"Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Sister Mary Lisa
_Emeritus
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: "Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

Post by _Sister Mary Lisa »

So Joseph Smith excommunicated William Law and nine other intimates of Joseph Smith when they didn't support his practice of secretly teaching and practicing polygamy while publicly denying his practice. They exposed him in a newspaper they started, which Joseph Smith had his lackeys destroy after the first printing. Check out what he wrote to the governor to defend the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor:

In the investigation it appeared evident to the council that the proprietors were a set of unprincipled men, lawless, debouchees, counterfeiters, Bogus Makers, gamblers, peace disturbers, and that the grand object of said proprietors was to destroy our constitutional rights and chartered privileges; to overthrow all good and wholesome regulations in society; to strengthen themselves against the municipality; to fortify themselves against the church of which I am a member, and destroy all our religious rights and privileges, by libels, slanders, falsehoods, perjury & sticking at no corruption to accomplish their hellish purposes. and that said paper of itself was libelous of the deepest dye, and very injurious as a vehicle of defamation,—tending to corrupt the morals, and disturb the peace, tranquillity and happiness of the whole community, and especially that of Nauvoo.[20]

Well before they started their Expositor to expose him, Joseph Smith had removed William Law from the First Presidency, excommunicated him, his wife, his brother, and all others who agreed with any criticism of Smith. He destroyed all their cred within the Mormon community when they wouldn't stop being critical of whatever he wanted to do. After he had tried to destroy their reputations, and after they had exposed him in print for what he really was, he destroyed their press.

Here we have a situation that seems similar to me. Rosebud seems to have come across something unsavory in her association with MS/John Dehlin at Open Stories Foundation and administration of other sites, which was likely a better place to see the true behind-the-scenes workings that most people are not privy to. She has already shared some of the ways in which she has been made to pay JUST FOR KNOWING SOMETHING CRITICAL of MS/John Dehlin. MS/John Dehlin responded by basically suggesting to us all that she is histrionic, unstable, and needs professional help. He said this "feels like Mayan Elephant and Rosebud crazy town conspiratorial allegations with zero substance." He has also responded to others who dared point out discrepancies in his stories that they are slandering him, obsessing over him, and revealing their Napoleon Complexes, are tearing down, having "no work of their own to speak of" and are "leaches," and are leading "sad and pathetic" ways of life. He accused multiple people of having a "creepy, stalker-like obsession" in him. And that's just THIS WEEK on this board alone. He also claimed Mayan Elephant had "a pretty well-known reputation as a person not worthy of respect/good faith." He said that his critics were making fools of themselves. All this before she actually printed her own exposé.

It seems to me she is not actually interested in printing her own exposé on MS/John Dehlin. It seems she is doing perhaps what William Law *should* have done: she is letting MS/John Dehlin know (in the only venue she knows of that she can actually get the message out without being shut down beforehand) that she is prepared to go to print with what she knows, but if he'll just quit his smear campaign and stop with all the excommunication and blackball tactics among their peer group and let her proceed with her work just as he is able to do, she will not have to go that route. Rosebud herself has stated that if she had nothing on MS/John Dehlin, or if he had not done something he might be ashamed of, he would have no cause for alarm. But clearly we see his alarm, no?
_Ludd
_Emeritus
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:31 am

Re: "Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

Post by _Ludd »

Seeing as how so many of her posts amount to "But wait ... there's more!", I'm thinking "Rosebud" should change her user name to "ShamWow".
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: "Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

Post by _Sethbag »

Equality wrote:Comparing her to the mentally ill gentleman who dressed in white, painted his face, and ranted at people on Temple Square is gaslighting.

Maybe you understand it that way. I don't. To me, gaslighting would be attempting to convince Rosebud that she has not in fact experienced what she's said she experienced. Nobody here is doing that. In fact we couldn't possibly do that, because we have no freaking clue what it is she thinks happened, because she won't talk about it!

Equality wrote:You may not like that she has made vague allegations without providing specifics. I totally get that. But even if your summary of what she has done here is correct, it does not come anywhere close to being equivalent to the behavior that the "White Mormon" engaged in.

I agree that the White Mormon's mental health is seriously at issue, and that may not be the case here. That she is engaging in what, to many of us, is a bizarre public display that a reasonable person would, or should know is socially problematic, is in fact something her exchange here shares in common with the public behavior of the White Mormon.

