Page 46 of 50 FirstFirst ... 364445464748 ... LastLast
Results 1,351 to 1,380 of 1488

Thread: Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

  1. #1351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    very easy
    Well, I guess it's an answer, if a dismissive one. Not really what I asked--of course it's easy to hit CC and send--but I assume you mean that it's easy to imagine an attorney being reckless with this kind of thing?

    I have a hard time imagining it, frankly. If I did something equivalent--putting a client's (patient's/hospital's) reputation at risk in some sort of bizarre one-manned crusade--I'd certainly be fired, and probably lose my license. But I guess the Bar isn't so concerned about these kinds of things?

    I'm a little puzzled at the apathy over this part of the story. I can sort of understand not believing her story, even several times over the intervening years. She has a checkered past that I'm sure her leaders were aware, and the story is so unbelievable (especially to an active church member)--I'd have a hard time acting on it as well. It looks bad in series like we're seeing it now, but it was a different time then, and I talk to enough crazy people who lie to me to know that you simply can't believe everyone, and it's not really fair to isolate a mistake in retrospect. NDAs are common enough that while it's not something you would hope for the Church of God to practice commonly, PR matters, so it's understandable. I completely get the Church gathering information on the victim to assess her credibility and its own position in negotiations. But to share that confidential information with the son of the perpetrator? That's a new level of bad acting. If there's a chance the Church had a hand in that, I would think people would care. NBD, I guess.
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

  2. #1352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Wuap, I am sorry if you feel sad. I hope to see you back.

    These discussions are interesting. I am convinced that we humans are naturally/genetically pre-disposed to idealogical extremes. Gray areas make us uncomfortable.

    "Scriptures are the word of God --> Everything in them literally happened"
    "Joseph Smith/Brigham Young were prophets --> God commanded polygamy and the priesthood ban."
    "This is God's church --> The prophet will never lead us astray."

    Or on the other hand:

    "JS took a 14-yr-old bride --> He was a fraud about everything"
    "Seers are supposed to see the past/present/future but they missed Bishop --> They aren't really seers"
    "Some callings are clearly not inspired --> No callings are inspired"
    "Church leaders make mistakes --> Why listen to them about anything?"
    etc.

    I am convinced that real, enduring faith exists in between these two extremes. I also believe that it is a fragile and delicate thing. It can only survive with great effort and nurturing. It requires humility, optimism, and hope. It cannot abide cynicism. It also requires an ability or willingness to accept paradox and messiness; the willingness to deal with two contradictory thoughts. Exmos often mock this as "mental gymnastics". I just returned from a lecture by Terryl Givens (I think he is the greatest thinker right now in Mormonism). He gave a beautiful presentation on faith and reason and spoke of the struggle of negotiating the messy middle. He referred to "the appalling luxury of skepticism". Luxury indeed.

    So why bother? For me it is simple. When I have chosen to trust in God and believe in spite of the endless reasons to doubt, I have felt the undeniable love of God. That is my foundation.
    "Appalling luxury of skepticism"? I'll have to think about that, but I'm not sure I agree that "skepticism" is either "appalling" or a "luxury". Of course, you may be paraphrasing, and I think "cynicism" might fit both of those much better.

    In any case, I feel like you're painting exmos with the same style of broad brush that they can tend to paint "TBMs" with. It's understandable--on both sides, it's the strident, extreme, and generally shallow that are the most heard. Of course, it's also more fun to make extreme statements--more likes that way--so even some of them are probably more nuanced than they're letting on. Let's remember the roots of this black or white thinking. Yes, it is human nature to be drawn to an extreme, but the Church got a lot of mileage in the pre-Givens era out of this. It's a common saying among exmos that you can take the boy out of the church, but it's much harder to take the church out of the boy. However, it's a hard enough thing to leave the church, that no one that I know does it without first trying out a hundred different iterations along the way to stay in. I think they usually get nuance. However, unfortunately, the whole process has left them so battle-scarred that by the end, there's a lot of anger, and it's pretty easy to fall into "everything the Church does is evil" trap. And then facebook only reinforces that and they find their new community.

