Brad Hudson wrote: I'm not sure that trying to puzzle out a complex set of facts that don't quite add up is on par with speculating on who might be sleeping with whom or whether some LDS woman was wearing her garments in a photo or other gossipy type thing. But, like I said, it's not the first time I'd be wrong.
On this forum all would have been fine if the story was complimenting David. But I am afraid that it doesn't. And so, you may get a reaction like LDST's post. All was well when David was posting on this forum in the beginning of the story along with his supporters. But now, the story has changed and the critics are just a little disappointed in the whole affair. And so, you may get an outburst here or there. It is important to get to the bottom of it though. And you are right it was a national news story because it seems the MormonThink board wanted it to be a major news story. And david did make a public declaration about resigning from the church.
This whole affair was a public affair.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Brad Hudson wrote: I'm not sure that trying to puzzle out a complex set of facts that don't quite add up is on par with speculating on who might be sleeping with whom or whether some LDS woman was wearing her garments in a photo or other gossipy type thing. But, like I said, it's not the first time I'd be wrong.
On this forum all would have been fine if the story was complimenting David. But I am afraid that it doesn't. And so, you may get a reaction like LDST's post. All was well when David was posting on this forum in the beginning of the story along with his supporters. But now, the story has changed and the critics are just a little disappointed in the whole affair. And so, you may get an outburst here or there. It is important to get to the bottom of it though. And you are right it was a national news story because it seems the MormonThink board wanted it to be a major news story. And david did make a public declaration about resigning from the church.
This whole affair was a public affair.
I guess I'd disagree with you on a couple of things. I don't think LDSToronto's post had anything to do with being critical of David. Heck, I know how he feels. I've read topics where I just want to throw up my hands and tell everyone stop talking and let it go. I'm also not sure it's important to get to the bottom of it. I think it would be interesting and that it would likely be helpful -- lessons learned and all that. And I don't think it helps move the conversation along to debate whether the entire episode was public or private. There may very well be issues in the entire chain of events that should be kept private. LDST has a good point there -- at some point there may be a risk of screwing up someone's life. At that point, I'd agree with putting the people first. I just don't think this conversation is anywhere near that point.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Brad Hudson wrote: I guess I'd disagree with you on a couple of things. I don't think LDSToronto's post had anything to do with being critical of David. Heck, I know how he feels. I've read topics where I just want to throw up my hands and tell everyone stop talking and let it go. I'm also not sure it's important to get to the bottom of it. I think it would be interesting and that it would likely be helpful -- lessons learned and all that. And I don't think it helps move the conversation along to debate whether the entire episode was public or private. There may very well be issues in the entire chain of events that should be kept private. LDST has a good point there -- at some point there may be a risk of screwing up someone's life. At that point, I'd agree with putting the people first. I just don't think this conversation is anywhere near that point.
If this affair was about Daniel Peterson, and how he may have been caught out with a sock puppet, I don't think that people here would care about his personal family relations. Most would hammer away at him and for that matter any known apologist who may show signs of deceit. And that was my point. David being a critic of the LDS church may get a response like LDST's. But daniel would be raked over many times by members of this board as is done with many of dan related threads.
We can't take away the bias that is shown to critics and apologists on this board.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Brad Hudson wrote: I'm not sure that trying to puzzle out a complex set of facts that don't quite add up is on par with speculating on who might be sleeping with whom or whether some LDS woman was wearing her garments in a photo or other gossipy type thing. But, like I said, it's not the first time I'd be wrong.
On this forum all would have been fine if the story was complimenting David. But I am afraid that it doesn't. And so, you may get a reaction like LDST's post. All was well when David was posting on this forum in the beginning of the story along with his supporters. But now, the story has changed and the critics are just a little disappointed in the whole affair. And so, you may get an outburst here or there. It is important to get to the bottom of it though. And you are right it was a national news story because it seems the MormonThink board wanted it to be a major news story. And david did make a public declaration about resigning from the church.
This whole affair was a public affair.
You couldn't be more wrong, Why Me.
As I said, I've barely followed David's story until last evening, and couldn't believe where the conversation had gone. This has less to do with criticizing Twede and more to do with my own discomfort regarding the way everyone has handled the affair, including David himself. In my darkest day post-Mormonism, I'd never dream of breaking a confidence that someone had placed in me while I was in a leadership position, simply to win points for or against the LDS Church.
