Why Brother Deleted Isn't Naming Names

[_Eric]

In another thread, the apologist pirate "Pahoran" said:

Now that Darth has dazzled all his over-eager supporters by so "courageously" crafting a narrative that makes him look like a really great guy, he's got everyone speculating feverishly about what sinister cabal is "feeding" me information about him. (The answer, by the way, is none.)

I was never an over-eager supporter, in fact I didn't like Darth J much until he taught me a very valuable lesson this week, a message that I think has been lost in all the noise: it's okay to say we regret things we've said/done in the past. Dan Peterson is too insecure with his own person to ever embrace this, that much is certain, but to see this happen with other individual participants on this message board is inspiring to me. I do regret some of the things I've said here too. And not only did Darth J issue a loud, resounding "Screw you" to Brother deleted's threat to "out" him, at the same time he provided a better example of Christ-like behavior than I've ever seen from any Mormon apologist/Internet Pirate.

I don't say this because of the single PM he posted wherein Bishop Peterson offers some unsolicited gossip to a perfect stranger; like I said, I've been compiling exhibits just like that message for years coming from Bishop Bob Crockett, Bishop Dan Peterson, and other gossipmonger LDS pirates. I have much better examples. Binders full of libel.

When I moved from Los Angeles to Northern California, and my Church records were transferred, I was able to peak at the folder for maybe a minute or two while the Bishop was shuffling through other papers. There - plain as day - were printed email correspondences about my Internet postings from guess who? First my family, then my friends, then complete strangers, and now Church leaders. Eventually this will all come back around, or does Bishop Peterson think nothing will come of all this? I kind of hope he thinks that. Watching those who feel like they are above reproach are the most entertaining when karma comes back around to collect. The teaser of his wailing and gnashing of teeth and making threats in the infamous Gerald Bradford email seemed so karmic that I almost wonder about divine intervention when I think about it.


Bishop Crockett has also done his best to stalk and discredit me, but he is more Jack Sparrow than Christopher Columbus in his approach, to again borrow Professor Kishkumen's brilliant metaphor.

Imagine what a simple: "I regret certain things I've said in the past about other human beings with feelings," would do for Dan Peterson's so-called "legend." Unfortunately, Bishop Peterson's legend will reflect a character far too insecure and self-important to ever do such a thing (willingly).

Even when Ray changes sides, for lack of a better term, he still owns his previous statements like a man, rather than making excuses and crying foul and improvising half-brained justifications. Ray is still a far better Mormon (and human being) than any of the Church's representatives here. I admire Ray tremendously, and it has nothing to do with what he believes. Even though we now agree on even less about life these days, his integrity to own things he regrets demands my respect and attention as well.

Now, to return the favor to Darth J, let me tell you why Brother deleted isn't naming his source: he doesn't know who his source is. The pirate analogy couldn't be more accurate.

I'd love to talk more Darth, my PM box is open to you.

[Guest]

When I moved from Los Angeles to Northern California, and my Church records were transferred, I was able to peak at the folder for maybe a minute or two while the Bishop was shuffling through other papers. There - plain as day - were printed email correspondences about my Internet postings from guess who? First my family, then my friends, then complete strangers, and now Church leaders.

This is pretty bizarre, if true.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So DCP is assembling creepy dossiers and emailing them to your ecclesiastical leaders?

[_Eric]

So DCP is assembling creepy dossiers and emailing them to your ecclesiastical leaders?

I'm not sure if he is/was the only busybody involved in doing so, but yes.
Of course I didn't have time to fully examine all the documents in the little Manila folder or snap photographs of them, but I hope to be have that opportunity soon and will definitely report my findings.

[_Dr. Shades]

Of course I didn't have time to fully examine all the documents in the little Manila folder or snap photographs of them, but I hope to be have that opportunity soon and will definitely report my findings.

Please do.

This is beyond bizarre, especially the part about reports about you from total strangers. Don't people have anything better to do than send reports to the ecclesiastical leaders of people on the Internet whom they don't even know??

Plus, I'm confused about the part wherein you said there were reports from your friends. Certainly your friends weren't back-stabbing you, so were these intercepted or hacked e-mails?

[_cwald]

When I moved from Los Angeles to Northern California, and my Church records were transferred, I was able to peak at the folder for maybe a minute or two while the Bishop was shuffling through other papers. There - plain as day - were printed email correspondences about my Internet postings from guess who? First my family, then my friends, then complete strangers, and now Church leaders.

This is pretty bizarre, if true.

I am EAGERLY awaiting more information about this claim. My family in Cache Valley got me rung from church leadership, and my SP made a comment about reports from "my file" of interenet interaction (which at the time consisted of staylds and NOM...I know, pretty evil places to be hanging out), but then he backed off that claim and BP says that these things don't exist...never happened


Please tell us more.

[_cwald]

Shades...its not betrayal when its the one true church...its merely an act of love.

At least that is how my family justified it.

[_Eric]

Of course I didn't have time to fully examine all the documents in the little Manila folder or snap photographs of them, but I hope to be have that opportunity soon and will definitely report my findings.

Please do.

This is beyond bizarre, especially the part about reports about you from total strangers. Don't people have anything better to do than send reports to the ecclesiastical leaders of people on the Internet whom they don't even know??

Plus, I'm confused about the part wherein you said there were reports from your friends. Certainly your friends weren't back-stabbing you, so were these intercepted or hacked e-mails?

I should have been more clear in saying that the reports were made tofamily, friends, etc. Not by them.

