Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[ERCougar]

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.

[ERCougar]

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.

[myboynoah]

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

"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.

[ERCougar]

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.

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

[ERCougar]

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.

[swampfrog]

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.

[Bo Diddley]

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.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

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

[Green Monstah]

This thread kills off SIEQ and Wuap. Shut it down, Lebowski!

[Green Monstah]

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.

[old_gregg]

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

[Eddie]

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?

[MartyFunkhouser]

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.