Ben Park’s American Zion

[smac97]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Quote

Benjamin E. Park (and Fiona Givens) are both fairly extensively referenced on the MI website, but you are still asserting, as fact, that "some 70 or someone else up high demanded that the MI scrub him from their website."

I stand by what I said,

So you've said.  But the board rules require you to do more than merely stand by what you have said.

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

and they were removed from list of past scholars.

You have not presented evidence/documentation/substantiation as to when this happened, or who did it, or why, etc.  

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

You can play your CFR game all you want to frame these as mere gossip and rumors all you want,

You very recently said that we should "just disregard all {you} have said," and now you are stating that you "stand by" what you have said, despite not providing substantiation for what you have said.

I have also characterized what you have said as "hearsay."

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

but that's precisely what happened--and this was told to me first-hand by persons involved.

We don't know the particulars of what has happened.  All we have is a bunch of anonymous hearsay/gossip/speculation.  And zero substantiation from you.

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Quote

We need to own our errors and flaws, but purveying this sort of gossip and hearsay is not good for the Church. 

I do not care at all.

Well, okay then.

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

If removing Park and Givens from the MI list of past scholars doesn't look good for the Church, then maybe those who demanded it should have thought better.

That is not what I said.  Again: "{P}urveying this sort of gossip and hearsay is not good for the Church."

I regularly start threads about news and other items that can cast the Church in a poor light.  Some examples:

• Another Update on DezNat 
• Troubling Article Re: Temple in Texas
• Ensign Peak Investing in Northrop Grumman
• PA Stake President Charged with Felony Under Mandatory Reporting Law
• Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members
• (5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case
• Update Re: Accusation that Church Disclosed Tithing Donors to OUR
• Catholic World Report Asks: "Does Mormonism ruin faith?"
• Vice Article on Tim Ballard
• MSN Weighs in on "Surprising Mormon Beliefs You Didn’t Know Were Real"
• Minerva Teichert estate sues The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU Museum of Art
• IRS "Whistleblower" David A. Nielsen to Appear on 60 Minutes
• Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?" - Part II
• New BSA/Church Lawsuit Re: Abuse
• Disappointing Development at BYU Law School

In doing so, I am not indifferent to the potential injury such topics/discussions may do to the reputation and standing of the Church.  I think we need to address difficult issues in the Church, including errors and misconduct by its members, leaders, subdivisions, etc.  Such discussions, though, should be treated with due care and circumspection.  To that end, I generally try to avoid publishing speculation, gossip, innuendo, hearsay, etc. as established fact.

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

I'm annoyed that I've wasted too much time over your silly abuse of the CFR requests, so I'm done here on this thread.

Have a good day, friend.

I think the Latter-day Saints should be circumspect in accepting gossip/hearsay/speculation as fact.  We tend to get in trouble when we do that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 6, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But the board rules requires you to do more than merely stand by what you have said.

He explained it was from firsthand personal encounters, I think that is allowed because it makes it clear it is based on his own memories, that may or may not be accurate.  Since he is not claiming there is documentation or this was official communication, but a behind the scenes type of interaction which was then reported to him, which generally implies details can get messed up and therefore should be treated with caution and as anecdotal, I don’t see why the board rules would require more.  The board has allowed personal stories all the time. 

 I realize this is a significant claim, so perhaps more is required in this case.  Why not report it and let the mods decide where it falls within the rules rather than repeat yourself?

Edited August 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

He explained it was from firsthand personal encounters,

"Firsthand"?  He was a percipient witness to the goings-on at MI?  

He anonymously attributes a hearsay statement to Deidre Nicole Green, but that's not really "firsthand" either.  

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think that is allowed because it makes it clear it is based on his own memories, that may or may not be accurate.

Okay.  This is all rather academic anyway.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since he is not claiming there is documentation or this was official communication, but a behind the scenes type of interaction which was then reported to him, which generally implies details can get messed up and therefore should be treated with caution and as anecdotal, I don’t see why the board rules would require more.  The board has allowed personal stories all the time. 