[_Darth J]

Now, to return the favor to Darth J, let me tell you why Brother deleted isn't naming his source: he doesn't know who his source is. The pirate analogy couldn't be more accurate.

You're exactly right, Eric. A person in New Zealand who is a complete stranger could not have known who I am from the information about me on this board. A person who know me in real life, however, would be able to figure it out, and that person would also know the connection between me and litigation against the LDS Church. There's no other reason to care about me. There's nothing I have said on this board that is worthy of any particular attention. And if there were, this hint-dropping would have happened a long time ago. It takes an unreasonable amount of credulity to believe that I am such a threat to the Church by posting miscellaneous babbling on an obscure message board under the name of a Star Wars character, that I'm worth the effort to track down and expose.

It's pretty obvious what Pahoran's motives are: he's a reckless zealot, who calls anyone who disagrees with him "swine," calls this place a "sty," compares criticism of the Church's truth claims to pogroms against the Jews, and so on. But that does not mean he knows the motives of whoever fed him information about me.

[_Darth J]

When cult-like behavior like the OP describes is exposed, apologists frequently start talking about conspiracy theories and black helicopters (like Pahoran is doing). This tactic is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad lapidem.

Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. Ad hominem arguments, which dispute the merits of a claim's advocate rather than the merits of the claim itself, are fallacious for the same reason. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted.

The name of this fallacy is attributed to Dr. Samuel Johnson, who refuted Bishop Berkeley's immaterialist philosophy (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds), by kicking a large stone and asserting, "I refute it thus." This action, which fails to prove the existence of the stone outside of the ideas formed by perception, fails to contradict Berkeley's argument, and has been seen as merely dismissing it.

There is in fact evidence that the LDS Church spies on some of its members, and that church representatives are willing to lie about the Church spying on some of its members. Here is a brief example of what I mean, which I have previously posted in another thread:

Back in 2007, a pre-doctorate Mister Scratch began a thread concerning a group within the LDS Church called the Strengthening the Membership Committee (hereinafter the "SCMC"). http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... f=1&t=2828

In that thread, Scratch related some research performed by CKSalmon concerning the Church's public admissions in the media during the early 1990's that the SCMC was indeed a thing that existed. These public admissions were forced after The New York Times and others had investigated and brought attention to the existence of the SCMC. As reported by The St. Petersburg Times in 1992 (quoted in Scratch's thread):

Don LeFevre, told Religious News Service on Monday that the aim of the group, known as the Strengthening Church Members Committee, is to prevent members from making negative statements that hinder the progress of the Mormon church, officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LeFevre said the committee neither makes judgments nor imposes penalties.

“Its purpose is implied by the committee’s name, to strengthen members in the church who may have a problem or may need counseling,” LeFevre said. “It’s really an attempt to help the individual.”

LeFevre said the committee receives complaints from church members about other members who have made statements that “conceivably could do harm to the church.”

“What this committee does is hear the complaints and pass the information along to the person’s ecclesiastical leader.” Any discipline is “entirely up to the discretion of the local leaders,” he said.

(“Mormon Church keeps files on its dissenters,” St. Petersburg Times, Aug. 15, 1992, at 6e)

Fans of the LDS Church might remember that Brother LeFevre was the Church's official spokesman at the time he gave this statement.

In this thread, a person going by the name of "Daniel Peterson" admits that he on at least one occasion was conscripted by the SCMC to secretly investigate a dissident member of the Church (as Brother Peterson explains, the meeting with this disaffected member was not secret, but the fact that it was under the aegis of the SCMC was secret). I recommend browsing that thread further for additional information provided by Brother Peterson.

Now, let us fast forward a few years. As we all know, Mitt Romney is running for president of the United States. Because Romney's campaign has aroused new curiosity about Mormonism, the BBC sent a film crew to Utah to make a documentary about Mormonism. In the segment below, at about 6:39, BBC reporter John Sweeney asks current LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy pointblank what the SCMC is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLRzdeKEEII

Brother Purdy says he doesn't know what the SCMC is and "I couldn't tell you that." That's certainly odd, given that his predecessor gave a statement to the media in 1992 explaining what the SCMC is.

When pressed, at about 7:08, Brother Purdy stammeringly decides that maybe there is an SCMC after all, even though he just barely said he doesn't know what that is (John Sweeney comments on Brother Purdy's evasiveness).

Then at about 7:36, John Sweeney asks Prophet, Seer, and Revelator Jeffrey R. Holland what the SCMC is. While viewing Elder Holland's response, note carefully that his eyes go up and to the right. As body language expert Patti A. Wood explains:

http://www.pattiwood.net/article.asp?PageID=2314

People tend to look up to the right to visualize or create a new response or down to the right to create the sounds of a new response. We recall information that occurred in the past by looking up to the left or down to the left. Spot a liar by listening for pauses and right eye movement.

Elder Holland states that the SCMC was formed some years ago "to protect predatory practices of polygamists." He elaborates that the "principal task" of the SCMC is to protect LDS members from being recruited by polygamists. He further suggests that a secondary purpose of the SCMC might be to protect members from any "insidious influence" (lots of alliteration in Elder Holland's responses), but primarily to protect against polygamist recruiters within the Church.

Besides being ludicrous on its face, Elder Holland's assertion about what the SCMC does is inconsistent both with Daniel Peterson's statements on this board and Don LeFevre's statements to the media on behalf of the Church in 1992. And this after the current official spokesman for the Church said he didn't know what the SCMC is, then stammered out that he did know what it is, but was not able to discuss it.

Bringing up images of tin foil hats and black helicopters is a fallacious way to divert from the issue and from the evidence surrounding the issue.