David Twede has resigned his membership.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The guy who swooped in and took over the domain for Dave's blog when he took it down?

Oh, wow--I wasn't aware that something like that had happened. Perhaps Allen "The Slug" Wyatt was involved in this, too?

[_Kishkumen]

The Mopologists have really stepped up their cyber-ops. This is where the real action seems to be these days.

[_Wiki Wonka]

Thanks for engaging, Wiki Wonka. What I've read by and about you indicates to me that you are a straight shooter. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the misrepresentation I posted about last night was inadvertent and a product of doing lots of rewriting and revising on the fly.

Thank you. I would never intentionally misrepresent anyone, and my efforts to clarify actually contributed to the problem yesterday with the wiki article. The only way I had to respond to you was to edit the wiki, so I would edit it accordingly (I'm not sure if you caught it amongst the edits, but at one point I actually added a parenthetical note addressed to you). Then I would go back to the Postmormon thread and recheck to see if I had understood correctly, and I was finding that you had already copied the text that I just wrote back there! I quickly realized that we were making these cross-edits/posts in real time. That's when I figured that I probably needed to create Postmormon account. The wiki is a most inefficient way to communicate in real time.

The other problem was that I simultaneously attempting to reduce the size of the article, while at the same time bringing over enough context of your quotes so that it didn't misrepresent you. For example, I didn't want to just copy over what you said about David without also bringing over what you said about FAIR. If I didn't do that, then your quotes would have sounded like you were letting FAIR off the hook, and that would have been a misrepresentation. It didn't work well, and I ended up removing almost everything and just putting in a live hyperlink to the Postmormon thread. In any case, I apologize for the confusion.

Thanks for taking the wiki article down. Just a suggestion for your future consideration: perhaps the exercise of trying to figure out if FAIR got played might have been better conducted in private as opposed to on your wiki page. The page read like a hit piece. It felt a little scientologisty, if you know what I mean.

FAIR enough.

Given that you've taken the article down (which I think is a good thing), I think I've lost my standing to pursue requests for information. The entire incident has really bothered me, as you can probably tell, and I've spent lots of time trying to figure out what actually happened. I think it's possible that David has evidence of contact between Scott and a relative that may appear to be from before the news broke but is actually from after. In other words, what appears to be a case of one or the other lying may simply be an honest mistake.

Agreed with regard to David. The poster "Rodolfo," however, got a few things wrong. There cannot be a person who "confessed" (to use Rodolfo's word) to "outing" David directly to Scott Gordon. He even seemed to indicate that this person was now willing to go public, which I would be most interested in seeing. However, this may also simply be a misunderstanding of some communication that occurred after the media release. Scott said that the first time that he even realized that he had any connection with David's discipline/media event was when the New York Times contacted him.

As to starlight012, I can see only two possibilities: either it was David or it was a relative who accessed his computer. I'm not comfortable ruling out the latter, but there are some issues with the timeline that I'd need to work out by talking with starlight012. And it's pretty clear that's never going to happen.

I'm in no rush, and I appreciate you posting this morning before starting your day.

by the way, I was impressed by how the other posters solidly supported you during...whatever it was that happened yesterday. I suspect you must be an excellent mod.

WW

[_Res Ipsa]

A couple of thoughts:

1) Welcome to the board, Brad! I hope you stick around and contribute more fascinating and incisive posts.

2) That's nice that Wiki Wonka took down the entry. It seems like Wiki Wonka winds up having to clean up a lot of the messes that surface on the FAIR Wiki. E.g., does anyone else remember when they (and by "they," I mean, "Greg Smith") posted something about Bob McCue being "abusive" towards his wife, and how they had to scramble to pull it down in order to avoid a lawsuit? There is a pattern of behavior here, and all things considered, I really have to wonder why, if Wonka is such a good guy, he's continuing to hang out with this crowd, and to support what they're doing. I suppose you could look at it as being similar to, oh, I don't know--David Twede? John Dehlin?--someone who has "different" beliefs concerning the organization in question, and who hangs around in the hopes of making changes for the better. So, if that's what Wonka is up to, then good for him. But if that's the case, I hope he stands up a bit more assertively when the rest of the FAIR/Mopologist crew thinks about targeting liberal LDS who are also calling for positing changes in the Church.

