That story was fascinating. I would love to hear more. Can't remember the original poster's name, and it looks as though the thread is gone. Whoever it was, I want to hear more about the fallout, and no, I don't need names. It's interesting enough.

That's the thing. We don't need names. Posts like that help everyone understand how things work.

No name will be revealed at this time.

And if anyone did it would be deleted.

It was pres. Chet onu and sis Ima hor.

I don't like this reply. How come the man is just a "cheater" but the women is a "whore"? Boo. Hiss.

The original poster was sherlock.

Personally, I'm curious about what effect the revelation is having on the membership. One thing that has long bothered me about Mormons is their insistence that someone is a good person just because he has a white shirt and tie on and shows up for church on Sunday. Even when I was a TBM, it seemed obvious to me that there were wolves in sheep's clothing even among Mormons, and that there were obviously good people outside of Mormonism. But I know people who would never, ever believe that a stake president would have an affair. So to have a situation where that has clearly happened is fascinating to me in terms of its potential to affect the people who assumed it couldn't happen. I mean, does it forever shake their faith in leadership? Do they just find a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance and go on like nothing happened? Mormons tend to demonstrate a remarkable propensity for ignoring and overlooking things that don't fit into their rigid world view, but I'd think that something this big would have at least some kind of lasting effect.

It's like any other problem with the church. It's extremely important to a few people, for whatever reason, and could actually drive them out. Just add together 20 or 30 issues like this, and you get some serious shrinkage in the revenue stream.

apparently sherlock's earlier posts got deleted. What was the beef?

I, too, have been wanting an update! Thank you for raising this question.

The update really is unimportant. The message is that anyone can succumb to sin and the shame causes secrecy and hiding the truth. They are human and thereby fallen from grace. The LDS are the modern day Pharisees. The law is more important than the underlying teaching. Would Christ be casting stones at them?

After discussion with site admin it was clear that naming & shaming individuals and even mentioning the stake in question could be problematic at this early stage.

There maybe some further related 'returning & reporting' later on wider impact with members.

Well if there is a link to a news article that would be acceptable. News is news, even when it's about LDS members doing the nasty dance.

Yes, any local news stories about this incident. Wouldn't a rival church want to leak it to the press to further embarass the church? That could mean more potential canidates coming their way and just donating a fraction of that 10% to their congregation?

That could backfire actually. Some people will not appreciate the gesture as it is viewed as arising out of bad intent.

Religion isn't a big enough thing in the UK for that sort of thing to happen. Some people identify as Christian but most of those people never go to church. Out of the devout religious people in the UK, most of them would likely be muslims, and they probably don't see the mormon church as competition.

No local news story at the moment. If that changes then it's a different matter completely.

The original threads were hijacked by thugs demanding names.
That doesn't mean that the threads were somehow offensive. They contained interesting insights and reactions from our community that are now lost forever. I think the mods got involved in some crude, rigid, fundamentalist, black-and-white thinking on this one. And the thugs got the threads deleted, which was their purpose all along. Talk about gullible mods!

Thugs? More like nitwits. Lets not give them attributes which they did not demonstrate.

You're wrong on all accounts, white cliffs.

The reason that some of us asked for names was because we wanted some sort of confirmation that this story was actually real.

The threads were removed at the request of Sherlock.

The reason I asked for names was simply out of curiosity, because there's a fair chance I might know some of the people involved. If not, I'll almost certainly have mutual friends with them.

Some questions to understand the rationale here as this is beginning to take on the appearance of censorship and media control:

1. Why would the names be deleted if they were known? What is the rationale behind this any more than discussing the name of say Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger - can the mods explain why the deletion of a public news event should happen?

2. Other than protecting Sherlock, is there any OTHER reason not to release the names or the stake at this time?


3. Since when is asking for more information the same as being a thug? White Cliffs how to you reach that conclusion?

2. Yes. Lawsuits. How's that for another reason? Plus common decency. Eric does this on his own nickel, and I think that gives him the right to decide how much legal risk he is willing to take on.

Not that complicated.

There can't be a lawsuit over an allegation otherwise you wouldn't have a media industry.

"Rumour has it that members in the X Stake are concerned about an alleged affair between the former SP and the current SRSP. According to the rumours being touted by those supposed to be in the know... however, none of this has been confirmed and all of this remains as allegations against these individuals at this point in time....

That is how easy it is so please, enough with the legal obfuscation.

The request of the informant as well as the board administrator and the desire in good will to keep private the details of a personal affair is reason enough to not release the names.

HHK,

My post above acknowledged the need to protect people like Sherlock but asked for OTHER reasons.

Why protect the identities of the offenders? What reasonable grounds exist to support that argument when the media at large are happy to publish all sorts of allegations?

Because the Admin say so is not a reason its a rule. Admins might impose rules but I expect they have a reason for doing so, I'm interested in the rationale.

I'm uncomfortable with censorship as a general SOP. I had that in the church, I don't expect to leave their and find I'm chatting in a place that adopts the same censorship practices without being kind enough to explain the need to other participants.

Yes, anyone can say x or y pays the bills, but if that is all this comes down to, a small community of exmo posters but the forum owner can indiscriminately and without reasonable cause delete or ban posts (I'm not suggesting this place does by the way) then that sounds little different to some of the LDS attitudes like don't talk about factual things from our history, don't ask awkward questions - well why not?

Finally, I mentioned this on the original thread, this isn't a chivalric fight. These people held public positions and held themselves up as public examples of people we should emulate, as such when you pick up one end of the stick you pick up the other and that implies you get caught with your hand in the till you take the flak.

As I said then, these opportunities are rare. Life throws us a slow ball, when exmo resources are so limited in this fight to not hit it out of the park seems greatly remiss imo.