Hence my reaction. Brad, you seem a nice enough fellow and perhaps my net has been cast too wide. But this whole story just stinks of sensationalism when it is probably more of a heartbreak than any of us really know.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
LDSToronto wrote:But this whole story just stinks of sensationalism when it is probably more of a heartbreak than any of us really know.
I guess the question is, if the sensationalism was whipped up, to a nationally public media level, with the intention (and very successful) of bringing nationwide attention to a particular website, is that individual now beyond public scrutiny for the facts in what appears could be deception on his part?
And why me, If I recall Kish was one of the first to cry foul on David's part as this story was developing. Isn't he on your list of those auto-critic supporters?
RockSlider wrote: And why me, If I recall Kish was one of the first to cry foul on David's part as this story was developing. Isn't he on your list of those auto-critic supporters?
That is true about kish. But you also know what I meant. Twede also made a public declaration of his resigning at the exmormon convention. He wanted public attention which means that this affair can now be under public scrutiny. If I remember correctly, it was the MormonThink board that made it public with the Romney slant. Of course with David's approval. From the first moment, I felt that this whole campaign was for public consumption and David's letter of resignation is full of the fact that his website is now getting a lot of hits.
I just think that the critics were played like a good violin...and were sucked along for the ride.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
why me wrote:That is true about kish. But you also know what I meant.
I was addressing the following quote, which I gave one example which proved it wrong (there are others). And NO, "I also don't know what I meant".
why me wrote:On this forum all would have been fine if the story was complimenting David. But I am afraid that it doesn't. And so, you may get a reaction like LDST's post.
I just think that the critics were played like a good violin...and were sucked along for the ride.
Once again, the previous example shows how your above statement is also false. No wonder I typically mentally have you on ignore ... not sure why I deviated this morning
Brad Hudson wrote:Ouch. I apologize for bringing an inappropriate conversation to y'all's forum. I've lurked her for quite a while and thought I had a feel for things here. Looks like I was wrong. Not the first or the last time. I'll finish up with Wiki Wonka through other means.
You didn't, people are allowed to carry on as they want here. It is both a strength and a weakness for the forum. LDS Toronto is allowed to express his take on what is going on and you are allowed to carry on as you wish. Given the nature of what you are discussing, I cannot think of a better place for it to take place. At least there will not be any claims of moderation influence. Some will agree with LDS and others want to hear what you have to say. There will be a lot of "Guests" monitoring what you and Wiki have to say.
This is absolutely correct. One of the features of Shades' board is that it promises minimal moderation. One of the reasons that I post here is because I know that whatever I say will remain, as long as I don't violate board rules (and there aren't that many).
WW
We cannot gauge the worth of another soul any more than we can measure the span of the universe. Every person we meet is a VIP to our Heavenly Father. President Uchtdorf, April 4, 2010
Wiki Wonka wrote:One of the features of Shades' board is that it promises minimal moderation. One of the reasons that I post here is because I know that whatever I say will remain, as long as I don't violate board rules (and there aren't that many).
WW
Yep. That sums it up.
Too many rules, too much moderation, too much board nannying and you end up with a thin slice of milquetoast.
With diversity of thought comes the rough and tumble Wild West. It's where you can experience varying ideas, and only those that can withstand scrutiny survive.
why me wrote:That is true about kish. But you also know what I meant.
I was addressing the following quote, which I gave one example which proved it wrong (there are others). And NO, "I also don't know what I meant".
why me wrote:On this forum all would have been fine if the story was complimenting David. But I am afraid that it doesn't. And so, you may get a reaction like LDST's post.
I just think that the critics were played like a good violin...and were sucked along for the ride.
Once again, the previous example shows how your above statement is also false. No wonder I typically mentally have you on ignore ... not sure why I deviated this morning
When David broke his story, the critics on this forum were behind him 100 percent. Maybe kish was an exception but...most went with the flow. His threads had very little opposition to my recollection on this forum. And many wanted the church to be seen in a bad light over this affair. Sorry, the critics were played like a good violin and they got a little burned with this one. No reason to pout about it. Just call it a learning lesson. I know that when I defended the local bishop by claiming that david's site was antimormon, I took a lot of hits by people on this board. But hey, such is life, right? And when I questioned the reason for him going public I took some more hits from members on this board....but hey who's complaining?
The critics were rallying around MormonThink big time.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith