Did Scott Gordon Meet with the "Oaks Faction"?

[_Nimrod]

Ahem.

Oh, sorry, I meant to add "quivering" to gelatinous, but didn't think it relevant at the time.

And whose handle is 'droopy'?

[_Droopy]

And whose handle is 'droopy'?

Loran Blood, the same name available in my profile at the MADboards. If you'd like to talk to me personally:

Coggins59@windstream.net

[_Droopy]

Why didn't you just look at my profile and see for yourself?

[_Nimrod]

Why didn't you just look at my profile and see for yourself?

Droops, my last question was rhetorical to point out the irony of one that goes by 'Droopy' calling another gelatinous. Your identity is your business.

[_Nimrod]

Apparently, Professor Dan's monitoring of this Board has triggered his starting a new thread on the aptly named MADboard: Did Scott Gordon Meet with Elder Oaks in Redding? Inquiring Minds Already Know, But Just for the Record.

Professor Dan poses some questions for Scott Gordon, but leaves out perhaps the most telling: Why did SG post in an earlier thread on the aptly named MADboard on topic, but not answer those questions in any of those posts?

[_Nimrod]

SCOTT GORDON Answers--Except for the Obvious Why He Did Not Do So in His Multiple Prior Posts on Topic on MAD&B.

As Dan says, I am in LA right now so I can only check in occasionally..

I spoke with Elder Oaks 3 times, all of which were in passing as he was shaking hands with various congregation members. It was 3 times because once he shook hands with me at the Saturday Evening session, and twice he ran into me while shaking hands at the Sunday session. He did laugh about running into me twice on Sunday. It was quite by accident as he was going around the room shaking hands and I was simply talking with various people. Total time spend with Elder Oaks was 15 seconds--max.

Elder Oaks was there to change our stake presidency. Thankfully, I was not selected to be in that group.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks did not then, nor has he ever given direction or counsel to me about FAIR, nor did he discuss the policies or publications or practices of FAIR. He did say he was familiar with FAIR and to "keep up the good work." But, the comment was completely in passing and could be discounted as simply being polite.

FAIR has never received money from the Church, nor has the Church hooked us up with funding

[_beastie]

Since I found Scott G's answer to be satisfactory, I kept my end of the bargain. Here's what I posted on MAD:

Thanks for answering the question, Scott. I'm left wondering why anyone made such a big deal of the question in the first place.

Now I will keep my part in the bargain. Scratch did ask me to ask Scott G. the question here on MAD, since he does not have posting privileges. I agreed to do so, because I was curious as to whether or not the tone of internet defenses of the faith have ever earned the notice of GAs. As I've stated repeatedly, I believe that it would only take one relative of a GA to be harshly treated here to trigger some curiosity and perhaps some counsel.

Scratch is not "the source" of the rumor, however. I don't know who that source is, but apparently their information was not reliable.

[_Droopy]

Not really. We still don't know who the source of the fabrication really is. Is Beastie protecting the fabricator by claiming ignorance of the source?

Inquiring minds want to know, especially as Beastie didn't promise to reveal that she doesn't know who the source was, but promised to reveal her source.

I suspect, of course, that Beastie knew full well, with her source, that the entire thing was a ruse from the beginning, but so goes life in Slim Shadyville.

[_beastie]

Not really. We still don't know who the source of the fabrication really is. Is Beastie protecting the fabricator by claiming ignorance of the source?

Inquiring minds want to know, especially as Beastie didn't promise to reveal that she doesn't know who the source was, but promised to reveal her source.

I suspect, of course, that Beastie knew full well, with her source, that the entire thing was a ruse from the beginning, but so goes life in Slim Shadyville.

You are, predictably, completely wrong.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Huh. That's interesting. I see that Scott Gordon has, after a conveniently long delay, at last admitted that he met with Elder Oaks not once, not twice, but three times! Thanks, Bro. Gordon, for at last ponying up the truth.

I did want to comment on this curious pair of remarks from Gordon:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks did not then, nor has he ever given direction or counsel to me about FAIR, nor did he discuss the policies or publications or practices of FAIR. He did say he was familiar with FAIR and to "keep up the good work." But, the comment was completely in passing and could be discounted as simply being polite.

"Simply being polite"? Meaning....what? This is a baffling remark. Why would Scott Gordon say this? That Oaks wanted to publicly seem as if he was "simply being polite," but that, on some other level, he feels differently about FAIR? I wonder if Gordon met not with Oaks, but someone who represented Oaks in some way (ala Watson helping out the apologists with that supposed 2nd Letter). After all, my source did say it was the "Oaks Faction," and not Elder Oaks specifically, who were sent to deliver the message. Here, Gordon is limiting his denial to Oaks and to Oaks alone.

FAIR has never received money from the Church, nor has the Church hooked us up with funding.

Again---what does this mean? My "source" told me that FAIR had received funds via "backdoor" channels. In other words, the funding had come in such a way that it could not be traced back to the Church. I suppose the only way for Gordon to disprove this would be for him to open up FAIR's financials, including a list of names of everyone who has made a donation. Is he willing to do that?

All that said, I want to go on record saying I believe that Scott is telling the truth, and that he is being as careful as possible to tell the truth as it appears to him, and as he believes it to be. (If he's not, it would be horrible for him.) What I don't quite understand is why he and the other apologists took so long in delivering the answer to all of us---TBMs and critics alike. Obviously, a lot of PMs were flying back and forth during all this time, as evidenced by DCP's OP. Was this to check all the details, I wonder? If something *was* said about FAIR, and Gordon & Co. needed to conceal this fact....well, I won't go there.

Let's just say that I am continuing my investigations into this matter, and will begin a new thread when I've arrived at a satisfactory conclusion.