Thanks for the welcome. I lurk here and on a few other boards to keep up on current events. I'm not sure how much I'll have to contribute, but it's nice to have a place to discuss things that would really be Old Testament for postmormon. I haven't engaged with Mormon apologetics since the good old (bad old?) days of alt.religion.Mormon.

I really can't comment on the dynamics of a group like FAIR, other than my own experience is that such a group can look monolithic from the outside but much less so from the inside. At any rate, I'm glad he was willing to chat.

[_Res Ipsa]

The guy who swooped in and took over the domain for Dave's blog when he took it down?

Oh, wow--I wasn't aware that something like that had happened. Perhaps Allen "The Slug" Wyatt was involved in this, too?

I was just remembering this thread, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25887&start=42, where Shades identified Holyoak as the guy who took over the domain and posted a link to FAIR.

I haven't seen anything that connects Wyatt.

[_Res Ipsa]

Wiki Wonka,

Yeah, the whole interaction yesterday was weird. I did see the page when you posted to me. When you deleted the summary of what I had posted and replaced it with the link, I was pretty confident you were trying to do your best in a very weird dynamic. I dld (and do) appreciate that you included my comments critical of FAIR. I did not expect that. As you could see, I have no patience for the "you're with us or you're agin us" attitude.

I'm glad we came here, where I can talk and not have to worry about playing moderator. I think your appearance there would have generated more controversy and gotten in the way of us talking.

I suspect that Rodolofo's post reflected the 'telephone" effect -- he likely got the information second or third hand. It's pretty easy for "a relative contacted Scott" to "a relative outed Scott."

There is a part of the whole chain I still can't make sense of. You know the events as well as I do. The first press release from MormonThink said that David had learned that someone associated with FAIR had reported him to church officials in Salt Lake. It didn't mention Scott. The first article (Daily Beast) cites David as saying that "a contributor" to FAIR outed him. No mention of Scott. I've not seen anything reported that says David initially identified Scott as the person who outed him. It would be natural for the press to contact Scott, as he is president of FAIR. What you've quoted from Scott's e-mail appears to be pretty mild. It seems odd to me that it would result in a summons to a court in less than a week. I don't suspect it was the post about "Pat," because that occurred only the day before the summons. I know Scott says that the reporter told him that David identified him as the source of the "outing," but it seems plausible to me that there was some misunderstanding between the reporter and Scott.

I don't know how you guys communicate within FAIR. But it seems reasonable to me that the information conveyed by starlight012 about David's activity and identity was shared with folks other than Scott. Is it possible that someone else affiliated with FAIR contacted church officials in Salt Lake? Or in Florida? Communications that Scott knew nothing about? People affiliated with FAIR had a pretty good motive to give MormonThink a black eye, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that Scott's wasn't the only e-mail sent out by someone associated with FAIR. The other alternative that would make sense to me is that Scott's e-mail was forwarded until it happened to reach someone who did know about the disciplinary action against the prior editor, which would understandably raise a red flag with respect to David.

But it's all navel gazing at this point, unless someone directly involved provides information that would explain how the local folks in Florida were alerted to David's identity.

Thanks again for your willingness to pop over here and discuss things.

[_Wiki Wonka]

Wiki Wonka,

Yeah, the whole interaction yesterday was weird. I did see the page when you posted to me. When you deleted the summary of what I had posted and replaced it with the link, I was pretty confident you were trying to do your best in a very weird dynamic. I dld (and do) appreciate that you included my comments critical of FAIR. I did not expect that. As you could see, I have no patience for the "you're with us or you're agin us" attitude.

