FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_Ray A]

but the fact is, he's talking about his own family when he does that, for better or worse.

Martha Beck was talking about her own family, too. I feel many in the exmo community relished this, and though this was (her charges) never proved in any court, Hugh Nibley was judged guilty by many. "Own family" is not a reasonable defense.

[Guest]

but the fact is, he's talking about his own family when he does that, for better or worse.

Martha Beck was talking about her own family, too. I feel many in the exmo community relished this, and though this was (her charges) never proved in any court, Hugh Nibley was judged guilty by many. "Own family" is not a reasonable defense.

It's still a different thing, for example, if you talk about your own family members, online or otherwise, and if someone else posts a website about it without your consent.

If you'd talked about a daughter, say, on one of these boards, would you like finding that FAIR had posted a WIKI site about it?

Do you for a minute imagine that if RFM posted a site exposing someone at FAIR like Juliann Reynolds, even with things she's disclosed to others, she wouldn't be crying foul and threatening action?

[_skippy the dead]

I would be interested to know if McCue could sue under Canadian law, which has been described at common law to be "any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject
in the minds of ordinary members of the public". Intent is always presumed. And there's no application of the "public figure" reasoning of NY Times vs. Sullivan. Just wondering.

That sort of thing frightens me. Can I be prosecuted under, say, Iranian law despite being a US citizen? I'll have to be extra sure not to say anything bad about the Koran (not that I would, but I'm just sayin').

That's why I was just wondering - he is a Canadian citizen, and the Wiki is accessible from Canada (so would it be considered "published" there as well?). And it's not prosecution - it would be a civil lawsuit. I don't know the answer one way or the other.

[_Ray A]

Besides, wouldn't we like to see a Christian organization practice Christian values? I don't think there's really a good excuse for what they've done.

I've just read a link with some of McCue's writings, and I am sympathetic to his struggles in exiting the Church, very much so, but some comments were made on MADB, about Bob, which have been described as "disgusting". I have been psychoanalysed on this board, but only because I made an inexcusable "flip flop" (and let's face it, ALL exmos are flip-floppers, including Bob McCue, including me). Had I been an exmo (or sympathetic to continual critical exmo expression which borders on libel, which I'm not), not a word would have been raised.

So, do you think that Mormons should "practise Christianity", and let their critics scott free? I'm not justifying charges of adultery, which apparently been withdrawn, and probably with good reason. All the exmos wanted to know "the truth" about Hugh Nibley, but a few charges against McCue brings down their unreserved wrath. I would think, as truth-seekers, they might be a little more open-minded, but the exmo defence for Bob seems, to me, to be little different than the apologetic defence of Mormonism. It's almost "faith-promoting". Bob can do no wrong. Again, until there's hard evidence, I think we should all be cautious. But I'm seeing, in some quarters, almost a blind and zealous devotion to McCue, as if he walks on water.

[_Maxrep]

By the way, if someone really did frighten his wife into things, I don't care how nice he was about it. I consider that to be manipulation. I hate manipulation with a passion whether that manipulation consists of physical threats, threats of loss of affection, divorce, or what have you. Parents manipulate their kids all the time by being "disappointed" or "hurt" at their choices. It's a big pet-peeve of mine when people manipulate others that way. I certainly hope Bob didn't do and didn't advocate any sort of manipulation whether it is an overt threat of divorce, or a more subtle threat of "disappointment".

I think it goes without saying that manipulation is a vice. I think you'll find too, that the Church fits nicely into your above paragraph as an example of manipulation. The primary song, "I hope they call me on a mission" comes to mind along with phrase, "Fake it tell you make it", for newly endowed elders who don't have a testimony of the gospel or missions. If they didn't go there would be plenty of "hurt" and "disappointed" parents and ward members. They would also become unfit dating material for the ward girls.

[_harmony]

By their fruits we shall know them.

Yup, and I've got 27 fruits by which I can be evaluated. I won some, I lost some, and some were a draw. All of them are gainfully employed, all of them have a college education, all of them are active in the church, all of them are good citizens. I must have done something right.

You have 27 kids? I thought you had 8. Wow. I am impressed.

You're right. That does read sorta fruity. ;-)

8 kids, 7 married, plus 12 grandkids = 27 fruits. LOL

What other reason is there to attend SM? Taking the sacrament is the only reason to go. So now I'm being criticized for taking the sacrament? Holy Moses, charity. You need to repent of that one.

To learn, to support others. Only those who are not humble believe they know everything, they know more than anyone else can teach them.

You mistake me, charity. The most important reason I don't stay is because my health rarely allows it. That the talks are usually boring is not a concern. I'd like to stay through the music at least, but lately not even that is possible. I sit in the foyer, instead of on a chair or in a pew. If I am unable to go at all, the sacrament is brought to me by a couple of very sweet young men. I prefer to not require it of them, so I go, sit for as long as I can (which is usually in the 2nd ward bishop's office), take the sacrament, and bail. My bishop is grateful I'm there at all. Hell's bells. My family is grateful I'm still alive. Next time you feel qualified to judge someone sight unseen, remember this conversation.

