Outing other Exmos or exmo sympathisers

[_harmony]

If you prefer to view it as "meddling," you're certainly free to do so. At least two or three others here will, too, so you'll have company.

I understand that passing on information to a father about his son's misbehavior can be viewed as "meddling," and that the son will almost certainly view it that way. But if I didn't know that my son was doing drugs or abusing alcohol, I would want to know. In fact, I would regard a friend who knew about the problem and nevertheless didn't tell me as not much of a friend. Now, obviously, mocking one's father behind his back on a public message board at a time of family crisis isn't quite the same thing as driving drunk or using cocaine. Still, I would want to know. Perhaps you wouldn't.

Decent people can have differing views about what my response should have been. I think I've said enough, though, to indicate that this was not a case of vindictively trying to "rat out" GoodK to his father on account of GoodK's atheism. (Obviously, it will never be enough for those who are convinced that everything I say is a lie and everything I do is unethical. But people like that aren't my audience here. I'm not that stupid.)

I'm pretty sure you didn't vindictively try to rat out GoodK's atheism to his father, since from what I can gather, it appears that the father already knew about the atheism. What appears more likely is that you were ratting out GoodK's mocking of his father's claim to something spiritual, which you took exception to.

From what I understand, you viewed GoodK's post on this board about his father's email regarding the blessing of his sister to be "misbehavior" deserving of "ratting out". What I'm trying to figure out is why you think it's your business to 1) judge GoodK in any manner (GoodK is an adult, living a life free of illegal behavior. No drugs, no drunk driving. Indulging in nothing that could by the vastest stretch of imagination be construed to be harmful.) and 2) deliberately place yourself in what could only be viewed as a family matter. And yet you still claim it wasn't meddling. You aren't family to GoodK nor to his father. What other word (besides meddling) would be useful in describing this situation?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What appears more likely is that you were ratting out GoodK's mocking of his father's claim to something spiritual, which you took exception to.

It was the mocking, not the specific topic of the mocking, that shocked me.

What I'm trying to figure out is why you think it's your business to 1) judge GoodK in any manner

I didn't "judge GoodK" in any serious sense. I simply alerted his father to the thread by giving his father the thread's address. I thought his father ought to be aware of it.

and 2) deliberately place yourself in what could only be viewed as a family matter. And yet you still claim it wasn't meddling. You aren't family to GoodK nor to his father. What other word (besides meddling) would be useful in describing this situation?

As I've said, if you want to call it "meddling," that's your privilege. And if you want to view my behavior as unethical or out of bounds, that's your privilege, too. As I've also said, I myself wasn't sure what to do about the situation, whether to remain silent or to call my friend's attention to it. I finally decided to bring the thread to my friend's notice. I still feel, on balance, that that was the right thing to do.

You're free to disagree.

I understand that you take a low view of me and of the way I live my life. You've said so, many times, presuming to declare (from whatever Olympian height you imagine yourself to inhabit) that I don't live the Gospel. You won't be surprised, probably, to learn that I don't put a lot of stock in your judgment of me. You don't know me, and you know very little about me. I'm guessing that you don't know my family, my neighbors, my friends, my home ward members, my student ward members, my academic colleagues, or my colleagues in Islamic studies. I'm guessing that you haven't read many of my publications, either -- if, indeed, you've read any of them at all. You have no genuine basis for pronouncing judgment on my life, and yet you do so. Why should I take your judgment of me seriously?

[_The Nehor]

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.

Your defense is that other people are worse then you? Then you list examples of singular events by certain people. Even assuming they were true they make up a very small part of what we know of them. On the other hand your entire online career is designed to discredit people. Because you limit your activity to the intertubes, we're supposed to think you have a moral high ground. However we know no such thing. We have no idea who you are. For all we know you're publishing hate leaflets that show up at Temple open houses.

Wish your 'little birdies' all the best from me. I'm sure they're a harmless clipping service.

[_harmony]

What appears more likely is that you were ratting out GoodK's mocking of his father's claim to something spiritual, which you took exception to.

It was the mocking, not the specific topic of the mocking, that shocked me.

Why? In your world, do children never mock their parents?

What I'm trying to figure out is why you think it's your business to 1) judge GoodK in any manner

I didn't "judge GoodK" in any serious sense. I simply alerted his father to the thread by giving his father the thread's address. I thought his father ought to be aware of it.

You just characterized GoodK's behavior as "misbehaving". That's a judgment. Or do you now consider that to not be serious?

and 2) deliberately place yourself in what could only be viewed as a family matter. And yet you still claim it wasn't meddling. You aren't family to GoodK nor to his father. What other word (besides meddling) would be useful in describing this situation?