Equality wrote:Drawing that comparison has one purpose only: to suggest that Rosebud is mentally ill and should therefore not be listened to.

Nope. What's being suggested here is that her public display is bizarre, out of step with social expectations of a large segment of the population, and will serve to alienate her from a large segment of the public she's currently addressing.

Please tease out the differences between "mentally ill" and "social self-destructive and disruptive", and then reevaluate your judgment of some of the posters here from that new perspective, and I think you'll get closer to the reality of what some of us think.
Equality wrote: It dovetails, incidentally, with MS/John Dehlin's use of the word "histrionics" and the repeated suggestions from MS/John Dehlin's lickspittles that Rosebud is like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. It's a way of deflecting from the substance of what Rosebud has written rather than addressing it.

First off, what substance has Rosebud given? Her substance, if I followed it carefully enough, isn't much more than a public threat to destroy him unless he conforms to some of her demands in his behavior, and her unwillingness to go to the relevant authorities with information she claims would prove he is a threat to others.

Merriam-Webster online dictionary wrote:Histrionics
behavior that is too emotional or dramatic
theatrical performances
deliberate display of emotion for effect


To be entirely honest, from what I've read over the last couple of days, I'd say her public display here is a textbook example of online histrionic behavior. This very fuqking thread represents a continuation of these histrionics.

Equality wrote: But I certainly don't think the attacks on Rosebud from RockSlider and schreech are justified. I find it to be in extraordinarily bad taste for people who admit they don't know the facts to go after someone who has indicated she has been seriously abused in some way by a powerful public figure.

Here's a suggestion: if you can't talk details, then don't name names. The backlash you are seeing reminds me of the initial backlash against PZ Myers after he named Michael Shermer as a rapist, based on details he wouldn't discuss divulged to him by a woman he wouldn't name. In other words, "if you knew what I know, you'd think Michael Shermer was a rapist!" This was problematic to many of us because it exempted the ultimate accuser from having to back up anything she claimed, or give Michael Shermer any kind of chance at all to defend himself.

Talk is cheap. Put up, or shut up. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything based on secret information that they refuse to divulge. Nobody's safe if we choose to operate that way as a culture. It's why many of us reject that method of impeaching the character of others in public.

If you can't talk about, then stop talking about it!

Equality wrote:Would I have handled this the way Rosebud has? Probably not. But maybe. I don't have all the details and it is possible that she has determined that this is the best way for her to accomplish her objectives, and that she doesn't really care if she persuades any of the people posting here or not.

Think about this for a moment. Either she's trying to sway public opinion, or she's trying to leverage something she holds against John Dehlin in order to influence his behavior. If she's trying to do the former, she's sucking at it, badly. If she's trying to do the latter, that smacks to many of us like blackmail, and that doesn't go over very well either.

Perhaps you could be a good friend to Rosebud and sit down with her help her organize her thoughts a little better. You might ask her to answer questions like these, and use the analysis and answers to these questions to better inform her public writings on this subject in the future:

1) What are you trying to accomplish by writing this?
2) How do you expect what you are writing to be received by the public you are addressing it to?
3) Does the public perception you arrive at in 2) help you achieve the objectives you established in 1)?

Equality wrote:Personally, I think it is generally best if you have "the goods" on someone to either keep them tightly under wraps or lay them out all at once in full view for all to see.

So do I, and apparently Screech, and RockSlider, and some others here. I'm glad you understand this perspective.

Equality wrote:Obviously, Rosebud has decided on a different approach.

Yes, she's decided to "go nuclear" and use the public threat of disclosure of whatever "goods" she has on John Dehlin as a lever to get him to behave in certain ways that she demands of him. That's blackmail, really, though most effective blackmailers make their threats in private.

Equality wrote:She may have good reasons for it. I certainly don't see anything in her posts that suggests that she is mentally unhinged in the way that RockSlider and MS/John Dehlin have suggested.