    But that's the extreme. Like the TBM extreme, it doesn't describe 90% of reality. In the non-FB/reddit real world, most of us know plenty of Mormons whom we love and look back on much of our time in the Church with fondness. Belief is indeed an "appalling luxury".



    Obviously kidding with that last line. But really, don't you think most everyone has to walk some sort of tightrope of faith, whether it be in an organization's belief or their own private convictions of what is good and right. I think it's silly to assume that Mormons are any better at recognizing paradox than the rest of us. One might even call that hubris.
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

  3. #1353
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Land of the Morning Calm
    Posts
    14,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ERCougar View Post
    Well, I guess it's an answer, if a dismissive one. Not really what I asked--of course it's easy to hit CC and send--but I assume you mean that it's easy to imagine an attorney being reckless with this kind of thing?

    I have a hard time imagining it, frankly. If I did something equivalent--putting a client's (patient's/hospital's) reputation at risk in some sort of bizarre one-manned crusade--I'd certainly be fired, and probably lose my license. But I guess the Bar isn't so concerned about these kinds of things?

    I'm a little puzzled at the apathy over this part of the story. I can sort of understand not believing her story, even several times over the intervening years. She has a checkered past that I'm sure her leaders were aware, and the story is so unbelievable (especially to an active church member)--I'd have a hard time acting on it as well. It looks bad in series like we're seeing it now, but it was a different time then, and I talk to enough crazy people who lie to me to know that you simply can't believe everyone, and it's not really fair to isolate a mistake in retrospect. NDAs are common enough that while it's not something you would hope for the Church of God to practice commonly, PR matters, so it's understandable. I completely get the Church gathering information on the victim to assess her credibility and its own position in negotiations. But to share that confidential information with the son of the perpetrator? That's a new level of bad acting. If there's a chance the Church had a hand in that, I would think people would care. NBD, I guess.
    I'm not following the latest developments that closely, so that's my excuse. Seems that there is a lot of disinformation out there, so I'll wait until something more definitive is revealed.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  4. #1354
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ERCougar View Post
    "Appalling luxury of skepticism"? I'll have to think about that, but I'm not sure I agree that "skepticism" is either "appalling" or a "luxury". Of course, you may be paraphrasing, and I think "cynicism" might fit both of those much better.

    In any case, I feel like you're painting exmos with the same style of broad brush that they can tend to paint "TBMs" with. It's understandable--on both sides, it's the strident, extreme, and generally shallow that are the most heard. Of course, it's also more fun to make extreme statements--more likes that way--so even some of them are probably more nuanced than they're letting on. Let's remember the roots of this black or white thinking. Yes, it is human nature to be drawn to an extreme, but the Church got a lot of mileage in the pre-Givens era out of this. It's a common saying among exmos that you can take the boy out of the church, but it's much harder to take the church out of the boy. However, it's a hard enough thing to leave the church, that no one that I know does it without first trying out a hundred different iterations along the way to stay in. I think they usually get nuance. However, unfortunately, the whole process has left them so battle-scarred that by the end, there's a lot of anger, and it's pretty easy to fall into "everything the Church does is evil" trap. And then facebook only reinforces that and they find their new community.

    But that's the extreme. Like the TBM extreme, it doesn't describe 90% of reality. In the non-FB/reddit real world, most of us know plenty of Mormons whom we love and look back on much of our time in the Church with fondness. Belief is indeed an "appalling luxury".

    Obviously kidding with that last line. But really, don't you think most everyone has to walk some sort of tightrope of faith, whether it be in an organization's belief or their own private convictions of what is good and right. I think it's silly to assume that Mormons are any better at recognizing paradox than the rest of us. One might even call that hubris.


    Wow, you read a lot into that post. I never claimed Mormons have a monopoly on recognizing paradox. I do think that dealing with paradox and cognitive dissonance requires effort and produces rewards, regardless of the circumstances. That quote I provided was from an atheist, btw.

    And FTR, "luxury of skepticism" is a phrase with a long history (including Nietzsche) and a variety of interpretations.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  5. #1355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myboynoah View Post
    I'm not following the latest developments that closely, so that's my excuse. Seems that there is a lot of disinformation out there, so I'll wait until something more definitive is revealed.
    Fair enough. I don't expect everyone to follow this very closely. I was really more curious about the mechanics of an outside counsel going rogue, and just how far out of bounds that would be, and was hoping for some insight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post


    Wow, you read a lot into that post. I never claimed Mormons have a monopoly on recognizing paradox. I do think that dealing with paradox and cognitive dissonance requires effort and produces rewards, regardless of the circumstances. That quote I provided was from an atheist, btw.

    And FTR, "luxury of skepticism" is a phrase with a long history (including Nietzsche) and a variety of interpretations.
    I was reading the German so I didn't recognize the translation.

    I don't think my reading was that tortured, but I'll believe your clarification of intent. Still, it's Givens sharing it to what I assume is a believing audience, about the difficult but virtuous path of staying faithful, I guess? I don't know many who have left who would call it a luxury or the easy road. And when I look at Nietszche's quote:
    The desire for a strong faith is not the proof of a strong faith, rather the opposite. If one has it one may permit oneself the beautiful luxury of skepticism: one is secure enough, fixed enough for it.
    ,
    the context seems even more curious.
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

  6. #1356
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ERCougar View Post
    Fair enough. I don't expect everyone to follow this very closely. I was really more curious about the mechanics of an outside counsel going rogue, and just how far out of bounds that would be, and was hoping for some insight.



    I was reading the German so I didn't recognize the translation.

    I don't think my reading was that tortured, but I'll believe your clarification of intent. Still, it's Givens sharing it to what I assume is a believing audience, about the difficult but virtuous path of staying faithful, I guess? I don't know many who have left who would call it a luxury or the easy road. And when I look at Nietszche's quote:
    ,
    the context seems even more curious.
    To clarify, I would agree with your earlier statement that "Belief is a luxury". It certainly can be - but I would qualify that as uncritical, unquestioning belief. Perhaps my point would have been more clearly made had I shared one of my favorite quotes:

    "There are two ways to skate through life: believe everything or doubt everything - neither approach requires any thinking" <can't remember the author at the moment>

    I think as humans we are often attracted to simplistic narratives because they require the least effort.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  7. #1357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    To clarify, I would agree with your earlier statement that "Belief is a luxury". It certainly can be - but I would qualify that as uncritical, unquestioning belief. Perhaps my point would have been more clearly made had I shared one of my favorite quotes:

    "There are two ways to skate through life: believe everything or doubt everything - neither approach requires any thinking" <can't remember the author at the moment>

    I think as humans we are often attracted to simplistic narratives because they require the least effort.
    Yup, totally agree. Well stated.
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

  8. #1358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    To clarify, I would agree with your earlier statement that "Belief is a luxury". It certainly can be - but I would qualify that as uncritical, unquestioning belief. Perhaps my point would have been more clearly made had I shared one of my favorite quotes:

    "There are two ways to skate through life: believe everything or doubt everything - neither approach requires any thinking" <can't remember the author at the moment>

    I think as humans we are often attracted to simplistic narratives because they require the least effort.
    Yes, that's why many are attracted to ideologies. You draw a box around what the axioms are and then reject everything outside of them. It's the easy way to go through life. Contending with those that you disagree with is difficult, but they might just teach you something, and then you are less stupid than you used to be.

  9. #1359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampfrog View Post
    Yes, that's why many are attracted to ideologies. You draw a box around what the axioms are and then reject everything outside of them. It's the easy way to go through life. Contending with those that you disagree with is difficult, but they might just teach you something, and then you are less stupid than you used to be.
    Really like the direction this thread is taking.

