What Would You Do?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Yoda

Re: What Would You Do?

Post by _Yoda »

Eric wrote:The potentially unlucky LDS apologist has never personally attacked me or my reputation publicly, but some of his/her acquaintances have and probably will continue to do so.

(Bold emphasis mine)
Mak, I don't know how much of the situation between Eric and Daniel you have followed, since you are returning to the board after a rather long hiatus.

Eric has stated on many occasions that he feels that Daniel has, indeed, personally attacked him and his reputation. This occurred when Daniel stepped in and referred Eric's stepfather to a post he made here regarding his ill sister.

I won't rehash the whole ugly incident, but, based on this past unfortunate situation, I think that Harmony is right in stating that Eric is making a point that the apologist he is referring to is NOT Dan.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: What Would You Do?

Post by _maklelan »

liz3564 wrote:Mak, I don't know how much of the situation between Eric and Daniel you have followed, since you are returning to the board after a rather long hiatus.

Eric has stated on many occasions that he feels that Daniel has, indeed, personally attacked him and his reputation. This occurred when Daniel stepped in and referred Eric's stepfather to a post he made here regarding his ill sister.

I won't rehash the whole ugly incident, but, based on this past unfortunate situation, I think that Harmony is right in stating that Eric is making a point that the apologist he is referring to is NOT Dan.


I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong about him referring to Dan Peterson. My primary concern, however, was with his misleading characterization of the Martha Beck situation.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Re: What Would You Do?

Post by _Inconceivable »

Eric,

Please understand, I'm attempting to be nice here.

If Roy is still a threat to others. ie. Roy is a sexual offender. You should have reported him to law enforcement long ago. Notifying them this very moment would be fine. Make a sworn statement, regardless of your personal motives. It's the right thing to do. Do It Now.

However, if you're just tossing out heresay someone needs to kick your ass. People get hard time for this, their life and reputations are destroyed in a heartbeat. You will have destroyed the breadwinner of a family. You have set a cause in motion that can span generations. They never recover - even if it is discovered they are innocent of the allegations.

If you go here and it's deemed an untruth, there will be places where you will never be welcome again. You can kiss the book deal goodbye. That's the least of your lifelong challenges you will create.

Choose wisely.

Until then, for yours and Roy's (& Roy's family's) sake, shut up.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: What Would You Do?

Post by _harmony »

Inconceivable wrote:Eric,

Please understand, I'm attempting to be nice here.

edited per request


I think we've established that Eric isn't referring to Daniel. It's someone else.

I also didn't understand him as referring to a sex offender. Why did you think that?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Re: What Would You Do?

Post by _Inconceivable »

Do me a favor, Harmony,

delete my quote in your post. I'm the idiot, I didn't click on the referenced link till you asked me a few why's.
_Eric

Re: What Would You Do?

Post by _Eric »

Hypothetically:

harmony wrote:
3. Do no harm. When in doubt, don't.

#3 applies here, I think.


I believe that you're right (I know, I'm shocked too.)

I feel like I might be forced to do it, though. This is where I'm coming from:

Look at how the FARMS editor has acted towards me since merely posting on a message board that not very many people read. He made things very personal and attacked my personal life and relationships, completely without compunction.

He intentionally made false statements in a libelous manner when I mentioned that I had information indicating that a certain West Ridge Academy executive (which I didn't name - Randy Oakley, by the way) was excommunicated from the Church. He has actively sought to discredit me on multiple occasions, in the conniving, cowardly manner in which he attacked Quinn's reputation: hinting and name-dropping. I won't even mention his lawyer's disgusting behavior. They have clearly, like many of the other angry, amateur apologists here, deemed me an enemy and chosen to attack me.

This is all before any hypothetical book deal or legal proceedings.

Now look at how poor Martha was treated. Whether or not you believe her, she's a woman, and the mother of a handicapped child for Christ's sake. They ran her threw the mud because she was deemed an enemy.* FARMS could have ignored the accusation altogether, or privately formed their own opinions but instead set out to attack, minimize, and blame the victim. Bottom line: the way the reviewers treated her was appalling, unChristian, and really a testament to what kind of people they are.

I'm not Martha Beck. I'm not simply implicating one relatively insignificant LDS author, and I'm sure I'm much easier to hate than she is. I make no apologies for who I am, but I also don't pretend to be a religion-less saint.

If I get the FARMS treatment, I feel like I'll have no choice but to take the low road and play by their rules too.

AlmaBound wrote:
Eric wrote:...it's about a potential good deed going unpunished.


What do you mean by this?


I mean that if I don't share all the sides of a story that I know, it may come back to haunt me later with accusations of not sharing all the sides of the story.




*I hope to revisit the topic of FARMS' treatment of Martha soon, because it is very interesting to me, but I simply don't have the time now. What I will say, however, is that most of you seem to betray a surprising ignorance of the nature of "recovered memories." (I don't necessarily blame you, if you chose to obtain your information about such things in hobby magazines like Sunstone and FARMS).
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: What Would You Do?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

It's true that those who disbelieve in Martha Beck's accusation against Hugh Nibley could have remained silent and allowed her voice to be the only one heard on the matter.

It's true that people associated with FARMS, who knew Hugh Nibley's family and had studied under him and worked with him for years and published his collected writings and been his friends, could have permitted his reputation to be publicly assaulted without coming to his defense.

It's true that those who question Martha Beck's allegation could have suppressed their doubts and said nothing while she spread her claim nationally and even internationally by means of a major publishing house.

Doing so, however, doesn't seem particularly honorable, let alone a moral imperative.

Sorry. I simply reject the notion that anybody is free to make all manner of grave accusations and then, by hiding behind a claim of victimhood, avoid any and all questions, doubts, or objections.

In the meantime, here are links to four critical reviews of Martha Beck's book, the last of which wasn't published by FARMS (but was written by a woman):

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=1&id=569

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=2&id=587

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/? ... m=1&id=570

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/index. ... &issue=136
_marg

Re: What Would You Do?

Post by _marg »

Eric wrote:

Keep in mind, this apologist could, quite likely, be commissioned Boyd Jay Petersen-style to review the book and chose to disparage the author, FARMS-style.

Hypothetically, of course.


Well in that case, sure that is your reasoning for exposing him, otherwise if you do it after the fact, it looks like a grievance motivation and has less of a ring of truth. However perhaps you need legal advice on this.
_StructureCop
_Emeritus
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:05 pm

Re: What Would You Do?

Post by _StructureCop »

Eric wrote:(I don't necessarily blame you, if you chose to obtain your information about such things in hobby magazines like Sunstone and FARMS).

Yes, those ignorant Sunstone schmucks... incidentally, do you lump Martha Beck's brothers and sisters in with those who are unfairly attacking her?
The missing roll theory can go to hell. -- Paul Osborne

The evidence will never be compelling for either side of the argument in rational terms. -- John Clark
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: What Would You Do?

Post by _maklelan »

StructureCop wrote:Yes, those ignorant Sunstone schmucks... incidentally, do you lump Martha Beck's brothers and sisters in with those who are unfairly attacking her?


Don't forget her ex-husband.
I like you Betty...

My blog
Post Reply