SouthernMo Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 Thanks to all for weighing in. I'm new here, and it's great to see critical thought and research from people who generally seem to try to be as objective as possible. Just searching for truth, which requires questions...
Honorentheos Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not typically sans credible evidence. And no, trumped up innuendo does not constitute credible evidence. The lack of other cause for reporting on an event that occurred multiple years ago which wasn't reported on at the time is credible evidence given the publicity of the Bishop case now. Until you supply it, there is no other evidence on the table. Do you have any other plausible motive?
ALarson Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, SouthernMo said: Thanks to all for weighing in. I'm new here, and it's great to see critical thought and research from people who generally seem to try to be as objective as possible. Just searching for truth, which requires questions... Exactly. You did nothing wrong and didn't deserve the initial response you received. Many are wondering the same things and have the same questions about this story that you have. There are a few here who always respond with knee-jerk reactions if they perceive even a hint of questioning the church leaders. Don't take it personally! And once again, welcome!! Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson 1
6EQUJ5 Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, ALarson said: Exactly. You did nothing wrong and didn't deserve the initial response you received. Many are wondering the same things and have the same questions about this story that you have. There are a few here who always respond with knee-jerk reactions if they perceive even a hint of questioning the church leaders. I think it is sad that those here who are trying to prevent evil speaking of Church leaders are being made out to be the bad guys. ETA: I am 100% in favor of holding leaders accountable if/when there is evidence to support accusations against them. If they were prominent leaders, this should all be done publicly. Edited May 2, 2018 by 6EQUJ5 2
ALarson Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: I think it is sad that those here who are trying to prevent evil speaking of Church leaders are being made out to be the bad guys. SouthernMo was not doing that ("evil speaking"....really?). This is a discussion board and members can ask questions. Good grief. They did not deserve to be called a gossip. You act like you believe Church leaders should never be questioned or that they are infallible. They're not. Why do you believe this story was published now when it happened 5 years ago and nothing new has taken place regarding it legally (no charges brought, etc.)? There's no reason someone can't wonder why it is this was published right now considering the bad press the church is getting regarding the Bishop case. Actually, it would be understandable if the church leaders did this to get some good PR out there for them on this topic. But it's not even close to "evil speaking of the Church leaders" to wonder if that's the motivation for doing this right now. Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, ALarson said: SouthernMo was not doing that ("evil speaking"....really?). This is a discussion board and members can ask questions. Good grief. They did not deserve to be called a gossip. Identifying a single instance of behavior as gossiping is not the same thing as calling a person a gossip. Quote You act like you believe Church leaders should never be questioned or that they are infallible. They're not. I don't see 6EQUJF as having done that. Questioning Church leaders and recognizing that they are fallible is not the same thing as inventing conjecture or speculation and putting it out as innuendo. That does amount to evil speaking. Edited May 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Identifying certain behavior as gossiping is not the same thing as calling a person a gossip. I don't see 6EQUJF as having done that. Questioning Church leaders and recognizing that they are fallible is not the same thing as inventing conjecture or speculation and putting it out as innuendo. That does amount to evil speaking. There's nothing "invented" here. Just some good and reasonable questions are being asked regarding the strange timing of the publishing of this story. You might not believe the questions are reasonable and you are entitled to your opinion (once again, this is a discussion board with all different views expressed). But it was not right of you to label this new poster a gossip, IMO. That's getting personal. Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: But it was not right of you to label this new poster a gossip, IMO. That's getting personal. Again, I did not label anyone a gossip. Please stop saying that. What I did was comment on observed behavior.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: There's nothing "invented" here. Just some good and reasonable questions being asked regarding the strange timing of the publishing of this story. You might not believe the questions are reasonable and you are entitled to your opinion (once again, this is a discussion board with all different views expressed). One can pose reasonable questions without engaging in innunendo. I noticed that you, for example, managed to avoid the innuendo.
ALarson Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Again, I did not label anyone a gossip. Please stop saying that. You stated: Quote I think you are engaging in gossip. Quote I'm saying there is no substantive reason that I can see for raising it. It is idle chatter that reflects poorly on a person or entity -- which is the very essence of gossip. Definition of a gossip: "person who engages in gossip" It was an unkind response you gave to this new member of the forum, IMO. They have every right to ask questions about this story (just as any of us do) without you getting personal in your response. And, you've never answered why you believe this story was published now when it happened five years ago. Any thoughts? Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: You stated: Definition of a gossip: "person who engages in gossip" You can write any definition you like; I don't have to accept it. I would define "a gossip" as one who habitually, even incessantly, engages in gossip. I haven't accused anyone here of doing that. Edited to add: My definition is consistent with this online definition from Merriam-Webster: Quote c : a person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others. the worst gossip in town. (Emphasis mine.) Edited May 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
SouthernMo Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 I didn't mean to steer this forum off the original topic. Perhaps we all (myself included) review the Board Guidelines on this site, and try to do better? And, if I did anything seriously wrong, please report me. Might be a more productive way to end this off-topic. Scott Lloyd - thank you for making efforts to make sure our postings are productive. ALarson - thank you for understanding and defending my sincere desire to question and understand.