That's the thing.  The allegations he is presenting are not "personal stories."  They are not his stories.  He is posting serious allegations, borne of hearsay, gossip, speculation, etc.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I realize this is a significant claim, so perhaps more is required in this case.  Why not report it and let the mods decide where it falls within the rules rather than repeat yourself?

He effectively retracted his factual claims ("Then just disregard all I have said..."), or I thought he had.  Then he doubled down and said he "stand{s} by" what he has said.

I've voiced my concerns and objections.  I'll let it go at that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Firsthand"?  He was a percipient witness to the goings-on at MI?  

Meaning he is repeating what he was told, not just passing on what was read online, for example, sorry for the lack of precision.

I don’t know if the narrator counts as anonymous. I thought he shared his identity in the past.  I know who he is (though admit to surprisingly spacing on it and needing to be reminded by a friend).  I have met him in person, though just in passing so I doubt he remembers.

Edited August 6, 2024 by Calm

[Kevin Christensen]

18 hours ago, the narrator said:

He was. I'm not saying he was completely removed (which would have been difficult given the nature of some of examples you provided), but he was removed from the listing of past scholars among other places on the site: https://web.archive.org/web/20201024023923/https://mi.byu.edu/scholars/

Fiona Givens was another person scrubbed from the site after being "retired" for offering her opinion that the Holy Ghost was Heavenly Mother in a Q&A following a fireside. 

Speaking of the scandalous "Big Brother" mind control aspect of a person or a scholar's work being "scrubbed" from a scholarly website at the behest of some powerful insider in a hierarchy, do you recall what happened to the bulk of old FARMS materials and scholarship overnight, without any warning or concern for the literally hundreds of LDS websites and many thousands of links that linked to those materials (even just at FAIR), when in the summer of 2016 the new Maxwell management updated their website?

I remember, because I used that website everyday.  What happened to the easy access to the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, for instance?  And he was just one of hundreds.

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

"Firsthand"?  He was a percipient witness to the goings-on at MI?  

Meaning he is repeating what he was told, not just passing on what was read online, for example, sorry for the lack of precision.

Information one has acquired from being told it is not "firsthand" information.  It is, instead, secondhand.  Hearsay.

I think we Latter-day Saints need to be cautious and circumspect when addressing serious allegations affecting the Church.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t know if the narrator counts as anonymous. I thought he shared his identity in the past.  I know who he is (though admit to surprisingly spacing on it and needing to be reminded by a friend).  I have met him in person, though just in passing so I doubt he remembers.

He posts anonymously.  AFAICS, his IRL identity is not readily available.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

[Full disclosure - I am a sinful fallen person, and have occasionally, even recently, engaged in the behavior I'm about to complain about in this post.  If anyone's wondering if I have any particular person in mind, rest assured I need look no further than myself for an example of what I mean.]

 

It seems like Smac is being a bit nitpicky (or even a lot), but it's an important topic attached to an important principle.

From what I can tell, an awful lot of humans spend an awful lot of time anonymously smearing others by name.  Talking about people behind their backs.  Casting aspersions from the shadows.   When called on it, it's the most common thing in the world for the person to defend the negative comments as things are widely known and openly claimed by lots of reliable people.   

When this happens, it's entirely appropriate to say "oh yeah?  Name one.  Show us where anyone has ever said that, ever."

The final most common occurrence, is when called to the carpet in such a fashion, the reputation-smearing individual almost never has an actual source.  

Another way to put it: Gossip is vile and horrible, growing and spreading in shadows and anonymous message boards.   When specifically called out and drug into the light, it tends to shrivel and die.  The original purveyor of the negative comments is wise to publicly distance themselves and bow out.

Still another way to put it: 

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, the narrator said:

Fiona Givens was another person scrubbed from the site after being "retired" for offering her opinion that the Holy Ghost was Heavenly Mother in a Q&A following a fireside. 

Interesting! I find it somewhat charming, the thought that Heavenly Mother is a gift conferred after baptism. 

However, it doesn't fly when seriously considered. The Holy Ghost is described in scripture as a personage of spirit. One would think Heavenly Father's wife would have a resurrected body just like her husband. 