As I've said, if you want to call it "meddling," that's your privilege. And if you want to view my behavior as unethical or out of bounds, that's your privilege, too. As I've also said, I myself wasn't sure what to do about the situation, whether to remain silent or to call my friend's attention to it. I finally decided to bring the thread to my friend's notice. I still feel, on balance, that that was the right thing to do.

When in doubt, don't. Always a good thing to adhere to, when deciding to turn in front of an oncoming car or when considering meddling in family business of which you have no part.

Once again, if it wasn't meddling, what was it?

You're free to disagree.

No skin off my nose, either way. I'm just curious as to why it's so hard for you to admit that you were meddling in someone else's family business.

I understand that you take a low view of me and of the way I live my life. You've said so, many times, presuming to declare (from whatever Olympian height you imagine yourself to inhabit) that I don't live the Gospel.

Well, you don't. What good would it do for me to pretend you do? (neither do I, but I don't pretend to either).

You won't be surprised, probably, to learn that I don't put a lot of stock in your judgment of me. You don't know me, and you know very little about me. I'm guessing that you don't know my family, my neighbors, my friends, my home ward members, my student ward members, my academic colleagues, or my colleagues in Islamic studies.

Never assume.

I'm guessing that you haven't read many of my publications, either -- if, indeed, you've read any of them at all.

What a very curious statement. What do your publications have to do with the way you live your life?

You have no genuine basis for pronouncing judgment on my life, and yet you do so. Why should I take your judgment of me seriously?

Just returning the favor, Dan. You judged me, and quite harshly I might add, with no basis whatsoever. Sauce, my dear gander. I would worry more if you actually did take me seriously.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why? In your world, do children never mock their parents?

GoodK isn't a child. But no, good sons don't typically mock their fathers as superstitious fools and fanatics on public message boards while their fathers are watching over possibly dying daughters. Not in my world.

You just characterized GoodK's behavior as "misbehaving". That's a judgment. Or do you now consider that to not be serious?

By "serious" judging, I would have in mind denouncing him, writing a condemnation of him, publicly criticizing him, and the like. Even talking about him. But I did none of that. All I did was to send a URL to his dad, suggesting that he might want to have a look.

When in doubt, don't.

I'm not sure that's a sound rule.

meddling in family business of which you have no part.

If that's how you want to view sending a URL to a friend when something at that address concerns that friend, that's fine. We disagree.

Once again, if it wasn't meddling, what was it?

Meddling has a negative connotation. I don't grant that this was a negative thing. It was a duty that I feel I owed my friend. I don't think it would be "meddling in family business" to inform a friend that his son is down at the corner strung out on meth . I wouldn't consider it "meddling in family business" to tell a friend that her thirteen-year-old daughter is having sexual encounters with a fifty-year-old internet predator. I don't consider it "meddling in family business" to let a friend know that his son was ridiculing him behind his back on a public message board in a way that made it impossible for me (and, apparently, for at least one other person here) not to recognize who the son and the father were. As I say, if the shoe were on the other foot, I would have wanted to know.

You don't have to agree with my moral judgment. I certainly disagree with yours. Still, I think there are others here who will plainly be able to see, even if they too disagree with what I chose to do, that my action was not the sort of deliberately evil thing that Scratch et al. continually ascribe to me.

What do your publications have to do with the way you live your life?

They represent a great deal of my life. Of which, while you judge much and harshly, you know next to nothing.

[_Chap]

I have not gossiped about Professor Ritner. But there is more to the story of Dr. Gee and Dr. Ritner than is generally known, and, as one of John Gee's former teachers, I know much of it, as I was in contact with Dr. Gee all through his years in graduate school at Berkeley and at Yale. Scratch and others would be well advised not to draw conclusions from the little portion of the story that they know (some of which, by the way, isn't true).

Masterly.

[...]

What do your publications have to do with the way you live your life?

They represent a great deal of my life. Of which, while you judge much and harshly, you know next to nothing

Please can we have a URL that links to a listing of your non-LDS themed publications in the field of Middle Eastern Studies? That might help us to understand you better.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Alas. Still awake. Though not, I hope, for much longer.

Please can we have a URL that links to a listing of your non-LDS themed publications in the field of Middle Eastern Studies? That might help us to understand you better.

LOL. Masterly.

No URL will take you to my CV because I haven't posted one.