I don't think she's mentally unhinged. I do think that she's behaving in a very self-destructive way that is not benefiting her at all as far as I can tell. It's possible that has some sort of victimhood fetish, though, and that the reactions she's provoked from some of the board members here contribute to feeding it, and thus her behavior does get her what she wants. I don't know, I'm just trying to figure out WTF she's trying to accomplish by reverse engineering what it is that's she's actually accomplished so far, and asking myself how likely is it that the results were what she intended. I sure hope not.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: "Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

Post by _RockSlider »

Sethbag wrote:I don't think she's mentally unhinged. I do think that she's behaving in a very self-destructive way that is not benefiting her at all as far as I can tell. It's possible that has some sort of victimhood fetish, though, and that the reactions she's provoked from some of the board members here contribute to feeding it, and thus her behavior does get her what she wants.


This is why I was suggesting everyone drop the enabling roles and let this pass.
_Mayan Elephant
_Emeritus
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: "Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

Post by _Mayan Elephant »

i would say that as far as the thread title goes, we can give a few scores.

Mormonstories - acted a douche and a beyatch and went absolutely nutso when someone said he was grandstanding over nothing with this stunt about being excommunicated. failed to provide any evidence or even make a suggestion that there ever was a threat of excommunication. and then all hell broke loose. did this thread or rosebud's comments really contribute to mormonstories reputation or provide any new facts or information about him? nope. not really. so on this category - the grade is incomplete, or a fail. there really is nothing in this particular thread that is about mormonstories.

[Rosebud] - if i was her lawyer, i would be screaming out loud, breaking the monitor on my computer, or, more likely, doing nothing because really, who gives a flying fuqk about anything anybody says in a so-called anonymous forum? i really think there is something to rosebud, her history and her future. but this thread is not doing anything beyond reaching out to one single person. for everyone else this thread is just fueling speculation and chumming the sycophants. or, and i tried to say this in another thread, harming the perception of rosebud's motivation or experiences. Grade = D.

Credibility - holy effing crap balls. uh. F all around. it is like a race among the misfits in saturday detention of the breakfast club. let's see who can be the biggest nuisance in detention and get more detention to prove to everyone in detention that detention don't scare them. that is about how relevant everyone's credibility is, and how proven any of it is. the problem with this topic (credibility) is that if you have to bring it up, it probably means you are hoping for a favor where the facts don't hold up. i know my credibility is shot like jack and robert, so all i have is the facts. i certainly wouldn't want to have my credibility graded, but i will grade pretty much everyone on this one - Rose= F, rest of y'all get a D or a B.

now, that is not to say that rose is not credible, just that for this audience, sheeyit, it is a stretch. not to say her intentions here are not being met PERFECTLY and successfully. i am just saying that for the readers, uh, well, lets put restraint and credibility at the bottom of our lists. i am not saying she is not doing the right thing, but, the process is not lending itself to a favorable credibility or restraint score.

Evidence = F. 'nuf said.

Double Binds = i cannot grade that. honestly, i have no clue what that even means. the metaphors are rampant in this stuff and usually they are not used properly. how about i just give myself an F for not knowing how to use double binds in a complete effing sentence with mormonstories and rosebud in the same sentence. like eddie murphy, i will take a zero/F on this one.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
_schreech
_Emeritus
Posts: 2470
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: "Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

Post by _schreech »

Mayan Elephant wrote:i would say that as far as the thread title goes, we can give a few scores.

Mormonstories - acted a douche and a beyatch and went absolutely nutso when someone said he was grandstanding over nothing with this stunt about being excommunicated. failed to provide any evidence or even make a suggestion that there ever was a threat of excommunication. and then all hell broke loose. did this thread or rosebud's comments really contribute to mormonstories reputation or provide any new facts or information about him? nope. not really. so on this category - the grade is incomplete, or a fail. there really is nothing in this particular thread that is about mormonstories.

[Rosebud] - if i was her lawyer, i would be screaming out loud, breaking the monitor on my computer, or, more likely, doing nothing because really, who gives a flying fuqk about anything anybody says in a so-called anonymous forum? i really think there is something to rosebud, her history and her future. but this thread is not doing anything beyond reaching out to one single person. for everyone else this thread is just fueling speculation and chumming the sycophants. or, and i tried to say this in another thread, harming the perception of rosebud's motivation or experiences. Grade = D.