The world shouldn't be full of black-and-white thinkers (one of David's points, I believe). I have a number of family members who have left the Church. It is most important to me that I continue to have a good relationship with them that is not founded upon whether or not we happen to have the same religious beliefs. I may not agree with them, but I respect their right to choose their own path. Fortunately, they all respect my right to continue to believe. They don't try to force me into nonbelief. We are able to converse about religion without arguing about it.

A "black-and-white" thinker, on the other hand, would assume that if he believes, then everyone else in his family ought to believe as well. Likewise, if he leaves the Church, he would assume that everyone else who is still being deluded must convert over to his new view of truth and accept non-belief as well. This causes massive contention in a family. Therefore, a "you are for us, or you are against us" attitude is ultimately destructive to the family. That is why I strongly believe that everyone deserves to be properly represented, regardless of whether or not I happen to agree with what they are saying. That is why FAIR will include comments critical of itself on the wiki.

I'm glad we came here, where I can talk and not have to worry about playing moderator. I think your appearance there would have generated more controversy and gotten in the way of us talking.

I suspect that Rodolofo's post reflected the 'telephone" effect -- he likely got the information second or third hand. It's pretty easy for "a relative contacted Scott" to "a relative outed Scott."

Agreed.

There is a part of the whole chain I still can't make sense of. You know the events as well as I do. The first press release from MormonThink said that David had learned that someone associated with FAIR had reported him to church officials in Salt Lake. It didn't mention Scott. The first article (Daily Beast) cites David as saying that "a contributor" to FAIR outed him. No mention of Scott. I've not seen anything reported that says David initially identified Scott as the person who outed him. It would be natural for the press to contact Scott, as he is president of FAIR. What you've quoted from Scott's e-mail appears to be pretty mild. It seems odd to me that it would result in a summons to a court in less than a week. I don't suspect it was the post about "Pat," because that occurred only the day before the summons. I know Scott says that the reporter told him that David identified him as the source of the "outing," but it seems plausible to me that there was some misunderstanding between the reporter and Scott.

I bet Zeezrom was an excellent lawyer.

The question is: Did someone from FAIR contact David's local leaders directly?

I'll respond below.

I don't know how you guys communicate within FAIR. But it seems reasonable to me that the information conveyed by starlight012 about David's activity and identity was shared with folks other than Scott. Is it possible that someone else affiliated with FAIR contacted church officials in Salt Lake? Or in Florida? Communications that Scott knew nothing about? People affiliated with FAIR had a pretty good motive to give MormonThink a black eye, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that Scott's wasn't the only e-mail sent out by someone associated with FAIR. The other alternative that would make sense to me is that Scott's e-mail was forwarded until it happened to reach someone who did know about the disciplinary action against the prior editor, which would understandably raise a red flag with respect to David.

FAIR has a e-list on which we communicate with one another. Nobody is allowed to forward information off that list without express permission of Scott G. or John L., as well as the permission of the person who posted the information. This is done because the primary function of the list is to respond to "Ask the Apologist" questions. People share personal concerns with FAIR. These are automatically forwarded to the e-list, and anyone on the list is allowed to respond directly to the person who submitted the query. This often results in multiple responses. For that reason, the e-list is private rather than a public message board.

So, even if someone (including a FAIR member) wanted FAIR to contact a person's local leaders, and posted the request to the e-list, it would be against the rules to actually do so. I just asked Scott directly as I was composing this message, and he responded five minutes ago: Scott Gordon said "To my knowledge no local leaders were contacted by any FAIR member." If any FAIR member did contact a local leader, then they didn't tell the FAIR e-list about it, and they didn't tell Scott about it.

WW

Edited to add: I didn't really respond to the issue of how quickly the Church scheduled the discipline. We know from David's comments that the Church had already approached the previous editor regarding discipline, and that the previous editor had resigned as a result. The Church was obviously aware of MormonThink. When Scott sent his email talking of a new MormonThink editor, my guess is that the Church responded quickly because of the nature of the contents of David's blog. However, someone else in David's own ward might have reported it. We have no way of knowing that.

