Public Apology Issued on Behalf of Scott Gordon

[_sock puppet]

What is the difference, I wonder, between what Twede was doing, and people like juliann and Calmoriah openly stating that they wished that they could pass the sacrament? What is the difference between Twede saying that he wants people to know "the truth" about Mormonism versus, say, Royal Skousen basically writing his own version of the Book of Mormon, in spite of GA admonitions?

The difference might be Twede's inviting people to consider the evidences for themselves, while juliann and Calmoriah would quickly return from their dalliances and reaffirm that they, like all Mormons, should nevertheless bow their heads and say, 'yes'.

[_madeleine]

To me, calling someone a snitch is stupid. Do you know how many crimes and abuses go unreported because of attitudes like this? Gordon, given his position, saw something that concerned him. He reported it. They acted. They could have chosen to do nothing about his reporting, but apparently, they shared his concerns. I have no problem with his actions.

So, whistleblower, not snitch?

This is the grain of what A.I. is saying but it's wrong. A "whistleblower" exposes corruption at huge personal risk. A snitch turns in friends or foes alike out of respite and/or for personal gain. If one still can't tell the difference between the two, the guy taking his family into witness protection is probably the whistleblower and the guy gloating in the New York Times is probably the snitch.

I'm kind of stuck on the "crimes and abuses" part.

Seems rather melodramatic.

[_Yoda]

To me, calling someone a snitch is stupid. Do you know how many crimes and abuses go unreported because of attitudes like this? Gordon, given his position, saw something that concerned him. He reported it. They acted. They could have chosen to do nothing about his reporting, but apparently, they shared his concerns. I have no problem with his actions.

Frankly, though, I look at Gordon's actions against Twede the same way I look at Scratch's actions against DCP. Both actions have a creepy stalker-ish vibe. I won't go into the obvious as far as what Scratch has done, but, in Gordon's case, for example, he had to do some research to find out Twede's in real life identity. Twede used an alias in what he posted on Mormon Think. And, frankly, as others here have acknowledged, Gordon really didn't think this through very carefully, if he really turned Twede in, in order to supposedly help out the Church membership in general. If Twede's in real life information had never been researched to begin with, Twede would have continued posting his criticisms of the Church on a rather obscure website that really doesn't affect the average chapel Mormon, anyway.

By turning Twede in, his little website has gained national attention. That is hardly the kind of publicity that is good for information that might have a negative Church impact on struggling members.

Also, as far as the COB taking action goes, all the COB did was follow standard Church Handbook policy. They handed the whole incident back in the laps of Twede's local leaders.

ETA--It seems to me that Gordon's reason for turning Twede in, was basically for his own ego gratification that he had "caught" a critic.

[_Kishkumen]

Two points:

First of all, Twede's surreptitious apostate activities were in no sense "dissent." They are best described as "clandestine infiltration."

And you think that these things are mutually exclusive categories?

Secondly, a Church disciplinary council is in no sense a "witch trial." The behaviour of the "critics" here toward anyone who has the temerity to defend the Church of Jesus Christ against the hateful rantings of the inmates comes a lot closer.

Regards,
Pahoran

You are right about this: the Church disciplinary council is not a witch hunt. It is the apologetic apparatus at FAIR and formerly at Maxwell Institute but now relocated to Mormon Interpreter that goes in for witch hunts, as has been documented here in some detail in numerous threads.

You are one of the chief offenders, so I don't expect you to exercise the kind of self-reflection that would enable you to come to grips with your sins honestly.

[_Bob Loblaw]

You are right about this: the Church disciplinary council is not a witch hunt. It is the apologetic apparatus at FAIR and formerly at Maxwell Institute but now relocated to Mormon Interpreter that goes in for witch hunts, as has been documented here in some detail in numerous threads.

You are one of the chief offenders, so I don't expect you to exercise the kind of self-reflection that would enable you to come to grips with your sins honestly.

I have wondered what drives some apologists to be so angry and caustic. Once I thought maybe they just had been beaten up for so long by mean-spirited critics that they stopped trying to be nice and decided to fight fire with fire. But from what I can see that doesn't seem to be the case.

I asked a friend who has been around online apologetics for a long time if Pahoran had once eschewed the vituperation in favor of reasoned discussion. He answered-- "Nope, his posting style has not changed a whit since I've known him, and that's a long time."

Maybe some people like to believe they are kind and reasonable until someone treats them badly, and then, as Pahoran put it, they can toss aside Marquess of Queensbury rules and give as good as they get. But that doesn't really work. In my limited experience I've seen a lot of questioning people get jumped and attacked as already being bitter apostates. So what is it that drives the anger and hate?

I can understand a little of why ex-Mormons are angry and resent the church--but that doesn't mean they are free to be nasty to people. But I don't get the anger on the apologetic side.

[_consiglieri]

So what is it that drives the anger and hate?

Insecurity.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Insecurity.

Maybe. It could be deep down they are afraid that they aren't on the right side of reality.

[_Pahoran]

Two points:

First of all, Twede's surreptitious apostate activities were in no sense "dissent." They are best described as "clandestine infiltration."

And you think that these things are mutually exclusive categories?

Think about it for a minute. Or maybe thirty.

It is not the case that LDS "dissenters" are in any kind of physical danger that they have to hide themselves for their own protection. The Twedes of this world operate clandestinely in order to deceive the unwary; something of which you no doubt heartily approve.

Secondly, a Church disciplinary council is in no sense a "witch trial." The behaviour of the "critics" here toward anyone who has the temerity to defend the Church of Jesus Christ against the hateful rantings of the inmates comes a lot closer.

Regards,
Pahoran

You are right about this: the Church disciplinary council is not a witch hunt.

Thank you for admitting that. It's a pity you undid it with the following nonsense:

It is the apologetic apparatus at FAIR and formerly at Maxwell Institute but now relocated to Mormon Interpreter that goes in for witch hunts, as has been documented here in some detail in numerous threads.

You are one of the chief offenders, so I don't expect you to exercise the kind of self-reflection that would enable you to come to grips with your sins honestly.

I regret that you have no good faith basis to believe what you assert.

Exactly what, in Interpreter, would any sane, rational, non-anti-Mormon, regard as a "witch hunt?"

Exactly what, in the former FARMS Review under whatever title, would any sane, rational, non-anti-Mormon, regard as a "witch hunt?"

I realise that it offends you when believing Latter-day Saints defend the Church against attacks from the Great and Spacious Building you have made your home; but it takes more than that to constitute a "witch hunt." Indeed, I am confident that you are one of those "all men" that we really don't want speaking well of us.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_David Twede]

Vicarious apology accepted, Everybody Wang Chung. Tonight, I am at peace. Thank you.

[_lulu]

Tonight, I am at peace. Thank you.

Can't beat that.