CKSalmon wrote:I've tried to post the facts and allegations as neutrally as possible.
1. It seems fairly-well established that FAIRmormon.org recently (yesterday, I believe) posted an article about Bob McCue entitled "Marital Manipulation."
2. The article allegedly stated Bob McCue was unfaithful to his wife and that he was abusive in some ways during his exit from Mormonism.
3. The article allegedly quoted posts from RfM dating from several years ago (perhaps five or so).
4. If 3 is true, then a corollary is that someone has been archiving McCue's RfM posts for quite some time. RfM does not keep archives. The posts would have to have been copied and archived around the time that they were originally posted. Thus, if 3 is true, someone has been following McCue around on RfM for years and saving his posts.
5. Bob McCue has since quickly and unequivocally denied the allegations and hinted that he might sue FAIR for libel.
6. If the "martial manipulation" article was posted yesterday, FAIRmormon.org has quickly removed it. It's no longer available online. There's still a place-holder for it here.
7. Another article, still available online here, links to the marital manipulation article, but the links go to the dead page linked to above.
IPB Image
IPB Image
8. The now-removed FAIRmormon.org article allegedly suggested that "physicians" had reviewed McCue's past posts and concluded that he was in some sense abusive toward his family during his exit from Mormonism.
9. There is, as yet, no indication why FAIRmormon.org removed the article, though one can surmise that the threat of a lawsuit alleging libel would have been a powerful motivator.
10. McCue claims to have a copy of the article, but he is not reposting it and has encouraged others not to do so either.
11. McCue, a lawyer, has suggested that an apology from FAIRmormon.org for publishing potentially-libelous information about him and his family relationships, to an audience that is roughly isomorphic with that for which the article was written, would go a long way toward mitigating the potential damage to his reputation occasioned by the article's contents.
Does anyone have additional information?
What apologetic purpose would such an article have served? The article was apparently person-based (i.e., it was apparently about Bob McCue's personal life) rather than issue-based (i.e., it was apparently not about apologetic issues raised by McCue).
FAIRmormon.org states the following on its homepage:The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) was formed in late 1997 by a group of Mormons in an attempt to defend their faith from detractors who frequented online message boards. Incorporated as a non-profit organization in November 1997, FAIR put up its first Web site in March 1998 and the FAIR Wiki in 2006.
Why would defending one's faith from detractors involve posting articles about the personal lives of detractors?
I doubt this thread will last long, but I can't imagine a more appropriate discussion for an apologetics and discussion board: viz., discussing the appropriate limits of apologetic activity by the premiere LDS apologetics organization.
Do you believe that someone's personal life should be apologetic fodder on either side of the divide?
Best.
CKS
What a great, even-handed, high-minded post here. I think it is fair to say that the post can be considered more or less 'definitive' in terms of what we collectively know about the situation. That said, how well do you suppose it was received by the denizens of MAD? Let's take a look!
Calmoriah wrote:I read McCue's comments when it was first posted years ago. Made me disgusted about how he manipulated his wife (talked about intentionally terrifying her by talking about divorce, etc., he used the word "terrify" himself If I recall correctly ) and apparently felt very good about doing so. I lived in Calgary and my husband knew McCue and it made me interested in his comments....not just this time, but others.
Bob McCue has made a public figure of himself, why is it surprising that someone would save something that he has written that they found noteworthy? Certainly from what he's said over the years, he considers his own words as valuable and thought provoking.
He posted the information himself, if it comes back to bite him later on who's fault is that?
Bob McCue had made claims I believe that leaving the Church has made him a better husband and father, that the Church was damaging to personal relationships etc. If his own self-described behaviour contradicts this picture he's painting, I think it's a valid point.
If you don't talk about your personal life and behaviour as a facet of your argument, than it should not be part of the debate at all. If you do make use family and personal behaviour/qualities as part of your argument, then I see it as valid.
For example, someone's claim that a certain health supplement helped them lose a hundred pounds. Someone else finds a 'before' and 'after' picture and it's obvious that no such thing happened. Is it a valid approach to post the picture as evidence that the man is wrong in his claims?
Wow! Quite an astonishing post! Cal is claiming that she "recalls" McCue saying all this stuff. (I wonder: is her recollection anything like juliann & co.'s "recollection" of that infamous Murphy presentation???)
Here is another jaw-dropping post from "California" (not to be confused with our own beloved "CaliforniaKid"):
(emphasis added)California wrote:HAHA!! I can tell you why it is important to know about his true nature.
I live in Calgary and Bob McCue is the closest thing to the plague around here. He is a horrible man. He used to be a bishop over in BC and when he left some of the congretation followed him. Over here in Calgary, he pays to have stuff published in the newspaper talking about what a deceitful organization the Church is. smile.gif Turns out, he is the deceitful one. From what I understand, his wife stayed active for some years, and due to his pressuring her, she finally couldn't handle it anymore and left the church.
Hmmm. So: Bob McCue is "the plague," and, he has to *pay* to get his stuff published? Any documentation, California?
It continues, in a somewhat more level-headed vein:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:Seems to me, (and I am pretty unfamiliar with the issues here) that McCue started the business by bringing his family into it, his personal life, in his publicly posted letter to Elder Holland. I don't believe posting a bunch of personal information about him is a good route to take, though.
And then back to vengeance:
mbeesley wrote:Maybe somebody over at FAIR just got sick and tired of McCue's BS and decided to call a spade a spade. Boo Hoo McCUE.
mbeesley wrote:Defendants only have the burden of proof on issues they raise as an affirmative defense. In the first instance, the plaintiff must prove their case. So, McCue has the initial burden of proof. He might meet that burden at trial by testifying, for example that he never cheated on his wife. But if I were on the jury, I wouldn't believe him just cause of his reputation.
What's that about bigotry and prejudice, mbeesley?
Anyways, the remainder of the thread, prior to its being shut down, involved a back-and-forth between mbeesley and CKSalmon on the legal ramifications of the event. (Neither of them seemed to take into account Canadian law, and the potential differences thereof, however.)
Worthy of note is this final backtrack from Calmoriah:
Calmoriah wrote:Not having read the article in question, though having read Bob McCue's comments in the past, I think we need to firmly lock down whether someone accused him of adultery and on what grounds before making any judgment.
I have heard people make comments about spiritual unfaithfulness of spouses who have in changed their belief stance and no longer believe in eternal marriage, etc. even if they are still fully committed to the legal aspects of the marriage, but that is something very different from physical adultery.
On much rarer occasions, I've heard emotional abuse being described as a form of unfaithfulness...in fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard it online, but only discussed in private conversations with other women about how they feel when the target of such stuff.
I have seen the jump made by those labeled as spiritually unfaithful to feeling like they've been labeled adulterers, so I'd like to see both claims just to be clear on what is happening.
And this silliness from Dan_G / juliann:
Orpheus wrote:cksalmon wrote:I've tried to post the facts and allegations as neutrally as possible.
You haven't posted any facts at all. Don't use our board to accuse people when you haven't even seen what you want to talk about. That could be libel too.
How interesting! What a stunning about-face! Look again and Cal's ratiocination:
"I think we need to firmly lock down whether someone accused him of adultery and on what grounds before making any judgment."
Notice the "on what grounds" qualifier. Cal isn't saying, "We need to determine whether the accusation was made" (as Orpheus later does); rather, she jumps right in to try and offer apologetic spin as to why the accusation is justifiable. This is really unbelievable. Mopologetics at its finest!