MAD's McCue Dogpile

[_Bond...James Bond]

Isn't it strange that we hear about a lot of people here who left the Church and none of them caved and became active again, because of pressure from a believing spouse.

I think the best that pressure from a spouse will bring is for the people to continue attending Church...rather than believing.

Example: Runtu

I'll chalk myself up for that too. My wife has pressured me to keep attending at least Sacrament Meeting. I got away with skipping a few times several months back, but then my wife brought it up again. So I've been going again pretty much every week. I think I'll skip a few times in the next few months and see if I can work my way out of it again. At any rate, I go to Sacrament meeting and then leave. It's no secret, and I'm quite sure the whole ward knows of my unbelief.

My wife brought up divorce a few times due to the whole loss of testimony thing. She has brought enormous pressure to bear on me over this. I can 100% back up that kind of pattern of behavior. I've not forced her to listen to the "bad side" of Mormon history, read any books, or anything else. Fortunately, in my case, my wife is the sort who gets used to things and stops being as strident in her attitude as previous, so I fully expect that she'll get more and more used to things as time goes on. She's already way more used to my apostasy than she was, say, two years ago.

It sounds like you could also add Who Knows to the list. (Can I go on record and say that it's so much easier to do personal work and sort out beliefs while not married!)

[_mms]

Did anyone bother to actually examine the words of mbeesley in the following?

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.

Does that make sense to anyone regarding burden of proof?

JAK?

Well, I made a stab at "examining" mbeesley's words, and I *did* find it a "bother." As to what s/he actually means.... Well, I'm not too sure. I do understand the last bit, however. S/he's saying that s/he believes that Bob McCue would cheat on his wife (and lie about it!) simply because McCue is a critic of the LDS Church--I.e., "just cause of his reputation".

What I'm saying (typing) is that the burden of proof remarks make no sense to a sane person. Let's find a sane person and get them to comment, okay?

;-)

Lol. Naw, it ain't happenin', Girl. There are too many sane folks in this joint. Now, if we were to retire to the aptly named MADboard.....

Here is my problem with the comments by mbeelsey and I'm trying to hold back commenting on the situation entirely but I don't think I can do that much longer.

Isn't mbeesley saying that McCue has to prove he did not cheat on his wife? Isn't he saying that a way for McCue to "prove" that he didn't cheat on this wife is to state so?

Does that make sense?

Isn't it or wouldn't it be THEIR burden to prove that he DID?

If McCue were to sue, I believe he would have to prove the "falsity" of the statements allegedly made by FAIR (e.g., he did not cheat on his wife and FAIR said he did (allegedly)). It would be his burden of proof to demonstrate falsity and, if he put forth evidence of such, FAIR could defend itself by demonstrating the "truthfulness" of its statements. So, it really is McCue's burden in the FIRST place if he is going to sue. But he could meet that burden by simply testifying that statements were false. The burden would then shift to FAIR to demonstrate that it was truthful. If there is a conflict in the evidence, the factfinder would decide. Thus, I think mbeesely meant that if McCue sues, he will have the initial burden.

[_MishMagnet]

Mmmm, I love me some Bob McCue.

Granted I do not know the man personally but I have read quite a lot of his work over the past few years. I feel his writings are more about the psychological process that happens to those of us who leave the church and are helpful in that way. During the time your faith is falling apart and you are realizing the world is not the way you thought it was it is very frightening. It's been helpful to myself and countless others to have a roadmap of sorts. To know you will eventually get to the other side. I've heard Bob speak in person twice and can't recall anything about doctrine at all. The last time I heard him speak it was on mixed faith marriages and what happens to a marriage with a loss of faith in one spouse.

From what I've read of his work he isn't even targeting the church or it's doctrine. Is he a powerful person who has left the church? Yes. Perhaps that makes him the enemy to some.