However, it is clear that this isn't a unified fight. We're not in agreement on this, to stumblings point our community is so fragmented in its views that I'm looking at this and my conclusion is 'why bother'. Like many have done it is easier to simply walk away from tscc. I don't suffer he hang ups that many have, so I don't need to recover. For me this was about striking back at the abuse of power and the fraud and censorship that goes with it because it has affected many others - you all amongst them. But if we're standing on the start line ready to fight, the enemy is caught in the open and out of nowhere we have unelected leaders calling out don't shoot them, then I think it is reasonable to ask why - what's the rationale so that I as a logical person can learn what I am missing, or challenge if the reason is irrational?

Makes you proud to be British does this story!!!

But shame on Sherlock...(related to Gordon?) gossiping about the private lives of others. Shame on you other voyeurs feasting on the misery that any affair causes others.

The only people interested in this in the UK are church members. Why would the press be interested in the marital worries of a lay preacher of a minor religion.

Nothing to see here folks...

Oxford English Dictionary definition of gossiping: "Casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details which are NOT CONFIRMED as true."

By the definition this was never simply gossip and wouldn't have been shared if it was just a salacious rumour. The original story focus was about how you cannot always trust those who play out certain high profile roles on a Sunday, even if they're very convincing.

The next potential angle of interest will probably be to ascertain the impact of this amongst the saints who completely trusted them. That will likely be the focus of any return & report at a later date.

anon247 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oxford English Dictionary definition of gossiping:
> "Casual or unconstrained conversation or reports
> about other people, typically involving details
> which are NOT CONFIRMED as true."
>
> By the definition this was never simply gossip and
> wouldn't have been shared if it was just a
> salacious rumour. The original story focus was
> about how you cannot always trust those who play
> out certain high profile roles on a Sunday, even
> if they're very convincing.
>
> The next potential angle of interest will probably
> be to ascertain the impact of this amongst the
> saints who completely trusted them. That will
> likely be the focus of any return & report at a
> later date.


Return and report ...please. It's a non-story - except of course you're desperately interested in the sex life of a lay preacher of a minor religion.

Ad hominem attacks are unnecessary unless of course you are defending an ad hominem.

How many threads moan about sexual repression etc, but yet when a small fish expresses themselves in a way contrary to organisational beliefs - the enemy of our enemy becomes our friend?

"
By the definition this was never simply gossip and wouldn't have been shared if it was just a salacious rumour. The original story focus was about how you cannot always trust those who play out certain high profile roles on a Sunday, even if they're very convincing.

The next potential angle of interest will probably be to ascertain the impact of this amongst the saints who completely trusted them. That will likely be the focus of any return & report at a later date."

And this is why this information is useful now in a sustained campaign of information sharing. The timeliness of the news is important. There is far less bang for the buck in a story that happened a year ago as there is to one that is jst breaking. The immediacy of the copy makes this apparent..."The allegation has been made today that former stake president has been caught having an affair.... vs last year there was an allegation that a former stake president had an affair with...

emotionally the latter is in the past, it's the way the mind works, it finds it easier to dismiss distant information over that which is happening now.

The real value in this is local I agree. It is UK based and even generic information helps turn up the level of heat and drive up consideration of the implications in the minds of those who hear the story. Not discussing it simply walks away from a small local battle where some degree of ground could be taken against the empire.

I agree that I would not post details of an affair about any ordinary couple, there is a vast difference between two ordinary people and those who hold public office are highly visible, who speak and preach on the record about a set of values they are not keeping, and also encourage people to pay money and participate in a fraud which no doubt the suspected it to be in order to engage in such actions. The latter pair deserve no anonymity by nature of their public roles and preaching's. Declaring the facts may help to undo the many years of lies and fraud they've spoken in support of.

The owners of this forum have a right to delete any posts here that discuss this, or name the individuals, but other forums won't, nor will facebook, nor will email.

Protect Sherlock yes, but what happens if someone else breaks the story?

lilburne - anonymity issues aside, my desire to also protect the good names of the innocent wider family members (who I still associate with) and not add further to their pain and embarrassment at this difficult time, far outweighs my desire to score a bloody nose against TSCC by waging a public media campaign - which I'm not sure has any legs any way.

I'm sorry that some people will disagree with this stance, but that's just the way it is. Should anyone else break this story in the media, well that's their own prerogative.

sherlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lilburne - anonymity issues aside, my desire to
> also protect the good names of the innocent wider
> family members (who I still associate with) and
> not add further to their pain and embarrassment at
> this difficult time, far outweighs my desire to
> score a bloody nose against TSCC by waging a
> public media campaign - which I'm not sure has any
> legs any way.
>
> I'm sorry that some people will disagree with this
> stance, but that's just the way it is. Should
> anyone else break this story in the media, well
> that's their own prerogative.

Thanks for clarifying. A civilised approach. Good on you.

At this point it is nothing but GOSSIP/libel. There is no news story. If there were, it would be permitted. As he stated, Sherlock rethought things and wanted the threads pulled. THAT is our SOP here people, if an OP requests a pull, we pull it. Doesn't matter if it is a thread about their Aunt Tilly or about the pimples on Hinkley's ass. It has been policy since Eric started the site almost 18 years ago. Is that clear enough for you White Cliffs? If you think we are gullible you are sadly mistaken and must not be paying attention. Gullible would be to spread around a lot of GOSSIP and get Eric sued.

And lilburne you seem to be misguided as to what this place is about. We are here to HELP people and couldn't give a fat rat's ass if someone else "breaks" the story first. Who cares? What is that to us? Do I look like Barbara Walters?

This topic is now closed pending further HARD INFORMATION.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2014 05:09PM by Susan I/S.