ETA: I realize this is off topic, but had to comment about this one little en passant point. Sorry!

Edited August 7, 2024 by Stargazer

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

do you recall what happened to the bulk of old FARMS materials and scholarship overnight, without any warning or concern for the literally hundreds of LDS websites and many thousands of links that linked to those materials (even just at FAIR), when in the summer of 2016 the new Maxwell management updated their website?

Yep, and that was very unfortunate.

[the narrator]

48 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Interesting! I find it somewhat charming, the thought that Heavenly Mother is a gift conferred after baptism. 

 

I've heard David Paulsen make the same speculation a couple times (sorry, again, no voice recorder present), but there was no problem with him saying it, I guess--or at least apparently nobody complained to higher ups.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It seems like Smac is being a bit nitpicky (or even a lot), but it's an important topic attached to an important principle.

Nitpicky about board rules?  Perhaps.  But as you say, the broader topic and principle merit some attention.

If Narrator (or any other person) were to come here and - relying solely on hearsay and unsubstantiated speculation and gossip - publicly, casually and anonymously libel a family member or friend, I would feel bound to speak in defense of that person.  The Golden Rule and all that.  And to be sure, I have sometimes erred in the same way that I think Narrator is erring in this thread.

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

From what I can tell, an awful lot of humans spend an awful lot of time anonymously smearing others by name.  Talking about people behind their backs.  Casting aspersions from the shadows.   When called on it, it's the most common thing in the world for the person to defend the negative comments as things are widely known and openly claimed by lots of reliable people.   

When this happens, it's entirely appropriate to say "oh yeah?  Name one.  Show us where anyone has ever said that, ever."

The final most common occurrence, is when called to the carpet in such a fashion, the reputation-smearing individual almost never has an actual source.  

Another way to put it: Gossip is vile and horrible, growing and spreading in shadows and anonymous message boards.   When specifically called out and drug into the light, it tends to shrivel and die.  The original purveyor of the negative comments is wise to publicly distance themselves and bow out.

Still another way to put it: 

Well said.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

do you recall what happened to the bulk of old FARMS materials and scholarship overnight, without any warning or concern for the literally hundreds of LDS websites and many thousands of links that linked to those materials (even just at FAIR), when in the summer of 2016 the new Maxwell management updated their website?

I remember.  I hurriedly downloaded the whole lot of the FARMS review of books, and have been keeping all 39 issues safely archived ever since, all 1.2 gig of it.  

Last year, they seemed to be pretty findable online, but it's a bit harder now.  A quick google search takes me here, but the link is dead. 

Googling harder, it looks like you can find all the issues here: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/all_issues.html

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.

I am generally indifferent to internecine disputes in academia, even at BYU, but since you keep making factual assertions...

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t care BUT PROVE IT!!!!!!

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

[Full disclosure - I am a sinful fallen person, and have occasionally, even recently, engaged in the behavior I'm about to complain about in this post.  If anyone's wondering if I have any particular person in mind, rest assured I need look no further than myself for an example of what I mean.]

 

It seems like Smac is being a bit nitpicky (or even a lot), but it's an important topic attached to an important principle.

From what I can tell, an awful lot of humans spend an awful lot of time anonymously smearing others by name.  Talking about people behind their backs.  Casting aspersions from the shadows.   When called on it, it's the most common thing in the world for the person to defend the negative comments as things are widely known and openly claimed by lots of reliable people.   

When this happens, it's entirely appropriate to say "oh yeah?  Name one.  Show us where anyone has ever said that, ever."

The final most common occurrence, is when called to the carpet in such a fashion, the reputation-smearing individual almost never has an actual source.  

Another way to put it: Gossip is vile and horrible, growing and spreading in shadows and anonymous message boards.   When specifically called out and drug into the light, it tends to shrivel and die.  The original purveyor of the negative comments is wise to publicly distance themselves and bow out.