But perhaps a paragraph that I just posted on another thread (in response to an allied insinuation from Mr. Tal Bachman) will help to dispel the illusion under which you seem to be laboring:

LOL. Well, during this past week I finished editing Books 1 and II (out of four) of a new translation of Ibn Sina's Physics for the Islamic Translation Series that I founded and edit, which is distributed by the University of Chicago Press; made the final revisions to a substantial article on "Eschatology" for the forthcoming multi-volume Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World; took my little staff out to lunch to celebrate the publication of the latest volume in the series of the Medical Works of Moses Maimonides that I founded and edit, which is distributed by the University of Chicago Press; completed a roughly sixty-page article on "Mormonism and the Trinity" for Element, the journal of the Society for Mormon Theology and Philosophy; made substantial progress on editing both the Arabic and the English of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi's A‘lam al-Nubuwwa for my Islamic Translation Series; and finished editorial changes to a lengthy article on legends about the pre-existence, conception, gestation, and birth of the Prophet Muhammad, for a volume entitled Imagining the Fetus that will appear toward the end of summer from Oxford University Press.

And no, these are not my first ventures into academic publishing.

[_Chap]

Alas. Still awake. Though not, I hope, for much longer.

Please can we have a URL that links to a listing of your non-LDS themed publications in the field of Middle Eastern Studies? That might help us to understand you better.

LOL. Masterly.

No URL will take you to my CV because I haven't posted one.

But perhaps a paragraph that I just posted on another thread (in response to an allied insinuation from Mr. Tal Bachman) will help to dispel the illusion under which you seem to be laboring:

LOL. Well, during this past week I finished editing Books 1 and II (out of four) of a new translation of Ibn Sina's Physics for the Islamic Translation Series that I founded and edit, which is distributed by the University of Chicago Press; made the final revisions to a substantial article on "Eschatology" for the forthcoming multi-volume Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World; took my little staff out to lunch to celebrate the publication of the latest volume in the series of the Medical Works of Moses Maimonides that I founded and edit, which is distributed by the University of Chicago Press; completed a roughly sixty-page article on "Mormonism and the Trinity" for Element, the journal of the Society for Mormon Theology and Philosophy; made substantial progress on editing both the Arabic and the English of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi's A‘lam al-Nubuwwa for my Islamic Translation Series; and finished editorial changes to a lengthy article on legends about the pre-existence, conception, gestation, and birth of the Prophet Muhammad, for a volume entitled Imagining the Fetus that will appear toward the end of summer from Oxford University Press.

And no, these are not my first ventures into academic publishing.

I do not understand what there was in my post that gave you any grounds for believing that I am laboring under an illusion.

I asked for a URL link to a list of your non-LDS academic publications. You say that there isn't one, because for some reason you have not posted a CV online. Instead you mention some pieces you are currently working on, and refer to a recent luncheon engagement in connection with editorial work you describe.

Well, if you don't want people in general to be able to form an estimate of your scholarly contribution to your chosen field in a way that is now quite common amongst academics (by looking at the range of your publications online, and reading a sample them), that is your right.

For a contrast, see for instance http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/ne ... es/ritner/. Or even http://farms.BYU.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=24

[Guest]

For Trevor: You are quite right to have been "creeped out" by me. I'm extremely creepy. Horses neigh, dogs howl, flowers wilt, lights flicker, and thunder crashes when I walk by.

It's good to be comfortable with you who you are. Kudos to you.

By the way, and for the record, I said you creeped me out "a little." We can talk about the whys in detail, but I would guess you are unlikely to be interested.

[_Trevor]

I'll tell you, though, despite the fact that you didn't ask, where I would want to know: I've read several posts on another message board from people who claim to hold responsible leadership positions in the Church and to be using their status to seek, very gently, to undermine the faith of other members of the Church. (One that I remember specifically claimed to be a high councilor who regularly had the missionaries to his house, expressly for the purpose of trying to plant doubts in their minds; he explicitly noted that, since he's a member of a high council, the missionaries would never suspect what he was up to, and would have their guard down.)

Now, I don't know whether these stories are actually true or not. But, if they are, I find them repulsive. And I would find the behavior of the person telling the story equally repulsive if he were a priest, a minister, a rabbi, or an imam. If I knew the identity of someone playing such a game -- not merely having "doubts" -- I would happily pass it on so that he or she could be deprived as soon as possible of the ecclesiastical status that permits the game to be played.

I think those stories are repulsive too.

For my part, I do not try to win over faithful LDS people to my point of view, unless they are apologists engaging me here or at other apologetic hangouts. I have a dear friend in my local bishopric. When he tried subtly to get me to talk about this stuff, I wouldn't go there. I quit going to Church, and now I have taken down my blog. I restrict my criticisms of Mormonism to this forum and other apologetic fora, but mostly here.