Credibility - holy effing s*** balls. uh. F all around. it is like a race among the misfits in saturday detention of the breakfast club. let's see who can be the biggest nuisance in detention and get more detention to prove to everyone in detention that detention don't scare them. that is about how relevant everyone's credibility is, and how proven any of it is. the problem with this topic (credibility) is that if you have to bring it up, it probably means you are hoping for a favor where the facts don't hold up. i know my credibility is shot like jack and robert, so all i have is the facts. i certainly wouldn't want to have my credibility graded, but i will grade pretty much everyone on this one - Rose= F, rest of y'all get a D or a B.

now, that is not to say that rose is not credible, just that for this audience, sheeyit, it is a stretch. not to say her intentions here are not being met PERFECTLY and successfully. i am just saying that for the readers, uh, well, lets put restraint and credibility at the bottom of our lists. i am not saying she is not doing the right thing, but, the process is not lending itself to a favorable credibility or restraint score.

Evidence = F. 'nuf said.

Double Binds = i cannot grade that. honestly, i have no clue what that even means. the metaphors are rampant in this stuff and usually they are not used properly. how about i just give myself an F for not knowing how to use double binds in a complete effing sentence with mormonstories and rosebud in the same sentence. like eddie murphy, i will take a zero/F on this one.


I have 2 words for you all:

Image

Mayan wins the internet...
Last edited by Guest on Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: "Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

Post by _moksha »

Sethbag wrote:
Here's the summary of her postings, from the point of view of people like me, RockSlider, Screech, and probably many others, who have no fetching clue what all this past history is between Rosebud and John Dehlin, and are mystified by all her hand-wringing and threats-that-aren't-threats:

"Trust me, guys, if you only knew what I knew, you'd think he was a bad man too, and you'd be all sympathetic with me for the wrong he's done me, but I'm not going to tell you any of what it is, but if he doesn't straighten himself out, I'm documenting it all, and I will DESTROY HIS LIFE, but only if he makes me do it, and so help me Dawg, John Dehlin, you should just chill out, and move on, as I have, but I'm ready to DESTROY YOUR LIFE at any moment if you push me too far, but I've already gotten over it and moved on with my life..."



Thanks for the summary. It was all so confusing. Was about to request color coding for posts, yellow for ax grinders, red for sycophants and perhaps purple for the accused, to help make sense of things.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Mayan Elephant
_Emeritus
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: "Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

Post by _Mayan Elephant »

moksha wrote:Thanks for the summary. It was all so confusing. Was about to request color coding for posts, yellow for ax grinders, red for sycophants and perhaps purple for the accused, to help make sense of things.


green for handwringers, because they shall inherit the earth.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
_suniluni2
_Emeritus
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:36 am

Re: "Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

Post by _suniluni2 »

Sister Mary Lisa wrote:MS/John Dehlin responded ... He said this "feels like Mayan Elephant and Rosebud crazy town conspiratorial allegations with zero substance."


That's all she's posted - allegations, or more accurately, innuendo, with zero substance; so I don't blame the guy for feeling that way. I'm guessing others, who do not have the inside knowledge that you seem to have, feel the same.

Sister Mary Lisa wrote:[rosebud] is prepared to go to print with what she knows, but if [ms] just quit his smear campaign


What smear campaign? In the thread? Here on MDB?

Sister Mary Lisa wrote:But clearly we see his [ms's] alarm, no?


No, actually. I didn't see any alarm on his part.
_Equality
_Emeritus
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:44 pm

Re: "Mormonstories," Me, Credibility, Evidence, Double Binds

Post by _Equality »

suniluni2 wrote:
Sister Mary Lisa wrote:MS/John Dehlin responded ... He said this "feels like Mayan Elephant and Rosebud crazy town conspiratorial allegations with zero substance."


That's all she's posted - allegations, or more accurately, innuendo, with zero substance; so I don't blame the guy for feeling that way. I'm guessing others, who do not have the inside knowledge that you seem to have, feel the same.

Sister Mary Lisa wrote:[rosebud] is prepared to go to print with what she knows, but if [ms] just quit his smear campaign


What smear campaign? In the thread? Here on MDB?

Sister Mary Lisa wrote:But clearly we see his [ms's] alarm, no?


No, actually. I didn't see any alarm on his part.

Is there a suniluni1? I have always wanted to know.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The lds church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Post Reply