitimately paranoid, and they are brought up in an environment where everybody is constantly talking conspiracy theories, as if the wildest conspiracies are as real as sunflowers blooming? As the illness sets on, the person feels something is wrong, goes and sees a therapist, but the therapist is a right-wing Christian who practices a mix of psychology and New Age quackery?
I guess the question is, can the wrong environment catapult an ill person way over the edge, or do ill people find their way to these extremes independent of environment?
I think we see examples of just that with many school shootings. Read their manifestos. If they didn't have these ideas circulating in their communities, they wouldn't gravitate towards them.
Re: Why doesn't the church sue those who push obvious lies?
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 3:49 am
by Everybody Wang Chung
Dean,
A church that heavily encourages (and expects) its members to have personal revelation/visions is bound to have higher incidents of delusional behavior/mental illness than say, Buddhism, Catholicism, Judaism or Islam.
Is there any meaningful difference between being visionary and delusional? I have no doubt that many, if not most LDS prophets could be psycho-analyzed and labeled as delusional – and probably would be medicated to stop the delusions. Would Joseph Smith be considered delusional/clinically insane given today’s understanding of mental illness and the lower tolerance of the mystical?
Chad and Julie Daybell, Julie Rowe, Lafferty brothers, Brian David “Emmanuel” Mitchell, Martin Harris (deer Jesus), Joseph Smith and let's not forget the case of John Yettaw. John snuck into Myanmar, made a midnight swim across a massive lake to deliver a revelation and a copy of the Book of Mormon to a political dissident under house arrest. His capture and arrest made international news. Was John delusional or just visionary? Was he following promptings of the spirit?
Examples of delusional behavior in the Church are everywhere. For example, DCP claims that dowsing worked for him and that Witnesses was a great film. If that's not delusional behavior, then I don't know what is.
PS I almost forgot our family friend Claude Nowell a.k.a. Corky Ra who had a vision and started his own religion, the Summums. He tried really hard to get my mother and father to join, but was unsuccessful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum
Re: Why doesn't the church sue those who push obvious lies?
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 4:33 am
by Moksha
Didn't Mormon Discussions receive a letter from Church attorneys for the use of the word Mormon in the website title?