Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm going to try to spell out my thoughts on this in one post. Good luck to me! This is me "thinking out loud" on the screen.

When GoodK posted the copy of the email about the priesthood and his sister, he did so anonymously. Following that, crocket stated that he forwarded or was planning to forward a copy of the post to GoodK's family. In response to that, GoodK stated that he would post crocket's personal contact information on the board and let the board have fun with it. (These aren't direct quotes)

Question: Would it have been okay in the eyes of this community for GoodK to have posted crocket's personal contact information on this board? (He did so recently)

At some point, it was learned that DCP had made the post known to GoodK's family. I was one who strongly disagreed with that.

GoodK has made his own name public via the quest to shut down the Mormon Gulag.

GoodK recently posted the name of his own family member on this board in this post:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=232988#p232988

I googled up the name and I think it must be his step dad's name.

So....GoodK himself has disclosed his own name and the name of his step dad.

So, the personal identification cat is out of the bag.

Somewhere on this thread or another thread, marg criticizes DCP for insinuating things about GoodK. I tend to agree with her on that. However, why single out insinuations made about just GoodK?

What about recent/current insinuations regarding Droopy? Has anyone noticed the number of posters who responded to his recent posts with alcohol references? Is Droopy's history of alcoholism LESS of a concern to posters than GoodK's youthful going's on? GoodK's background is untouchable but Droopy's is fair game?

Why is no one posting in protest about the remarks made about Droopy? Because folks don't like his personality? So what? The principle is the same or should be applied in the same way.

What about repeated and consistent insinuations regarding DCP made largely by Scratch? This has been going on for 3 years. I don't see people on this thread (or other current threads about the situation) protesting 3 years of insinuations/allegations made on this board in an attempt to disparage DCP.

Further, now that I see that the ethics thread has been locked, I will point out that the disparaging comments made by DCP about GoodK have been deleted by Shades.

This while GoodK's comments about DCP "addiction" have been left to stand. (At least I think so as of this writing)

I'm trying to hit all the bases here.

Sooooo....

Efforts have been made to delete the disparaging remarks made about GoodK by DCP (his test).

GoodK's disparaging remarks about DCP "addiction" have been left to stand.

GoodK himself has revealed his name and that of (presumably) his step dad.

Where exactly is the legal case here?

[_beastie]

Being one outside of Mormonism, I'm trying hard to resist assuming this is a product of cult-think where people tattle on others as a service to the Lord or doing the right thing for someone's own good. I guess in Baptist circles you'd tell it followed by bless his heart.

There is a long history of encouraging "tattling" in the LDS church for "someone's own good". I think this idea, that is based on the patronizing idea that LDS "know what's best" for someone, creates the inability to respect personal boundaries, or even the inability to recognize that they ought to be respected. Tattling to someone's real life family that they post on a certain internet board, and said X, Y, and Z about the church or family is disrespectful of personal boundaries that adults normally try to respect. But we've had this discussion about this before, and DCP simply does not agree with this idea of how to respect personal boundaries. I do not mean to say or insinuate that all LDS believers would agree with DCP in this regard, but I do believe many would. This is part of the reason I've been protective of my own personal identity. DCP is not the only LDS poster who has stated, or insinuated, that they would feel comfortable "tattling" if they knew a critic's identity, either. I think posters who use their real names should keep this in mind.

Now certainly one can imagine scenarios in which this boundary would be disregarded, for safety issues. But this is not a safety issue. It's an issue wherein DCP decided it would be "best" that his friend know what his stepson was saying. He felt he "knew best", and still insists that he knew best.

Part of the problem is that LDS tend to personalize criticism of the church. It feels like a personal attack. So "tattling" often feels totally justified. Family members "have a right to know" that one of their own is "attacking" them or the church. My family all know I don't believe in the church, and from our original discussions on it, they know why. For someone to "tattle" to them that I may have criticized an LDS truth claim on the internet would just reopen old wounds. There would be no point to it, other than to cause pain.

I have three adult children, and we get along very well. But I can imagine times of frustration when they may say something critical about me, and vice versa. I certainly do not feel the need to know if and when they may say something critical about me. I am an adult child of parents who still believe in the LDS church, and I have no doubt that they've probably made critical statements about my lack of belief. I have no desire to know that, and if some person "tattled" to me, I would view them as an intrusive gossip, one of those people who like to carry tales. It reminds me of teenage girls, who tend to have problems in this area, continually reporting to one another who said what about whom, causing battles to erupt.