  10. #1360
    Time to camp HuskyFreeNorthwest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Eug
    Posts
    25,955

    Default

    I’m really annoyed to learn I now get a co-teacher! Time for a new calling for me.
    Get confident, stupid
    -landpoke

  11. #1361
    Royal Rooter Green Monstah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Up from third base to Huntington
    Posts
    10,008

    Default

    This thread kills off SIEQ and Wuap. Shut it down, Lebowski!
    Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.

    "Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson

  12. #1362
    Royal Rooter Green Monstah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Up from third base to Huntington
    Posts
    10,008

    Default

    I just listened to the lady's press conference. She claims that Greg Bishop's dossier on her was created by the Church and given to the Bishops. Please, for the love of all holy, don't let this be true.
    Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.

    "Cog dis is a bitch." -James Patterson

  13. #1363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Monstah View Post
    I just listened to the lady's press conference. She claims that Greg Bishop's dossier on her was created by the Church and given to the Bishops. Please, for the love of all holy, don't let this be true.
    some kirton nerd wearing crew neck garments, a short sleeve white shirt and ecco shoes is probably responsible
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  14. #1364
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Monstah View Post
    I just listened to the lady's press conference. She claims that Greg Bishop's dossier on her was created by the Church and given to the Bishops. Please, for the love of all holy, don't let this be true.
    In the article I read, it seemed to be saying that the Church got a lawyer to do some investigating and put some stuff together looking at her history and the allegations, and then gave a copy of what he had done to both the woman's attorney, and Greg Bishop (who, reading between the lines, appears to be playing the role of attorney for daddy?)

    I'm one of the few non-lawyers on the board - but is that a normal thing? If there's a lawsuit and both the "alleged" perpetrator and and organization are named as defendants in a civil case, would it be normal for the attorney representing the organization to put together information and provide it to both of the other parties involved?

    I guess I'm just trying to decide if I should be more frustrated at the fact that the church gave this dossier to Greg Bishop, or more upset at what he did with it once he received it.

    Did I misunderstand, and in turn mischaracterize what this dossier/file is and who it could/should be given to?

  15. #1365

    Default

    For the most part, I have stayed out of criticizing the LDS church for what it did in the 80s. I don't think what they did at the time is out of the ordinary for that time.

    As for the present day, the LDS church's number one concern is obviously protecting its own financial assets. The press release, the legal investigation, and the leaking of the investigation are the actions of an entity that is protecting its financial interest first and foremost.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  16. #1366
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    In the article I read, it seemed to be saying that the Church got a lawyer to do some investigating and put some stuff together looking at her history and the allegations, and then gave a copy of what he had done to both the woman's attorney, and Greg Bishop (who, reading between the lines, appears to be playing the role of attorney for daddy?)

    I'm one of the few non-lawyers on the board - but is that a normal thing? If there's a lawsuit and both the "alleged" perpetrator and and organization are named as defendants in a civil case, would it be normal for the attorney representing the organization to put together information and provide it to both of the other parties involved?

    I guess I'm just trying to decide if I should be more frustrated at the fact that the church gave this dossier to Greg Bishop, or more upset at what he did with it once he received it.

    Did I misunderstand, and in turn mischaracterize what this dossier/file is and who it could/should be given to?
    This article describes what happened:

    http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive...tc-sex-scandal

    It sounds like there was an e-mail chain between the plaintiff's attorney and the defendants in the case. Various documents were shared as part of an ongoing discussion regarding a settlement. Part of that process involves assessing the strength of the case. In that context, the woman's veracity is certainly relevant. It sounds like this document ("dossier") was sent to the plaintiff attorney in direct response to an e-mail sent by the plaintiff attorney. It was sent to Bishop's attorney because the plaintiff's attorney had CC'd Bishop's attorney in his original e-mail (Reply All). Bishop's attorney then leaked part of that information to the media.

    That doesn't seem nearly as sinister as mpfunk and ER's FB friends are making it out to be.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  17. #1367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    In the article I read, it seemed to be saying that the Church got a lawyer to do some investigating and put some stuff together looking at her history and the allegations, and then gave a copy of what he had done to both the woman's attorney, and Greg Bishop (who, reading between the lines, appears to be playing the role of attorney for daddy?)