Still another way to put it: 

Gossip is a social tool that builds community. It also allows people (particularly the disadvantaged) to curate their peer group and avoid or exclude dangerous elements. It is not gossip that is bad. It is lying. Gossip is one of those tools that can be used for good or ill like most human innovations. Ironically in the Church we value the gossip in our leadership meetings that knows a lot about what is going on in the ward, both good and bad. They do that by interacting with people and trading information. They gossip. Some of it is about bad stuff. Some of it is about good stuff. We inherited our hatred of gossip from other Christian faiths that villainized it because it took power away from the Church or the legal establishment or (in some periods of history) both.

In a mostly illiterate society a CFR to provide written evidence of someone’s perfidy would be laughed at.

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Gossip is a social tool that builds community. It also allows people (particularly the disadvantaged) to curate their peer group and avoid or exclude dangerous elements. It is not gossip that is bad. It is lying. Gossip is one of those tools that can be used for good or ill like most human innovations. Ironically in the Church we value the gossip in our leadership meetings that knows a lot about what is going on in the ward, both good and bad. They do that by interacting with people and trading information. They gossip. Some of it is about bad stuff. Some of it is about good stuff. We inherited our hatred of gossip from other Christian faiths that villainized it because it took power away from the Church or the legal establishment or (in some periods of history) both.

I think we might have a disagreement over what the word means. 

Gossip: Idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others.  Often of a sensational or tantalizingly intimate nature.  

I would argue that discussing the close personal private intimate affairs of members in leadership meetings isn't gossip, because it's not idle.  It's purpose is to perfect the saints, best accomplished from a position of knowledge of relevant facts.  Like welfare needs, or whether someone might be a good/bad fit for a calling, or upcoming milestones requiring leadership action.  Discussions in leadership meetings should also discount rumor, not be sensational, and if intimate, not discussed to tantalize. 

I can see your point around it being a social tool that builds community.  It's strange to see you defending it, as you appear as someone invested in stuff like dismantling institutional and cultural homophobia/transphobia/racism/sexism/etc.  One would think you to be someone opposed to gossip from the homophobes/transphobes/racists/sexists/etc in power, and of the opinion that gossip is a tool in the belt of such people in protecting said evils enshrined in community practice for a long time.

For me and my house, I've tried (often unsuccessfully) to base all my interactions with my fellow humans on the 2nd great commandment, as expressed in this worthy 25-year-old talk:  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging?lang=eng

Edited August 7, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I think we might have a disagreement over what the word means. 

Gossip: Idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others.  Often of a sensational or tantalizingly intimate nature.  

I would argue that discussing the close personal private intimate affairs of members in leadership meetings isn't gossip, because it's not idle.  It's purpose is to perfect the saints, best accomplished from a position of knowledge of relevant facts.  Like welfare needs, or whether someone might be a good/bad fit for a calling, or upcoming milestones requiring leadership action.  Discussions in leadership meetings should also discount rumor, not be sensational, and if intimate, not discussed to tantalize.

Perhaps true but a lot of the information that is shared comes from regular gossip. Note I do not mean to imply this is all negative gossip.

19 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I can see your point around it being a social tool that builds community.  It's strange to see you defending it, as you appear as someone invested in stuff like dismantling institutional and cultural homophobia/transphobia/racism/sexism/etc.  One would think you to be someone opposed to gossip from the homophobes/transphobes/racists/sexists/etc in power, and of the opinion that gossip is a tool in the belt of such people in protecting said evils enshrined in community practice for a long time.

Gossip isn’t the problem. It is when it is lies or when it is predatory. C.S. Lewis once talked about how he got a letter from a “pious homosexual” and at the end noted that that is the kind of letter you take care to destroy. Even though outing the writer wouldn’t have been a lie it would have been predatory.

Gossip also helps marginalized communities. If someone outs people who are mostly closeted that is something others need to know. Same with things like being abusive. It also can expose gross hypocrisy (i.e. often people in authority you should not trust) which is probably a lot of why the Catholic Church decided gossip was a big sin late in the Middle Ages which was also at a time they were emphasizing the need for confession. Gossip for me but not for thee? To be fair the seal of the confessional was a thing by then so ideally it was they got it but did not pass it on.

You also dismantle those cultural problems by talking about them, breaking them down, exposing the places they hide, and the like. The whole thing borders on what some would call gossip.