FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_karl61]

Is this the same guy? It looks like it is him.

http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm

[_skippy the dead]

By the way, are you going to answer my question. If McCue uses his family stories to attack the Church, then aren't his family stories fair game to be refuted? Open the door theory, and all that.

Nope. Not my area of expertise.

Nice sidestep. YOu don't need to be a lawyer. Ever watch "Law and Order?" or Court TV?

Gack! Never rely on "Law & Order" for civil procedure! Although the show does do a pretty good job in showing the way courts operate (and has been known to be used in civil procedure classes in law school for illustration), the law is often "adapted" for dramatic effect. The "opened the door" theory may apply to cross-examination of a witness during a hearing or trial, it has nothing to do with providing an excuse for claims of slander or libel.

Really, it doesn't matter if McCue uses his family stories; FAIR has no right as a result to make claims about him being an abuser or the like. And it's not like McCue's family is injecting itself into the discussion. FAIR really should just leave that one alone (my personal opinion). Rolling around in the muck and all that.

[_Pokatator]

Would FAIR really remove the article if it was true and they could prove it?

[_moksha]

And those of you who are confabulating the Church with FAIR are being nonsensical. FAIR quite plainly states it is not owned, operated, told what to say or do, or not say or do by the Church. I guess that is too hard a concept for the most rabid among the ex-es and critics to get.

Edited to add: Isn't anybody going to comment on my question. If McCue uses hs family stories to attack the Church, is his family still out of bounds to refute the argument he makes?

How right you are Charity. FAIR is not the Church and so is not bound by any ethical conventions and is free to do whatever misdeeds they choose to pursue. It should not reflect back on the Church and any legal disputes should be referred to the law firm of Dahmer, Bundy and McConkie.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Edited to add: Isn't anybody going to comment on my question. If McCue uses hs family stories to attack the Church, is his family still out of bounds to refute the argument he makes?

If the information used to refute his arguments is untrue, then it should be out of bounds.

Truth is always a defense against the charge of slander and libel.

Apparently Bob McCue considers it out of bounds, which explains his hints at taking the case to court - but not knowing the details of his case, or even whether he is going to proceed, makes for a short discussion here.

[_truth dancer]

I read the article yesterday, Bob's response this morning. Seems all evidence has been removed. ;-)

This is really funny. After all the personal attacks on the big name apologists, you say "open the door?" Siince I didn't see the article, I can't comment on what it said. But if you think there was something slanderous there, and that only now could there be attacks aimed at the LDS apologists, you have been asleep at the switch.

I guess I missed the WIKI articles written by critics telling the world you committed adultery. Please give us the links.

And, Harmony is correct. Neighborhood women who got together on their own to discuss scriptures were told to stop meeting. No relief society involvement. No church involvement. No advertising or association with the church. Just a bunch of ladies trying to help and support each other.


~dancer~

[_moksha]

And, Harmony is correct. Neighborhood women who got together on their own to discuss scriptures were told to stop meeting. No relief society involvement. No church involvement. No advertising or association with the church. Just a bunch of ladies trying to help and support each other.

~dancer~

Perhaps the Church felt that these ladies needed a firmer grasp on the ironrod of the Priesthood, before they could proceed.

[_Ray A]

I guess I missed the WIKI articles written by critics telling the world you committed adultery. Please give us the links.

And, Harmony is correct. Neighborhood women who got together on their own to discuss scriptures were told to stop meeting. No relief society involvement. No church involvement. No advertising or association with the church. Just a bunch of ladies trying to help and support each other.


~dancer~

It's almost worth paying to read the debates between Truth Dancer and Charity :)

The Church did "monitor" member-generated discussion groups during the 1980s. My memory could be hazy, but I do recall a FP letter advising bishops to "discourage" such groups, because members only needed the Church to get all the information they need. I personally had no problem with discussion groups, and even participated in a couple. The stake presidency I was under rigourously pursued one group which was formed around the study of the book Ye Are Gods, and to make a long story short, one of the discussion group leaders was threatened with excommunication, a move I disagreed with. She was, after all, under my local jurisdiction. The stake pres. asked me to convene a bishop's court to "try" her, but I said I couldn't do that in good conscience, and he took "original jurisdiction", but in the end no one was excommunicated. The "offence", or charge, was that they were "ursurping authority to teach" and could be "teaching false doctrine". It really was a glorified witch hunt.

[_charity]

How right you are Charity. FAIR is not the Church and so is not bound by any ethical conventions and is free to do whatever misdeeds they choose to pursue. It should not reflect back on the Church and any legal disputes should be referred to the law firm of Dahmer, Bundy and McConkie.

Not you, too, mocksha. So, when a topic is started about legal issues of slander and libel and suing FAIR and the Church, it is all right to talk about legal issues. But when we talk about the legal issues from FAIR's view, then we can't talk about legal issues anymore. Nice.

Apparently Bob McCue considers it out of bounds, which explains his hints at taking the case to court - but not knowing the details of his case, or even whether he is going to proceed, makes for a short discussion here.

But that doesn't stop the gang here from making all kinds of charges and ethical, unethical, slander and libel, did it?

I read the article yesterday, Bob's response this morning. Seems all evidence has been removed. ;-)

Don't chortle too fast here. He (she0 who laugh last, laughs best.

I guess I missed the WIKI articles written by critics telling the world you committed adultery. Please give us the links. [/quote]

I'm not a big name apologist. I'm not even a big league apologist.

And, Harmony is correct. Neighborhood women who got together on their own to discuss scriptures were told to stop meeting. No relief society involvement. No church involvement. No advertising or association with the church. Just a bunch of ladies trying to help and support each other.

Interesting that we have only one side of the story. But that is usually what critics only want to come out, of course.

[_truth dancer]

TD: I read the article yesterday, Bob's response this morning. Seems all evidence has been removed. ;-)

C: Don't chortle too fast here. He (she0 who laugh last, laughs best.

EXCUSE ME? I was asked when I read the article and if they had been removed. No need to get nasty about everything.

TD: I guess I missed the WIKI articles written by critics telling the world you committed adultery. Please give us the links.

C: I'm not a big name apologist. I'm not even a big league apologist.

Please give us the links to ANY WIKI article written by a critic claiming any apologist committed adultery.

TD: And, Harmony is correct. Neighborhood women who got together on their own to discuss scriptures were told to stop meeting. No relief society involvement. No church involvement. No advertising or association with the church. Just a bunch of ladies trying to help and support each other.

C: Interesting that we have only one side of the story. But that is usually what critics only want to come out, of course.


Harmony, Ray, and I are responding to YOUR assertion that the church won't get involved in non LDS sponsored groups of women meeting together to study the scriptures. They most certainly did.

We only have one side of the discussion BECAUSE FAIR REMOVED THE ARTICLE.

Let me recap for you. FAIR published an article. I thought it would make an interesting discussion. FAIR REMOVED THE ARTICLE. And critics are at fault for only wanting one side to come out? You have got to be kidding me.

AGAIN in case you missed it. FAIR published the WIKI article online.

Hope this helps.