    I'm one of the few non-lawyers on the board - but is that a normal thing? If there's a lawsuit and both the "alleged" perpetrator and and organization are named as defendants in a civil case, would it be normal for the attorney representing the organization to put together information and provide it to both of the other parties involved?

    I guess I'm just trying to decide if I should be more frustrated at the fact that the church gave this dossier to Greg Bishop, or more upset at what he did with it once he received it.

    Did I misunderstand, and in turn mischaracterize what this dossier/file is and who it could/should be given to?
    The LDS church is a separate defendant in the litigation (and leading up to the filing of the suit, certainly anticipated that it would be named). One litigation commences, the other parties will have a right to all non-privileged evidence. It the church looked into her background to see what they could find (this is what any defendant in a civil suit would do, BTW) it would be totally normal for them to disclose to all other parties in the litigation all discoverable information about the plaintiff. Unless the information they disclosed was protected under some privilege, there is absolutely nothing nefarious about giving this information to the other parties. In fact, showing some of your cards is a common negotiating tactic if the parties are trying to settle the case. Also, some privileges which might normally apply might be waived in a case like this, considering the nature of the suit (i.e. you can't claim clergy privilege while simultaneously using the stuff you supposedly told your clergyman as the basis for your lawsuit--at that point you've opened the door). The church doesn't control what Bishop's attorney does with the information--they are just turning it over. And turning it over is exactly what they would be required to do within 30 days of the filing of the complaint.
    Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

    There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

  18. #1368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    That doesn't seem nearly as sinister as ER's FB friends are making it out to be.
    This is certainly nothing like a doctor intentionally leaking confidential patient information, which ER gave as an analogy.
    Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

    There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

  19. #1369
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    This article describes what happened:

    http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive...tc-sex-scandal

    It sounds like there was an e-mail chain between the plaintiff's attorney and the defendants in the case. Various documents were shared as part of an ongoing discussion regarding a settlement. Part of that process involves assessing the strength of the case. In that context, the woman's veracity is certainly relevant. It sounds like this document ("dossier") was sent to the plaintiff attorney in direct response to an e-mail sent by the plaintiff attorney. It was sent to Bishop's attorney because the plaintiff's attorney had CC'd Bishop's attorney in his original e-mail (Reply All). Bishop's attorney then leaked part of that information to the media.

    That doesn't seem nearly as sinister as ER's FB friends are making it out to be.
    It's not sinister at all. Calling it a 'dossier' is sort of amusing. Like DH said this happens in virtually every civil case and the information is also shared in virtually every civil case. Funk says it reflects badly because it proves the church is only interested in its own financial welfare but he know very well that is just poppycock. He would do exactly the same thing for any client he might represent where this sort of claim was made. Any of us would. Moreover, what is the alternative? Rolling over and just giving them whatever money they ask for without taking any steps to investigate the claimant? Imagine what sort of claims that would bring out of the woodwork. Bottom line: it is not sinister, it is normal. That Bishop decided to reveal some of the shared info is not as typical, but neither is the press attention this case is receiving. THat Bishop possessed the info, however, is not at all unusual.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  20. #1370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    This article describes what happened:

    http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive...tc-sex-scandal

    It sounds like there was an e-mail chain between the plaintiff's attorney and the defendants in the case. Various documents were shared as part of an ongoing discussion regarding a settlement. Part of that process involves assessing the strength of the case. In that context, the woman's veracity is certainly relevant. It sounds like this document ("dossier") was sent to the plaintiff attorney in direct response to an e-mail sent by the plaintiff attorney. It was sent to Bishop's attorney because the plaintiff's attorney had CC'd Bishop's attorney in his original e-mail (Reply All). Bishop's attorney then leaked part of that information to the media.

