Ethics Scenario

[_GoodK]

In the above you say that it speaks to the character of those in charge of the facility and that is has a foundation in the Mormon Church.

According to you, the guy was excommunicated from the church. Think that through.

Isn't that proof that the facility doesn't limit itself to members placed in authority? Isn't that the opposite of what you're alleging when you say it has a foundation the Church?

No, not at all, and I'll tell you why.

This all transpired relatively recently, and this man is not simply an employee of the Gulag. He is one of the founding directors and has worked there for more than twenty years. He's in too deep, so to speak, for them to simply write him off (although I'm sure they would like to) and I'm fairly convinced that he has left his responsibilities for the day to day operations at the Mormon Gulag to work at one of their affiliate programs because of his excommunication.

I believe that the Mormon Gulag (West Ridge Academy) is too connected with the Mormon Church to allow "Roy" to remain in his prior position with his current membership status.

Why don't you think it's a good one? Why do you make HER responsible for the actions of a man of god who makes a living guiding troubled youth? Do you know for a fact that they engaged in an affair?

What if she worked for the organization too?
I'm thoroughly convinced - after the story was corroborated by a second inside source - that they engaged in an extramarital affair.

I have no reasons to believe my sources would make this up, are misinformed, or somehow conspired to share the same story with me within a month.

HOW do you know? Because someone told you so?

Two LDS staff members told me. They don't live in the same state, don't know each other, and have a lot of credibility with me.

What you're suggesting is that it's okay to do harm in order to do good.

I'm not sure what actual harm Roy's children could realize by me sharing the story of a bishop/director at the MG being excommunicated for having an affair with a married woman in the ward he presides over.

I'm also not sure what obligations I have because this man happens to have children. Shouldn't he have thought about the harm his children could realize if he were to be caught having an affair? Do I bare some responsibility in shielding his children from something deplorable that their father did?

[_asbestosman]

Don't forget the MDB Double Standard (for which I've just provided experimental verification).

Don't you need standards in the first place before you can have a double standard?

[_The Nehor]

It's common practice on this board to lie to manipulate others. Scratch admitted to doing it.

But that was different. That was Scratch. And did he correct his lie immediately? Did he ever actually correct it at all? My guess is No. So that's all right.

Don't forget the MDB Double Standard (for which I've just provided experimental verification).

No, he only corrected it when not correcting it made him a bigger liar. Then he sighed deeply, wiped off his monocle, and began evading the issue by talking nonsense. He was cut short as a Danite assassin shot at him from a grassy knoll across the street. He fled and ran into a house owned by llamas with hats. It didn't end well. It was funny though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZUPCB9533Y

[_GoodK]

Another thread blessed by the hilarious, "rib-tickeling" wit of the poster known as The Nehor.

We really are living in the greatest dispensation.

[_The Nehor]

Another thread blessed by the hilarious, "rib-tickeling" wit of the poster known as The Nehor.

We really are living in the greatest dispensation.

Mentally challenged convicts who beat up women shouldn't be talking.

[_GoodK]

Mentally challenged convicts who beat up women shouldn't be talking.

Shouldn't you be working on losing your virginity? I know this board is fun and interesting, but, priorities man... Married bishops are getting more action than you are.

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK,

Your account of Roy's status seems convoluted to me. Either you aren't expressing yourself well or I'm just not following you.

Let me address this:

I'm not sure what actual harm Roy's children could realize by me sharing the story of a bishop/director at the MG being excommunicated for having an affair with a married woman in the ward he presides over.

That you aren't sure what harm the children could experience is an indication that you should think things through further. Not only are your allegations based on hearsay, you yourself who lived in the culture for most of your life, can't come up with the answer what harm could be experienced by the children?

Come on, I don't buy it.

I'm also not sure what obligations I have because this man happens to have children. Shouldn't he have thought about the harm his children could realize if he were to be caught having an affair? Do I bare some responsibility in shielding his children from something deplorable that their father did?

Do you bear some responsibility for shielding his children from something deplorable that their father did?

I say "yes".

You want to spare children who are victims of alleged abuse at the boys school and yet, when it comes to his children...screw them. I think you (and all adults) have a moral obligation to prevent harm to children no matter what their own parents have done.

I don't see your plan as adding substance to your allegations against the MG. I see it as undermining your allegations, your integrity and your own character.

Just my take.

You need to get on the INSIDE, Eric. Get substantial (dated) information and evidence from the INSIDE.

When you inadvertently set up children (his children or her children) for social and cultural attack from the outside it makes YOU look like the abuser. Hey, no problem, right? What's one more kid thrown under the bus if the cause is just?

No charge for the devil's advocate position.
:-)

[_The Nehor]

Mentally challenged convicts who beat up women shouldn't be talking.

Shouldn't you be working on losing your virginity? I know this board is fun and interesting, but, priorities man... Married bishops are getting more action than you are.

Was that a clumsy pick up line?

I'm flattered but no thanks.

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, what a very interesting thread this is. First, Prof. Peterson tells a blatant, slanderous, disgusting lie about GoodK, then he goes on to claim that he's justified in peddling his information since he feels so "picked on." Then, it turns out that he thinks his brazen falsehood was justifiable, since, in reality, he was just using it to manipulate Chap into reacting a certain way! Gee, this sure does make me feel very sympathetic towards poor Professor Peterson.

GoodK:

Have you thought about mentioning the excommunication and nothing else? If you really want to do as the Mopologists do, then that's what you ought to do. No need to mention affairs or anything like that. The ex'ing is all TBMs would need to know about it order to dissuade them from sending their kids. The apologists knew this quite well, and used it to their full advantage against Quinn. In fact, they went even further, insinuating on FAIR/MAD and elsewhere that the ex'ing came as a result of some kind of homosexual sin. Just ask DCP: he'll tell you all about it. After all, he was more than glad to tell anyone who would listen on the FAIR/MADboard.

[_The Nehor]

Well, what a very interesting thread this is. First, Prof. Peterson tells a blatant, slanderous, disgusting lie about GoodK, then he goes on to claim that he's justified in peddling his information since he feels so "picked on." Then, it turns out that he thinks his brazen falsehood was justifiable, since, in reality, he was just using it to manipulate Chap into reacting a certain way! Gee, this sure does make me feel very sympathetic towards poor Professor Peterson.

Since you recently confessed to lying to manipulate people I'm not sure how you think you have some moral high ground from which to give your lofty judgments and pronouncements.