ALarson Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You can write any definition you like; I don't have to accept it. I would define "a gossip" as one who habitually, even incessantly, engages in gossip. I haven't accused anyone here of doing that. Ok, you can define words as you please. It wasn't a kind response, IMO. I stand by that. I also feel they were not gossiping to ask the question that many are wondering about as well. The questions is a good one considering the timing of this story being published right now. How do you even know they were repeating gossip or had been gossiping about this with others? They simply stated and asked: . Quote One thing that I haven't read people discuss is why this is a story today. This happened 4+ years ago I can't help but wonder if the LDS Public Affairs department released this (old) story to show that they can take swift and commensurate action when leaders misbehave... This story is gaining traction on the heels of the Joseph Bishop allegations, in which the church allegedly mishandled reports of abuse. Does anyone know the original source of this story? Am I off base? There's nothing stating they've been gossiping about this. And, I see you once again avoided responding to the question that's been asked you repeatedly. Interesting.... But, I'm moving on.... Edited May 2, 2018 by ALarson
ALarson Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 Just now, SouthernMo said: ALarson - thank you for understanding and defending my sincere desire to question and understand. You're very welcome! Hope you stick around
SouthernMo Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 Oh - I'm sticking around. I like thoughts and opinions across the spectrum!
Scott Lloyd Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Scott Lloyd - thank you for making efforts to make sure our postings are productive. Thank you for your courtesy and understanding. And welcome to the board.
Calm Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 15 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: I didn't mean to steer this forum off the original topic. Perhaps we all (myself included) review the Board Guidelines on this site, and try to do better? And, if I did anything seriously wrong, please report me. Might be a more productive way to end this off-topic. Scott Lloyd - thank you for making efforts to make sure our postings are productive. ALarson - thank you for understanding and defending my sincere desire to question and understand. I like you. Post more so I can give you some rep points. 2
ALarson Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Oh - I'm sticking around. I like thoughts and opinions across the spectrum! Well, don't hesitate to continue asking your questions and expressing your thoughts and opinions
Scott Lloyd Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 13 minutes ago, ALarson said: Ok, you can define words as you please. It wasn't a kind response, IMO. I stand by that. I also feel they were not gossiping to ask the question that many are wondering about as well. The questions is a good one considering the timing of this story being published right now. How do you even know they were repeating gossip or had been gossiping about this with others? They simply stated and asked: . There's nothing stating they've been gossiping about this. And, I see you once again avoided responding to the question that's been asked you repeatedly. Interesting.... Engaging in unfounded and unfavorable conjecture about what the Church or its "PR department" might be doing strikes me as innuendo. That's what I was objecting to. And I have no idea what you are referring to in accusing me of avoiding responding to a repeated question. But I'm not really interested in pursuing it. Quote But, I'm moving on.... Good. I'm ready to do the same. And it appears that SouthernMo is as well.
HappyJackWagon Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 37 minutes ago, ALarson said: You stated: Definition of a gossip: "person who engages in gossip" It was an unkind response you gave to this new member of the forum, IMO. They have every right to ask questions about this story (just as any of us do) without you getting personal in your response. And, you've never answered why you believe this story was published now when it happened five years ago. Any thoughts? It's like admitting to saying someone lied but being appalled when someone suggests you said they were a liar. I think most people see through those kinds of semantic games but thanks for calling it out. Especially when defending a new poster. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It's like admitting to saying someone lied but being appalled when someone suggests you said they were a liar. I think most people see through those kinds of semantic games but thanks for calling it out. Especially when defending a new poster. Would you be inclined to brand someone who tells an occasional fib (most everyone does) as a liar? I wouldn't.
JulieM Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Would you be inclined to brand someone who tells an occasional fib (most everyone does) as a liar? I wouldn't. So it’s ok to occasionally tell a lie? Is that what you taught you kids, Scott? A liar is “a person who tells lies”. (You can qualify it some by adding words like “habitual liar” or “sometimes liar”. But they’re still a liar!) Edited May 2, 2018 by JulieM 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, JulieM said: So it’s ok to occasionally tell a lie? No. Quote Is that what you taught you kids, Scott? No.
ALarson Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, JulieM said: So it’s ok to occasionally tell a lie? Is that what you taught you kids, Scott? A liar is “a person who tells lies”. (You can qualify it some by adding words like “habitual liar” or “sometimes liar”. But they’re still a liar!) Yup
Calm Posted May 2, 2018 Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, JulieM said: So it’s ok to occasionally tell a lie? Is that what you taught you kids, Scott? A liar is “a person who tells lies”. (You can qualify it some by adding words like “habitual liar” or “sometimes liar”. But they’re still a liar!) Wait a second, how do you go from what Scott said to it being OK to occasionally tell a lie? If a person tells one lie in their whole life time, would you feel comfortable in labeling them a liar? I think behaviors vary in how we label them. If we see someone in the swimming pool, they qualify at that moment for the label swimmer. But if we only knew they had gone swimming once in their life, it is unlikely we would be calling them a swimmer. So it depends on context whether such nouns are appropriate or not in my opinion. Edited May 2, 2018 by Calm 1
Recommended Posts