But, as I said, this has been discussed ad nauseum already, and DCP stands firm that he made the right decision to tattle. And I feel quite certain he is not the only LDS believer who would feel that way, so all posters should be forewarned. Tattling is part of the LDS culture.

[_Trevor]

Tattling is part of the LDS culture.

Tattling is part of human nature, but I am inclined to agree that LDS folk do their fair share of tattling.

[_beastie]

Tattling is part of human nature, but I am inclined to agree that LDS folk do their fair share of tattling.

Yes, it is, but it is not openly encouraged in all cultures, which, at least in times past, it has been in the LDS culture.


Jersey Girl -

There are a couple of different issues in your post. What I object to, in particular, is making a statement that you "know something about someone", and hinting that it is serious, and perhaps terrible, but you cannot say what you know. I object to that in particular, because there is no way for the person to defend him or herself against such a statement. In contrast, if someone makes a comment about droopy's drinking, he can address that directly. I think that posters feel his drinking is fair game because he mentioned it himself, and his posts usually drip with moral superiority. I'm not saying this justifies all statements made to droopy, but I do think it is in a different category. I think the same can be said with scratch's accusations. They were specific, which allowed DCP to defend himself against them. Simply saying "I know something terrible about DCP, and I know this from personal contact with his family, but I do not feel free to say what the terrible thing is", by contrast, would allow for no defense. See the difference?

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie,

I see the distinction that you're trying to employ however, the level of torment is the same. Whether or not someone is saying that they know something about the other but won't tell...or when someone like Scratch posts something he/she believes is true and when DCP replies, persists in ignoring the response only to continue the smear campaign for three years...the level of torment is the same or greater than saying they know something they won't tell.

I'm terribly sleep deprived. I'll try not to post again until I get some sleep.

[_beastie]

Well, once you begin talking about "level of torment", that is a different issue. I don't know how to measure that, personally.

My point is that making a contentless accusation is in a special category because the person is incapable of making any defense. In your other examples, people are capable of, and have made defenses. Whether or not those defenses persuade the accuser is a different point, but at least they had the opportunity to directly address the charges. There is just no way you can defend yourself against "I know something terrible about this person but can't say what it is."

[_beastie]

In fact, now I'm beginning to question my original reaction that the case would likely be impossible to make. DCP has repeatedly made these sort of insinuations on this board - that due to his personal knowledge of Eric's family, he knows things that he cannot share. The heavy insinuation has always been that these things would be damaging to Eric. That's why his "test" post sounded believable. I am now beginning to see how all these past comments, in combination with the "test" post, could create a case for libel - if damages can be shown. That would be the tricky part - damages. But it certainly is possible that people who know Eric have read some of these things, and have damaged his reputation.

[_beastie]

In fact, in retrospect, I would say that DCP was very ill-advised to post this, after being made aware that Eric was pursuing a legal case:

Trust me, beastie. The distress was already there, and had been for years. Don't forget that I've known this man for more than two decades. We're not close pals, but we've communicated by phone and by e-mail from time to time during those years, and had visited with one another in California and in Utah. He had already told me a great deal. I know this drives you nuts, but it's true: I don't know everything about this family situation, but I know more than I've ever let on (or would let on), and I've known it, in some cases, as it was happening.

Have I taken pleasure in this? Not by a long shot. Have I sometimes wished I could blurt? Yes. But I haven't.

Posts like this will help Eric make his case.

[_Trevor]

Yes, it is, but it is not openly encouraged in all cultures, which, at least in times past, it has been in the LDS culture.

That is an accurate description of part of my experience as a Mormon.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Dan,

One little thing, just to clarify for anyone unfamiliar with this...

You write,

(2) As I recall, GoodK's father asked me to post it. I see no ethical problem with posting something that somebody has encouraged me to post.

From GoodK's father, posted by you:

I have followed this thread ("Why I am not a Mormon") and here are a few comments I'll make which you have my permission to post on that message board if you wish (though you certainly don't have to and I'm not asking you to do so for my sake):

Bold mine