[_Res Ipsa]

WW,

Thanks for the additional information.

I'd like to think Zeezrom is still an okay lawyer.

Here's my philosophy when trying to sort out complicated sequences of events with what appears to be conflicting evidence: For the most part, people perceive themselves as honest and see honesty as a good thing. For most people, lying or deceiving is uncomfortable -- a kind of cognitive dissonance between how they view themselves (honest) and how they are behaving (not honest). Even when being deceptive, most people will avoid as much cognitive dissonance as possible by tell as much of the truth as they can without disclosing the deception. Most people would rather evade than tell up a straight up lie.

Scott and Dave have made statements that on the surface appear to conflict. In fact, if you approach the events with an eye toward evaluating which statements necessarily conflict, much of the apparent conflict can be reconciled. That's why I adopt such a narrow interpretation of statements. If David says "I have evidence that a family member contacted Scott Gordon," that doesn't mean he has evidence that the relative was the person who outed David. If Scott says "no relative of David's contacted me before I sent the e-mail," it doesn't mean no relative contacted him later. I try my best to evaluate each statement for what it narrowly says and then try to reconcile them.

So, for example, I read the information from Scott. I see no reason to dispute that he is unaware of anyone from FAIR that contacted local leaders in Florida. However, my question was broader, and included e-mails to officials in Salt Lake. Neither you nor Scott addressed that. I don't infer deceptiveness from that. But I also don't infer from what Scott said that he isn't aware of someone connected with FAIR who sent the information to Salt Lake officials. So, in my analysis, it is possible for Scott's statement to be completely truthful and for him be aware of some other person connected with FAIR that sent information on Twede to officials in Salt Lake. I completely understand the impulse to answer questions as narrowly as possible, so as to avoid potential "gotchas" resulting from speaking too broadly. I think that's a consequence of the atmosphere of the apologist-counter apologist discourse you folks engage in. But, it also mean I need to draw my own conclusions just as narrowly.


Pedantic as hell. But, in my opinion, necessary to get as close to the truth as possible.

I think your speculation that Scott's e-mail ended up in the in-box of someone who was familiar with the prior editor's disciplinary action. It seems very unlikely to me that the chain of events was started by someone in Dave's ward. There simply wasn't that much public information available at the time to local ward members. Given what information I have, I think its very likely that the disciplinary action traces back to Scott's e-mail, regardless of his intent in sending it.

[_Wiki Wonka]

I see no reason to dispute that he is unaware of anyone from FAIR that contacted local leaders in Florida. However, my question was broader, and included e-mails to officials in Salt Lake. Neither you nor Scott addressed that. I don't infer deceptiveness from that. But I also don't infer from what Scott said that he isn't aware of someone connected with FAIR who sent the information to Salt Lake officials.

Yes, I see what you mean. What may be implicit to my understanding still needs to be spelled out. The only person at FAIR who has any connections to anyone in Salt Lake (at least to my knowledge) is Scott. From the perspective of anyone on the FAIR list, this is definitely the case. Nobody tries to contact Salt Lake except Scott. So if anyone from FAIR sends any message to Salt Lake, it is always through Scott.

Given what information I have, I think its very likely that the disciplinary action traces back to Scott's e-mail, regardless of his intent in sending it.

I believe, based upon what I know, that this is the sequence of events:
1) "starlight012" communicated with a member of FAIR.
2) That information was passed to FAIR.
3) Scott sent a message to people in Salt Lake.
4) Those people forwarded it to the Church. (We cannot confirm this, only infer it)
5) The Church contacted David's local leaders. (Again, we can only infer this)

[_harmony]

Daniel has connections to Salt Lake. For that matter, all members have connections in Salt Lake.