Outing other Exmos or exmo sympathisers

[_Trevor]

I understand that passing on information to a father about his son's misbehavior can be viewed as "meddling," and that the son will almost certainly view it that way.

I have decided to leave the GoodK affair alone.

[_ludwigm]

...
I wouldn't consider it "meddling in family business" to tell a friend that her thirteen-year-old daughter is having sexual encounters with a fifty-year-old internet predator.
...

I don't know exactly the details, the antecedents of this thread. And I don't want to know. I have read it, as I read near all comments.

This sentence is one I like. I don't know, why. It may be some Freudian thing. Some association with god's will and flaming sword.

I'm sorry for the derailment.

[_Trevor]

I asked for a URL link to a list of your non-LDS academic publications. You say that there isn't one, because for some reason you have not posted a CV online. Instead you mention some pieces you are currently working on, and refer to a recent luncheon engagement in connection with editorial work you describe.

Well, if you don't want people in general to be able to form an estimate of your scholarly contribution to your chosen field in a way that is now quite common amongst academics (by looking at the range of your publications online, and reading a sample them), that is your right.

For a contrast, see for instance http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/ne ... es/ritner/. Or even http://farms.BYU.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=24

Daniel once sent me an abbreviated CV. It showed quite clearly that he does publish in his field. I don't know why we continue to revisit this subject.

[_antishock8]

For antishock8: You need to get back on your lithium.

Wow. For someone worried about slanderous posting... However, it's appropriate given who we're talking about:



Speaking of creepy and clownish in a sort of John Wayne Gacy sort of way...

I wouldn't consider it "meddling in family business" to tell a friend that her thirteen-year-old daughter is having sexual encounters with a fifty-year-old internet predator.

What in the hell is a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University doing playing around on the Internet? For someone who thinks himself as erudte and accomplished as this guy does, he sure does love acting the fool propping up a lie. Crazy...

[_beastie]

DCP excels at this particular type of gossip - the hinted at, the insinuated. I criticized him for this many years ago at ZLMB, so he's been doing it a very long time.

DCP "hints" that he knows more about the person in question, and that "more" would definitely change people's minds about the trustworthiness of the person in question.

in my opinion, this is an even more harmful type of gossip than to actually share the information, because it leaves the audience free to imagine all sorts of horrible things as the "more" that DCP knows, but is too "ethical" to share.

by the way, my memory of the GoodK affair isn't just that DCP alerted his father about this one incident, but that he also emailed his father with other tidbits, having drawn the erroneous conclusion that chap was GoodK.

I think any parent who "wants to know" any and every possibly negative thing their children may say about them behind their backs has control issues. In the process of separating from parents, it is normal and expected for children to sometimes react negatively to their parents' traits.

[_GoodK]

How did I miss this thread??!

I think the issue is the "mocking" of the priesthood, or the "mocking" of faith in general rather than the "mocking" my parents.

Here is a link to the original post to put things in perspective:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... sc&start=0

[_harmony]

DCP excels at this particular type of gossip - the hinted at, the insinuated. I criticized him for this many years ago at ZLMB, so he's been doing it a very long time.

DCP "hints" that he knows more about the person in question, and that "more" would definitely change people's minds about the trustworthiness of the person in question.

in my opinion, this is an even more harmful type of gossip than to actually share the information, because it leaves the audience free to imagine all sorts of horrible things as the "more" that DCP knows, but is too "ethical" to share.

by the way, my memory of the GoodK affair isn't just that DCP alerted his father about this one incident, but that he also emailed his father with other tidbits, having drawn the erroneous conclusion that chap was GoodK.

I think any parent who "wants to know" any and every possibly negative thing their children may say about them behind their backs has control issues. In the process of separating from parents, it is normal and expected for children to sometimes react negatively to their parents' traits.

Obviously I went to bed long before Dan did, but this is what I don't understand. Why would the parent of an adult child, one who doesn't stray into illegal behaviors, per Dan's example above, one who lives his life without overstepping his stewartship, why would anyone deem it his parent's business to know what he posts anonymously on an internet bulletin board? How could this possibly be interpreted as anything except "ratting out" the anonymous poster?

One could possibly extrapolate the behavior out into being "my brother's keeper", except that the communication wasn't between the "brother" and the meddler, it was between the brother's father and the meddler.

[Guest]

The fact that the brilliant Mr. Peterson equates GoodK's behavior with a 51 year-old man having sex with a 13 year-old girl is very telling about the Mormon mindset. Very. Very telling.

