Outing other Exmos or exmo sympathisers

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:I've met and spoke with Dan Peterson several times in several capacities and can say the man creeps me out in no way. I'm not a star witness, obviously, but Nehor hit the nail on the head. Scratch takes character assassination and unbelievably oversensitivity to a new level in her pursuit of DCP.


Good for you, LOaP! You certainly have one thing right. You are no star witness. Your incessant, petty references to Scratch by the female pronoun, as though this were some kind of insult, show exactly what kind of ignorant, minor-league twerp you are. You could say you saw Daniel walk on water, and the only thing it would prove is the profound depth of your sycophancy.
Last edited by Guest on Sun May 04, 2008 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

The Nehor wrote:Awwwwww, are you saying you're not his sockpuppet?


Are you saying you don't recognize false humility when you see it? ;-)
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Merc,

In all the years I attended churches, I never once heard anyone use the term "outing" anyone for disbelief. I wish you could know how that is received by someone who isn't LDS. So here's my question for the masses:

WHY "out" someone?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

For those of you who don't know what it looks like to an outsider. When posters on boards speak of "outing" others, it just screams "cult".

I'm so not kidding.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Jersey Girl wrote:For those of you who don't know what it looks like to an outsider. When posters on boards speak of "outing" others, it just screams "cult".

I'm so not kidding.


Indeed it does. Sometimes it really does seem like Mormonism must have been the Scientology of the 19th century. It has lost its rougher edges, but many of the disturbing traits of a cult are still present.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

liz3564 wrote:I think that the Church's official stance would be to "out" someone who is a member but having doubts.


Shades of RCrocket, wouldn't this tendency be more of an individual failing than an institutional one, even if it seems widespread?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Trevor wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:For those of you who don't know what it looks like to an outsider. When posters on boards speak of "outing" others, it just screams "cult".

I'm so not kidding.


Indeed it does. Sometimes it really does seem like Mormonism must have been the Scientology of the 19th century. It has lost its rougher edges, but many of the disturbing traits of a cult are still present.


I've seen it for virtual years, Trevor. As much as LDS bristle at the word "cult", their behavior is often "cultish".
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Trevor wrote:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:I've met and spoke with Dan Peterson several times in several capacities and can say the man creeps me out in no way. I'm not a star witness, obviously, but Nehor hit the nail on the head. Scratch takes character assassination and unbelievably oversensitivity to a new level in her pursuit of DCP.


Good for you, LOaP! You certainly have one thing right. You are no star witness. Your incessant, petty references to Scratch by the female pronoun, as though this were some kind of insult, show exactly what kind of ignorant, minor-league twerp you are. You could say you saw Daniel walk on water, and the only thing it would prove is the profound depth of your sycophancy.


I do nothing different from what routinely appears in the pages of FARMS Review. Nor do I do anything much different than DCP's "RfM sig-line archive." The difference is that my commentary is limited strictly to Mopologetics, and to what is accessible online. Never have I, for example, contacted somebody's family, as DCP has done. Nor have I ever posted private information, as juliann and Pahoran did on their "Mr. Itchy" blog. Furthermore, I've never ripped into somebody's professional credibility, as have DCP, and Bill Hamblin, and many others who sought to destroy Quinn's career as a historian (and arguably succeeded, at least in certain circles). As I pointed out to Bob on a separate thread, I have never ever criticized DCP's professor-of-Middle-Eastern-studies work. I've never engaged in the sort of real-life gossip akin to what Gee and The Good Professor were doing to Prof. Robert Ritner.

Am I sometimes kind of a bastard, and do I sometimes question the character of Mopologists? Yes, that's no doubt true. But nowhere have I ever meddled in people's in real life worlds in the way that these Church defenders have.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Mister Scratch wrote:I do nothing different from what routinely appears in the pages of FARMS Review. Nor do I do anything much different than DCP's "RfM sig-line archive." The difference is that my commentary is limited strictly to Mopologetics, and to what is accessible online. Never have I, for example, contacted somebody's family, as DCP has done. Nor have I ever posted private information, as juliann and Pahoran did on their "Mr. Itchy" blog. Furthermore, I've never ripped into somebody's professional credibility, as have DCP, and Bill Hamblin, and many others who sought to destroy Quinn's career as a historian (and arguably succeeded, at least in certain circles). As I pointed out to Bob on a separate thread, I have never ever criticized DCP's professor-of-Middle-Eastern-studies work. I've never engaged in the sort of real-life gossip akin to what Gee and The Good Professor were doing to Prof. Robert Ritner.


A Mormon on the warpath to protect his religion is a scary thing indeed.
_KimberlyAnn
_Emeritus
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:03 pm

Post by _KimberlyAnn »

I do know that members who confess sin to their bishops are encouraged to "tattle" on anyone else involved in the deed.

I also know that when I told my husband I no longer believed the Mormon church to be true, he ratted me out to our bishop, who said he did the right thing. The bishop then continued corresponding with my husband privately, informing him he could no longer trust me in matters of faith. The bishop also told my husband to keep their conversations about me and my "crisis" private and not to discuss them even with me--that I was under the influence of the devil and couldn't be trusted. My husband wasn't cautious, though, and I discovered their correspondence accidentally.

Really, it mattered not that they did that: there was no way in hell I was ever going back to the Mormon church. I knew I was right, and none of their secret combinations would have succeeded in convincing me otherwise. The only thing their actions accomplished was lessening my respect for both of them.

KA
Post Reply