    That doesn't seem nearly as sinister as mpfunk and ER's FB friends are making it out to be.
    I'm not sure why you have said that I am trying to make this look "sinister." All I said is that it is the actions of an entity that is protecting its financial interests first and foremost. I don't think that is sinister behavior at all. It is inconsistent with what the LDS church claims is its first priority, but not sinister.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  21. #1371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    It's not sinister at all. Calling it a 'dossier' is sort of amusing. Like DH said this happens in virtually every civil case and the information is also shared in virtually every civil case. Funk says it reflects badly because it proves the church is only interested in its own financial welfare but he know very well that is just poppycock. He would do exactly the same thing for any client he might represent where this sort of claim was made. Any of us would. Moreover, what is the alternative? Rolling over and just giving them whatever money they ask for without taking any steps to investigate the claimant? Imagine what sort of claims that would bring out of the woodwork. Bottom line: it is not sinister, it is normal. That Bishop decided to reveal some of the shared info is not as typical, but neither is the press attention this case is receiving. THat Bishop possessed the info, however, is not at all unusual.
    I don't recall saying that church was only interested in its financial welfare, I said it was their first priority. I stand by that statement. You are also right that I would do the exact same thing for my client.

    As with many things with the LDS church, it isn't even their behavior that makes them look bad, it is the duplicity about the actual motive.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  22. #1372
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    I don't recall saying that church was only interested in its financial welfare, I said it was their first priority. I stand by that statement. You are also right that I would do the exact same thing for my client.

    As with many things with the LDS church, it isn't even their behavior that makes them look bad, it is the duplicity about the actual motive.
    Normal civil practice shouldn't be construed as sinister, corporate defendants must protect their interest in the context of the structure of civil litigation. It is not inconsistent even if those unfamiliar with the context of litigation may feel otherwise.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  23. #1373
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Land of the Morning Calm
    Posts
    14,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    I'm not sure why you have said that I am trying to make this look "sinister." All I said is that it is the actions of an entity that is protecting its financial interests first and foremost. I don't think that is sinister behavior at all. It is inconsistent with what the LDS church claims is its first priority, but not sinister.
    That's kind of weird. The Church is not allowed to protect itself?
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  24. #1374
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    It's not sinister at all. Calling it a 'dossier' is sort of amusing. Like DH said this happens in virtually every civil case and the information is also shared in virtually every civil case. Funk says it reflects badly because it proves the church is only interested in its own financial welfare but he know very well that is just poppycock. He would do exactly the same thing for any client he might represent where this sort of claim was made. Any of us would. Moreover, what is the alternative? Rolling over and just giving them whatever money they ask for without taking any steps to investigate the claimant? Imagine what sort of claims that would bring out of the woodwork. Bottom line: it is not sinister, it is normal. That Bishop decided to reveal some of the shared info is not as typical, but neither is the press attention this case is receiving. THat Bishop possessed the info, however, is not at all unusual.
    That's kind of what I thought.

    To be honest - I don't have a problem with the LDS church protecting assets - which isn't the same thing (to me) as saying that she shouldn't be given some settlement or compensation if it were discovered that the LDS church as an organization were at fault here.

    When legal action enters the equation, it tends to muck things up (in some ways).

    In a perfect world, people could say "I screwed up", apologize profusely for said screw up, make appropriate changes to avoid future screw ups, compensate the person wronged, and move on. But there's always that line we're walking of trying to avoid acknowledging guilt due to potential runaway lawsuits. I get that there are times when people (and organizations) won't fix their messes or "make things right", and so there is a need for the legal process to intervene. But is sure seems at times like everyone is so busy walking on eggshells that they can't be adults about what happened - right the wrongs, and move on.

    We get stuck with some people thinking what's being done to right the wrong isn't enough, others still so angry that they want more than what might be fair, and yet others who don't care about fair or right, they just want to burn down the person/organization that wronged them. I get that this isn't the lawyers fault - it has more to do with society. But it's frustrating.