[_harmony]

Why? In your world, do children never mock their parents?

GoodK isn't a child. But no, good sons don't typically mock their fathers as superstitious fools and fanatics on public message boards while their fathers are watching over possibly dying daughters. Not in my world.

And yet isn't it possible to view GoodK's post as mocking the priesthood rather than mocking his father? Isn't it possible to view GoodK's post as mocking the church rather than mocking his father? And GoodK posted anonymously. There was no connection between GoodK and his father or any of the rest of his family, until you connected them.

You just characterized GoodK's behavior as "misbehaving". That's a judgment. Or do you now consider that to not be serious?

By "serious" judging, I would have in mind denouncing him, writing a condemnation of him, publicly criticizing him, and the like. Even talking about him. But I did none of that. All I did was to send a URL to his dad, suggesting that he might want to have a look.

Which, in the context of the time, could only add to the father's anguish. Sometimes friends keep friends in the dark, when enlightening them would only add to their stress.

When in doubt, don't.

I'm not sure that's a sound rule.

I think it should be canonized.

meddling in family business of which you have no part.

If that's how you want to view sending a URL to a friend when something at that address concerns that friend, that's fine. We disagree.

But did it concern that friend, until you brought it to his attention? No, he knew nothing about it. He was free from worry or anguish over it, until you meddled.

Once again, if it wasn't meddling, what was it?

Meddling has a negative connotation.

Indeed. We finally agree.

I don't grant that this was a negative thing. It was a duty that I feel I owed my friend. I don't think it would be "meddling in family business" to inform a friend that his son is down at the corner strung out on meth .

GoodK engaged in no illegal activity.

I wouldn't consider it "meddling in family business" to tell a friend that her thirteen-year-old daughter is having sexual encounters with a fifty-year-old internet predator.

GoodK is an adult, so this does not apply.

I don't consider it "meddling in family business" to let a friend know that his son was ridiculing him behind his back on a public message board in a way that made it impossible for me (and, apparently, for at least one other person here) not to recognize who the son and the father were.

And yet thousands if not millions of people made no such connection. You did, and you felt it incumbant upon yourself to rat out your friend's son to your friend... not because it would ease your friend's mind, but to add to your friend's burden and get GoodK in trouble for mocking what you hold sacred. What a great friend you are. So concerned for your friend's welfare in his time of extreme difficulty, you took it upon yourself to add to his burden, with "look what your son is doing behind your back, anonymously on an obscure inconsequential internet bulletin board!" But that wasn't meddling. What exactly did you hope to accomplish with this email? To get GoodK in trouble with his dad? To humiliate his dad and/or GoodK?

As I say, if the shoe were on the other foot, I would have wanted to know.

You'd want to know that your adult son, obedient to the laws of the land, posted something anonymously on an internet bulletin board... why? So you could ring a peal over him? So you could put him in the time-out corner? So you could infringe on his rights as an adult?

You don't have to agree with my moral judgment. I certainly disagree with yours. Still, I think there are others here who will plainly be able to see, even if they too disagree with what I chose to do, that my action was not the sort of deliberately evil thing that Scratch et al. continually ascribe to me.

Well, I don't think you were deliberately evil. I think you meddled in something that was none of your business, causing your friend unnecessary anguish during a very difficult time for him, and you did it with the intention of getting GoodK into trouble with his dad. That's not on the level of seducing 14 year old girls or promoting prostitution, but still... it's not living your religion.

What do your publications have to do with the way you live your life?

They represent a great deal of my life. Of which, while you judge much and harshly, you know next to nothing.

Now see, that's where we would differ on what's important in a life. I look at the new and enduring relationships I have formed, the good deeds I've done, the posterity I started, the contributions I've made to the betterment of the people I am in contact with, the influence I've had on others to do good, and I invite anyone to judge me based on that. My publications or my career would be far down the list. Interesting how you put it first. We really do view life through a completely different lense.

[_Trevor]

How did I miss this thread??!

I think the issue is the "mocking" of the priesthood, or the "mocking" of faith in general rather than the "mocking" my parents.

Here is a link to the original post to put things in perspective:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... sc&start=0

This is why Daniel Peterson contacted your family?!?!?! Geez! OK. The way he made it sound when he contacted me led me to believe that your initial post had been really mocking. This is pretty mild. I am sure Daniel has seen far worse than this in his time, and it makes me question his decision to contact your family all the more. For the love of..... sigh.