This is a continuation of the thread "Exmormon former bishop arrested for "harassing general authority."

By the way, what's your definition of accosting, "Lawyer"? The purpose of a temple open house is to open the place up to the public for viewing, and the religion to questions. Outside the new Carmel temple was a nice area set up for potential converts to ask missionaries questions. The mormon church continues to throw their young people out into the world to face the public's questions. Why can't a church leader take a question from an exmormon during a time of media questioning? Why can't Baker remind a church leader who committed in front of the media to taking his questions, of his commitment to do so? They put the young missionaries out there because that's what cults have found works. The young don't know the cult realities and don't realize they're not telling the truth when they "teach" potential new recruits. In all their exuberant idealism, they make for clean-cut convincing witnesses of mormonism's truth claims. Stephen Hassan is known as "America's Leading Exit-Counselor." A former Moonie who later trained as a counseling psychologist, he's made a valuable contribution in furthering understanding about cults. I couldn't find a single cult method described in his book Combatting Cult Mind Control, not employed consciously, or maybe at times, subconsciously, by the mormon church.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2015 05:57PM by freetothink.

You have posted only to your thread and now that it is full you continue with your diatribe. And?

Sorry "Adamisfree." Didn't realize you're such a stickler for posting in a "correct" order. Is there something specific in "my diatribe" you'd like to comment on?

We are allowed to post when and where we want, so long as it complies with the forum rules, without anyone attempting to appoint themselves as a pirate board overseer.

If you have a genuine concern about another poster, you can use the report button.

Good information.Thank you.

In answer to your earlier questions, yes, I am a lawyer. Yes, I am a member of the bar. Yes, I do have extensive experience with restraining orders and criminal protective orders.

In answer to your post above, yes the Mormon church is a manipulative, dishonest cult. That does not justify unethical and illegal actions on Baker's part. It is wrong to try to ruin another RfM poster's career by posting critical and misleading information on LinkedIn. It is wrong to contact Sinclair's legal clients to criticize his religious beliefs and to follow him around in a public place and yell ("calling" in your words) at him. Given your account of what happened, I am not at all surprised that Baker was subject to a restraining order and then hauled into court for violating it.

If I were he, I'd be worried that he's going to be held in contempt and perhaps spend some time in jail. And that is before consideration of the felony charges you say he is facing for things unrelated to this incident.

I frankly think that he, and you, are too comfortable violating boundaries. Baker clearly feels unconstrained by social and legal norms. And you have written an online article, then come here acting as if you were a separate person and referred us to that article. Then you sign on as yet a third person and try to defend what you said in your second incarnation. Why all the deception?

We ultimately have a solitary person here, someone close to Baker, telling the entire pro-Baker story. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

That you are not a mormon apologist, and that you are indeed a lawyer truly concerned about boundary violations, is not at all clear to me based on your clear intention to vilify not only Baker, but me. Lawyers are compelled to work with evidence. What evidence do you have to accuse me of pretending to be three different persons? I'm one person only. I'm posting as "freetothink." I've written no online articles about Lee Baker or Lee Baker's arrest.

In a previous post, to justify your Hollywood-style accusations of me, you cited some nonsensical hunch you have about my writing style matching others' writing styles as though you're Sherlock Holmes. For a person expressing such moral outrage about violating boundaries, you're certainly not practicing what you preach, "Lawyer." Actually, I'm curious if you're my daughter's old high school boyfriend who got a thrill out of playing devil's advocate?

How do you know Baker yelled? Another hunch? I've posted nothing about Baker "facing felony charges unrelated to this incident." What are you talking about? You refer to me as someone "telling the entire pro-Baker story," and yet, you accept the majority of the facts I'm presenting as damaging to Baker's legal position. The reality is that I'm an honest person, expressing myself honestly. My goal is to make others aware of what's happening with the LDS church, exmormon former bishop Lee Baker, and a court in Indianapolis. I'm also expressing my concern as to whether Baker will have a fair trial, and my strong desire to see the mormon church brought to accountability for their deceptions. I don't believe in "lying for the Lord" or for anyone else.

There is "smoke and mirrors here." I think you're twisting yourself into awkward contortions, attempting to distract others from considering important moral issues that extend beyond whether Baker broke the law or not.


Your opinion that Baker went too far is worth considering. So, too, is your opinion that Baker and I "are too comfortable violating boundaries." I hope you'll approach your future posts with reasoning of this quality. I have considered your two opinions, and disagree regarding this case involving mormon church leader Sinclair. I have no personal knowledge of what may have happened regarding another poster's experience with Baker on Linkedin.

Again, a legal court will tell us if they believe legally Baker went too far. You didn't respond to my question asking if you're licensed in Indiana to practice law, "Lawyer." Does this mean you are not?

I don't have an opinion one way or another on Lee Baker. But you made a remark that made me guffaw and I wanted to share the hilarity.

You said "lawyers are compelled to work with evidence..."

There's an old bromide in the law that starts with: If the facts are against you, argue the law..."

If the art of lawyering, and winning in court was based solely on evidence, life sure would be simpler. Trials are only peripherally about the law and evidence; they are mainly about either winning a popularity context against the other side, or hopelessly confusing the jury.

I played a round of golf with OJ during his civil trial. Some smart ass yelled from an adjacent fairway, "Hey, OJ, did you do it?" He yelled back with a big grin, "The jury said I didn't!"

Anyway, thanks for the laugh and I hope you can keep Mr. Baker cheered up.

EOD,

You tend bar, too? For our sins. . .

No, councilor, I'm Paul Drake to your Perry Mason.

Hi there! This is how I perceive the mormon leadership's method of "preaching the gospel of mormonism": We are lawyers representing the mormon corporation. Facts are irrelevant. PR campaigns are what count. Confusion is our friend. Our responsibility is to throw out our best fictitious version of reality past and present, and hope someone bites and believes us. We're smart. We're convincing with our nice suits and soft voices. The rest are idiots. They can't see through us because they don't understand how the game is played. We'll get lots of money and ego strokes whether we convince them all or just some. Remember the broken record: "The church is true, brothers and sisters."

What a rotten corruption of Jesus Christ standing before the bar of God, pleading humanity's case.

I know the motivations of the mormon leadership are more complex than the way I framed them in my previous post.I doubt that they consciously think of themselves and their predecessors as deceitful game players. It is I who view them this way. When I'm humble and add some mercy to my view, I think they're men living according to the dictates of their inflated egos. How else does a man believe he has authority from God to tell all of humanity that his own self-serving ideas are God's very own, and then to distribute "punishments" in God's name to those who dare to think (have their own ideas) or act for themselves?

It may sound silly, or at least improbable, but if you want to be viewed as *different*, don't lie.

You'll wind up unemployed and a social pariah. At first it's viewed as quirky, like when you tell the CHP officer you agree with his radar gun, you were going 85, and he's so stunned he lets you off with a warning! But eventually no one wants to be around you.

Truth is sand in the gears of life. Lies are what lubricate social interaction, including the lies that are religion.

Here's a question. Does anyone know if Mr. Baker is still in jail?

Baker is out on bond. Another hearing coming shortly. It's disgusting how the mormon corporation is stomping on a man who gave them thirty years of his life and loyalty. They want him to shut up, and they are behaving ruthlessly. I'm going to choke anytime I try to put the words mormon and church together.