  25. #1375
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donuthole View Post
    The LDS church is a separate defendant in the litigation (and leading up to the filing of the suit, certainly anticipated that it would be named). One litigation commences, the other parties will have a right to all non-privileged evidence. It the church looked into her background to see what they could find (this is what any defendant in a civil suit would do, BTW) it would be totally normal for them to disclose to all other parties in the litigation all discoverable information about the plaintiff. Unless the information they disclosed was protected under some privilege, there is absolutely nothing nefarious about giving this information to the other parties. In fact, showing some of your cards is a common negotiating tactic if the parties are trying to settle the case. Also, some privileges which might normally apply might be waived in a case like this, considering the nature of the suit (i.e. you can't claim clergy privilege while simultaneously using the stuff you supposedly told your clergyman as the basis for your lawsuit--at that point you've opened the door). The church doesn't control what Bishop's attorney does with the information--they are just turning it over. And turning it over is exactly what they would be required to do within 30 days of the filing of the complaint.
    While that all sounds reasonable and good, I won’t believe it until you post it on Facebook.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  26. #1376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    This article describes what happened:

    http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive...tc-sex-scandal

    It sounds like there was an e-mail chain between the plaintiff's attorney and the defendants in the case. Various documents were shared as part of an ongoing discussion regarding a settlement. Part of that process involves assessing the strength of the case. In that context, the woman's veracity is certainly relevant. It sounds like this document ("dossier") was sent to the plaintiff attorney in direct response to an e-mail sent by the plaintiff attorney. It was sent to Bishop's attorney because the plaintiff's attorney had CC'd Bishop's attorney in his original e-mail (Reply All). Bishop's attorney then leaked part of that information to the media.

    That doesn't seem nearly as sinister as mpfunk and ER's FB friends are making it out to be.
    This article is old, which is why I said earlier that the fact this information was leaked to Greg Bishop is not really in dispute. But I'm glad you guys are finally taking an interest in it, because I think it's easily the most (potentially) problematic part of the response, and I wanted to hear the Mormon attorney side of the story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Donuthole View Post
    The LDS church is a separate defendant in the litigation (and leading up to the filing of the suit, certainly anticipated that it would be named). One litigation commences, the other parties will have a right to all non-privileged evidence. It the church looked into her background to see what they could find (this is what any defendant in a civil suit would do, BTW) it would be totally normal for them to disclose to all other parties in the litigation all discoverable information about the plaintiff. Unless the information they disclosed was protected under some privilege, there is absolutely nothing nefarious about giving this information to the other parties. In fact, showing some of your cards is a common negotiating tactic if the parties are trying to settle the case. Also, some privileges which might normally apply might be waived in a case like this, considering the nature of the suit (i.e. you can't claim clergy privilege while simultaneously using the stuff you supposedly told your clergyman as the basis for your lawsuit--at that point you've opened the door). The church doesn't control what Bishop's attorney does with the information--they are just turning it over. And turning it over is exactly what they would be required to do within 30 days of the filing of the complaint.
    Ok, but when this info was leaked, there was no civil litigation pending (per the Church's own statement), and thus no obligation to share with anyone. These guys (attorneys) had no problem with the Church collecting the information, and even said that Greg Bishop had every right (even duty) to publicize it to strengthen his case. They said that had there been litigation pending, the plaintiff could have requested an order that the information be suppressed, I think at least from revelation to the public? This is all from my recollection of their points. Again, I really wish you had taken an interest in this earlier so I could have relayed things more directly, but that's my recall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Donuthole View Post
    This is certainly nothing like a doctor intentionally leaking confidential patient information, which ER gave as an analogy.
    Lol. I assure you that if I shared this info, "But I accidentally clicked Reply All!" would neither save my job, my personal HIPAA fine, or potentially, my license. I'm gathering that you guys are much looser/lazier with these issues, but isn't that a problem at least for the client (the Church)? The Church gets a black eye because its hired counsel can't control his clicking finger? Is there a kind of fiduciary responsibility to a client's interest to maybe click the right button? Or is this just an accepted lower standard? At the very least, he should be fired. I'm curious if he was.
    Last edited by ERCougar; 04-09-2018 at 12:46 PM.
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

  27. #1377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ERCougar View Post
    This article is old, which is why I said earlier that the fact this information was leaked to Greg Bishop is not really in dispute. But I'm glad you guys are finally taking an interest in it, because I think it's easily the most (potentially) problematic part of the response, and I wanted to hear the Mormon attorney side of the story.