What I said was, that you keep telling us in describing your actions that you aren't really "in" the Church, even though you protest differently. If you are really sincere about being really "in" then I was suggesting that you are joking with us when you describe what you think and do. Maybe you are really a "Molly" in a costume, pretending to be something you aren't.

Oh, I am definitely in the church. And I am quite serious in my criticism of our leaders, some of our doctrines, and almost all of our apologists.

[_charity]

What other reason is there to attend SM? Taking the sacrament is the only reason to go. So now I'm being criticized for taking the sacrament? Holy Moses, charity. You need to repent of that one.

To learn, to support others. Only those who are not humble believe they know everything, they know more than anyone else can teach them.

You mistake me, charity. The most important reason I don't stay is because my health rarely allows it. That the talks are usually boring is not a concern. I'd like to stay through the music at least, but lately not even that is possible. I sit in the foyer, instead of on a chair or in a pew. If I am unable to go at all, the sacrament is brought to me by a couple of very sweet young men. I prefer to not require it of them, so I go, sit for as long as I can (which is usually in the 2nd ward bishop's office), take the sacrament, and bail. My bishop is grateful I'm there at all. Hell's bells. My family is grateful I'm still alive. Next time you feel qualified to judge someone sight unseen, remember this conversation.

Aha! You are a Molly in anti-Mormon costume! When you made the comment about leaving after the sacrament, it was in the context of boring talks. Not a word about health issues. Remember what I said. We can only know as much about you as you tell us. That was definitely misleading.

[_skippy the dead]

Besides, wouldn't we like to see a Christian organization practice Christian values? I don't think there's really a good excuse for what they've done.

I've just read a link with some of McCue's writings, and I am sympathetic to his struggles in exiting the Church, very much so, but some comments were made on MADB, about Bob, which have been described as "disgusting". I have been psychoanalysed on this board, but only because I made an inexcusable "flip flop" (and let's face it, ALL exmos are flip-floppers, including Bob McCue, including me). Had I been an exmo, not a word would have been raised.

So, do you think that Mormons should "practise Christianity", and let their critics scott free? I'm not justifying charges of adultery, which apparently been withdrawn, and probably with good reason. All the exmos wanted to know "the truth" about Hugh Nibley, but a few charges against McCue brings down their unreserved wrath. I would think, as truth-seekers, they might be a little more open-minded, but the exmo defence for Bob seems, to me, to be little different than the apologetic defence of Mormonism. It's almost "faith-promoting". Bob can do no wrong. Again, until there's hard evidence, I think we should all be cautious. But I'm seeing, in some quarters, almost a blind and zealous devotion to McCue, as if he walks on water.

For me personally, I don't have any real opinion on McCue - I've read some of his stuff, but quite frankly his essays are too long for me to slog through. I have commented on this particular incident because I think it's below the standard code of conduct that I would hope FAIR would follow. I don't think there's a place for any personal dissection in apologetics. Attack the argument, not the source. (Slightly off-topic, but partially relevant - Jose Canseco was vilified for "Juiced" when he published it, based solely on ad hom attacks. Despite the source, he was pretty well right on target. Ad homs are not a good way to offer rebuttal.)

If people think that ex-mo tactics are bad, then it would seem to be poor form to emulate them in order to try to beat them. I don't affiliate myself with any particular ex-mo group (I consider myself more of a "used to be" than an "ex"), so I can't comment on their tactics. But despite what they may do, I would hope that Mormon apologists would "rise above the fray" so to speak, and respond objectively where they can. Rolling in the dirt with some of the critics does them little good.

I hope this makes sense and actually responds to your post - I'm battling a cold and may be a bit medicated.

[_Ray A]

I hope this makes sense and actually responds to your post - I'm battling a cold and may be a bit medicated.

Yes, it does make sense, and I don't view you being as "emotionally invested" in "ex-moism" as some.

[_harmony]

ha! You are a Molly in anti-Mormon costume! When you made the comment about leaving after the sacrament, it was in the context of boring talks. Not a word about health issues. Remember what I said. We can only know as much about you as you tell us. That was definitely misleading.

I made no comment about talks at all, charity. That was your assumption. I simply said I leave after the sacrament. You made an incorrect assumption. Just because you did not know what my health issues are does not mean I haven't discussed health issues on this board, charity. When I commented that my bishop visits me in my home, rather than call me into his office in the ward building, I was soundly criticized by many such as yourself. Yet those who know how close I live to the edge knew why he calls on me here, instead of at the church.

You assumed something about me, charity, based on what you thought was good intelligence. That many here could have disabused you of that incorrect assumption, but didn't, is a testament to the quality of people on this board. They knew I'd set you straight if it was necessary. They chose to allow me my privacy. You, on the other hand, were so sure I was an apostate in Molly dress, you made an unrighteous judgment that I feel dutybound to correct. Try to not do that again.