    Ok, but when this info was leaked, there was no civil litigation pending (per the Church's own statement), and thus no obligation to share with anyone. These guys (attorneys) had no problem with the Church collecting the information, and even said that Greg Bishop had every right (even duty) to publicize it to strengthen his case. They said that had there been litigation pending, the plaintiff could have requested an order that the information be suppressed, I think at least from revelation to the public? This is all from my recollection of their points. Again, I really wish you had taken an interest in this earlier so I could have relayed things more directly, but that's my recall.



    Lol. I assure you that if I shared this info, "But I accidentally clicked Reply All!" would neither save my job, my personal HIPAA fine, or potentially, my license. I'm gathering that you guys are much looser/lazier with these issues, but isn't that a problem at least for the client (the Church)? The Church gets a black eye because its hired counsel can't control his clicking finger? Is there a kind of fiduciary responsibility to a client's interest to maybe click the right button? Or is this just an accepted lower standard? At the very least, he should be fired. I'm curious if he was.
    I would be shocked if he was fired. He actually acted consistent with his client's interests in the matter. The investigation was clearly in anticipation of litigation and for the purposes of minimizing costs. It had nothing to do with finding the truth about what happened.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  28. #1378
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ERCougar View Post
    ...
    Lol. I assure you that if I shared this info, "But I accidentally clicked Reply All!" would neither save my job, my personal HIPAA fine, or potentially, my license. I'm gathering that you guys are much looser/lazier with these issues, but isn't that a problem at least for the client (the Church)? The Church gets a black eye because its hired counsel can't control his clicking finger? Is there a kind of fiduciary responsibility to a client's interest to maybe click the right button? Or is this just an accepted lower standard? At the very least, he should be fired. I'm curious if he was.
    What makes you think it was accidental? If HER attorney brought the other guys attorney into the conversation, isn't somewhat safe to assume that he anticipated him being in the conversation? Seems like you're jumping to conclusions here and making it look like some dufus just wasn't paying attention.

    Also - and again, I'm no attorney - but I would think that just the fact that the woman has an attorney representing her in all of this means that there is likelihood of some pending lawsuit. Who's to say they weren't in negotiations to determine what kind of settlement might be gained without having to actually file the lawsuit? I see that kind of stuff on the TV lawyer shows all of the time.

  29. #1379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    I would be shocked if he was fired. He actually acted consistent with his client's interests in the matter. The investigation was clearly in anticipation of litigation and for the purposes of minimizing costs. It had nothing to do with finding the truth about what happened.
    I was referring to the Jordan guy (the outside counsel for the Church) who doesn't know how to specify recipients on replys.
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

  30. #1380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    What makes you think it was accidental? If HER attorney brought the other guys attorney into the conversation, isn't somewhat safe to assume that he anticipated him being in the conversation? Seems like you're jumping to conclusions here and making it look like some dufus just wasn't paying attention.

    Also - and again, I'm no attorney - but I would think that just the fact that the woman has an attorney representing her in all of this means that there is likelihood of some pending lawsuit. Who's to say they weren't in negotiations to determine what kind of settlement might be gained without having to actually file the lawsuit? I see that kind of stuff on the TV lawyer shows all of the time.
    Lebowski is the one who is implying it was an accidental inclusion in the email chain. I'm not at all convinced it was accidental (although I'm not convinced the Church was behind it)--even my kids know how to tell where an email is going.

    As for the Church's involvement: I'm just trusting the Church's spokesman when he said that they were not in discussions with the plaintiff prior to the suit being filed. Maybe he was lying about that?
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •