TBMs are all over the comment sections in these articles. They are claiming that Dave's criticism of Romney is NOT why the church went after him. True to mormon form, this is a half-truth at best.

Dave did say the word "Romney" was not mentioned in his interrogation. However, he went on to say that his writings regarding Romney DID play a role.


"It's true that my local leaders never said "Romney" in my interrogation. They indicated discomfort with my recent writings as a whole, which includes three blog entries and one MT article discussing Romney that were posted from Sept 11-15. While referring to my writings, the stake president did say about himself, "I'm not a political man..." It is unclear to me what he meant by this and why he interjected it."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,645889,645896#msg-645896


So, here's my question for mormons:

If this has nothing to do with criticizing Romney, then why now? MT has been asking questions and exposing historical and doctrinal problems with the church FOR YEARS. The temple link to masonry and discussion of ordinances has appeared on and off on MT. Why now? Hmmm, Romney's name hasn't been on there for years. Seems like one heck of a coincidence.

They also like to point out that Harry Reid hasn't been sanctioned by the church, and he is a vocal critic of Romney. Of course the billion-dollar bully isn't going to go after the Senate Majority Leader of the US Senate! Can you imagine the backlash? Why go after such a powerful man who wears your brand?

Unbelievable!

I agree. The TIMING is totally about Romney. It's the difference between your middle schooler swearing at dinner or at a workshop where you are trying to teach how to instill your children with virtue.

Also, expanding the idea, they did not go after him until it was becoming plain to everyone that Romney was losing. The Mormon church always was going to have a scapegoat and we predicted long ago that it would be Satan working through "enemies of the church" who would be blamed for the colossal failure of the Mormon Moment.

You remember them crowing only a few weeks ago about what a great thing all this attention was. They weren't going after MT then because they didn't need a scapegoat.


Anagrammy

Doesn't David also claim that this isn't about Romney? Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I read in the trib this morning. We can't be too hard on the 'TBMs' if David himself is saying it.

I put TBM in quotations because we couldn't possibly know if they are all TBMs or not.

Did you read Dave's words that I quoted above?

The articles/blogs that caused the "discomfort" with the church INCLUDED ones regarding Romney.

According to Dave, Romney isn't the SOLE reason; he is a PART of the reason.

Given that MT has been around so long and has exposed the temple and other historical and doctrinal issues many times before, I conclude that the timing of this ambush and the election lends me to believe this mess is absolutely about Romney.

Clearly I read what you quoted, otherwise I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that there is a difference in one set of quotes and another set of quotes.

Did you read the sltrib article?

My point doesn't have much with what you are responded to me about. My point is that it is pointless to criticize TBMs for telling half truths when it is the media (possibly) that is representing that part of the story incorrectly. Despite the fact that you think this is a Mormon trait, non-TBMs are getting it wrong too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 02:49PM by snb.

You can always be counted on to be oppositional. Just wondering, what is there for you to recover from here? I mean, you never talk about or validate anything you might find false/disturbing/unhealthy about tscc. Really, what's your deal? Why did you leave tscc? Or have you even left at all?

I'll be reading along and suddenly there's a post that makes me go, "wtf?" And I look to see who is the author,and it's ALWAYS you! Normally I just ignore your contentious posts but once in a while you say something so ugly, you reallt should be shown a mirror. Did you know how ugly others find you? I really don't want a fight so I'm posting anon for this, but really, why are you so antagonistic? Is it just fun for you?

Stuff about the temple has been all over the internet with names and dates.

Tom Phillips related an entire secret temple ordinance that few even knew anything about, yet they didn't come after him.

(Here's Tom's interview with John Dehlin. 4 hours and worth every minute.)

http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/2012/09/01/john-dehlin-interviews-tom-phillips/

I said as much in the comment section: that people should remember that the site was up for 8 year and heads didn't roll. But mention the Chosen One once, twice and you're up! Huuuge coincidence.

Exactly.

And why would they lower the hammer on Twede now (as opposed to after the election) if church leadership didn't fear an impact on the Romney campaign?


Ironically, the potential backlash of the church's actions may far exceed any 'damage' MT might have caused Prince Romney.

He took over at MT when his predecessor was threatened by the church. the church threatening eople at MT seems to predate romney.

I believe everyone involved from FAIR, the GAs and the stake leaders know clearly that using my Romney speech as the basis for excom would be a PR disaster. So you would never expect them to bring it up. Instead they will dance around anything they can find to halt the voices at MT.

My feeling is the timing is very suspicious.

The interrogation mostly focused on why I hid my identity, at the MT.com site where my only activity in the past week was about LDS political history. And they talked about my blog of which 3 of seven entries during that week were in fact about Romney. Specifics were not given. I asked what specifically was wrong with what I wrote, and I was told the tone and bias against the church was clear. The stake presidency never had the courage to really talk directly about specifics.

On the other hand, Scott Gordon did attempt to side-track us by the following from the NYTimes article.

" Scott Gordon, president of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, an organization in Redding, Calif., that defends Mormon theology, said that he had forwarded materials posted by Mr. Twede to church officials in Salt Lake City."

--
That FAIR outed me by name and sent my material to SLC officials I have no doubt. In fact, there is evidence it may not have been Gordon, initially, at least that spied. At least two other members of FAIR, acting as de-facto members of the Strengthening Members Committee had a hand in the activities surrounding these events.

Gordon:

“ It has nothing to do with Romney,” Mr. Gordon said. “I know members very high up in the church who are voting for Obama.”
“ It’s about him posting on a blog that he was actively in there trying to subvert people’s beliefs in the L.D.S. church,” Mr. Gordon said... "
--


"It’s about him posting on a blog that he was actively in there trying to subvert people’s beliefs in the L.D.S. church."

How did I do that? What horrible information did I give people?

From my own blog (http://mormonthinkblog2012.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-mysteries-of-gospel.html):

" I decided to send Pat two links: The first link to Mormon Info Graphics on the Book of Abraham, and a second one to FAIR’s explanation of one of the facsimiles. "

Links included in this were:

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/search/label/Facsimile

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_3

The latter is directly from Scott Gordon's own group, FAIR.

What did I do again, Bro. Gordon, that was so offensive?

Oh yeah, I gave someone information your group wrote. And that's what got the LDS Salt Lake HQ's panties in a bunch...

Yeah, that sounds so twoo.

Thanks, Bro. Gordon, you did it again. Put your foot in your mouth so that the accurate truth at Mormonthink.com can go forward uninterrupted.

If he really wants us to believe that me sending a FAIR link to a questioning member is what prompted the court, then the church had better call in Gordon himself.

No, that was a diversion & lie. I believe Gordon sent them my political blogs/articles too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 02:55PM by David Twede.

Whether it was initially about Romney or not, the fact is that now it IS about Romney - more fuel for the anti-R people, whose numbers are growing daily.

Everyone will associate the dirty deeds of the church with Romney, you can bet yer TR on it.

BTW, you have my full admiration for your courage and I hope it works out well for you - I somehow suspect it will.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 08:19PM by steve benson.

These slimy bastards at FAIR will stop at nothing, except negatively impacting the Crutch, which they apparently have done. And continue to do, without us.

Are you familiar with the outcome of Thomas Murphy's disciplinary council 9 years ago?

We in the XLDS community came to his call.
He led a protest here in Seattle that spread all over the country and gave the LDS crutch a big black eye for trying to silence honest scholars, like it's the dark ages.

We'd love a chance to protest the LDS Crutch again, for doing the same thing to you that they tried doing to Thomas Murphy.

You can make them back down like they did in the Thomas Murphy case.

Just because they're big and powerful, doesn't make them right!

I say fight for your freedom of speech.
This isn't just a Mormon issue, this is a major freedom of speech issue, that will test guys like Romney to answer where exactly they stand on freedom of speech, given the church's actions against you and the rising violence in the Middle East and North Africa, due to freedom of speech here in the US, which is questionable as long as tyrannical leaders, like yours and Mitt Romney, grow emboldened by a Romney victory. Can you imagine how much more insufferable these guys will become once a ROMNEY VICTORY goes to their heads? Can you imagine what happens when Mitt's Latter-Day (doomsday) Dogma (meta-narrative) clashes head to head with Muslim Extremist Dogma, with nukes?

FML!

There is a huge army of those who have emancipated themselves from the mental slavery of the tyranical faith we were born into, due to your contributions.

You've got an army of peaceful protesters, awaiting your call, and they will answer all across this country.

Give us a chance.

You don't have to say anything, except, "yeah, let's do this ish!"


From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Murphy_(anthropologist)#Controversial_essay

Controversial essay

Murphy drew attention in the media and from the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after the publication of his essay, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics." This essay discussed available genetic evidence regarding the geographic origin and lineage of Native American groups. It relies primarily on evidence regarding mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited directly from the mother.
Dr. Murphy posited that this DNA suggests that Native Americans are descendents of individuals from northeastern Siberia—corroborating conclusions that anthropologists have long held on the basis of linguistic, physiological, and other anthropological evidence. He notes the 99.6% absence of any genetic heritage outside of known indigenous Native American haplogroups. (The remaining 0.4% is near universally agreed among anthropologists and biologists studying the issue to represent genetic markers that were introduced after the year 1492.)
In his essay, Murphy writes:
From a scientific perspective, the BoMor's origin is best situated in early 19th century America, not ancient America. There were no Lamanites prior to c. 1828 and dark skin is not a physical trait of God's malediction. Native Americans do not need to accept Christianity or the BoMor to know their own history. The BoMor emerged from Joseph Smith's own struggles with his God. Mormons need to look inward for spiritual validation and cease efforts to remake Native Americans in their own image.[1]
Murphy concluded that "DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans" and he has likened the Book of Mormon to inspirational fiction. Murphy has reaffirmed this point several times since the initial publication of his essay in interviews and in videos produced by Living Hope Ministries, a Utah-based evangelical Christian ministry that produces literature and films that question and criticize Mormonism.
In a review in 2006, the FARMS institute reviewed Dr. Murphy's claims.[1]
[edit]Subsequent action
Murphy's studies were expanded upon by molecular biologist Simon Southerton, a former Mormon Bishop, with his study Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans DNA, and the Mormon Church, Signature Books, 2004, which gives a more complete accounting of the current status of Polynesians and Native Americans in context with national studies, Mormon scholars and concessions by geneticists from BYU. Other researchers such as Scott Woodward are critical of Southerton's work.
In response to the publication of "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics", Murphy's LDS stake president, Matthew Latimer, asked him to either recant his position regarding DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon or resign his membership in the LDS church. Murphy declined both suggestions, so Latimer scheduled a disciplinary council for December 8, 2002. Such a council might have resulted in Murphy's disfellowshipment or excommunication from the church.[2]
His situation received widespread media attention and generated protest actions from some Mormon intellectual groups. Less than 24 hours before the scheduled meeting time, Latimer indefinitely postponed Murphy's disciplinary council on December 7, 2002.[2] Finally, on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.[3] In a note Murphy sent to several supporters for wide public distribution, Murphy expressed hope that other scholars in similar positions might benefit from Latimer's decision:
We hope that other stake presidents will follow this most recent example of President Latimer and likewise refrain from using the threat of the threat of excommunication as tool for disciplining scholars.
—-- Thomas Murphy, open letter dated 23 February 2003[4]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 03:55PM by josephsmyth.

There is no such thing as "coincidence".

I think they made the wrong assumption about Davids anonymity on TM. That he was being subversive and would continue to do so during disciplinary proceedings to avoid shame and embarrassment. With the tip toeing around so many public figures I am sure they were giddy to have a anonymous target to attack and weild power over.

It might be interesting to take representation with you to the court. Or even suggest that your excommunication should be a public event with an audience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2012 01:29AM by Taddlywog.

sometimes I think those people couldn't pee their pants without making a mistake.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 03:29PM by guynoirprivateeye.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,646928



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 08:53PM by steve benson.

My guess is that it is about Romney, but I doubt we could prove it and since there are contrary versions out there, it is hard to tell. Mormons are quoting what the read in the papers and assuming that it is being reported correctly

Whether it's about Romney or not, it's showing how the Mormon church operates - their creepy Gestapo tactics. Which is going to reflect badly on Romney.

And for the Mormon Church, it's falling apart.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 09:16PM by steve benson.

'no coincidence': That also applies to TSCC secrecy about membership & financial matters, the 'First Presidency vault', etc. etc.

Easily Explains the "innoculation" effort, retrenchment, etc.

I'm guessing that 'convert' baptisms are nearly FLAT, especially in the U.S. / North America.

I believe, it's about the level of the church's involvement in political matters. David's history of LDS politics post (linked below) shows a pattern of past and recent behavior that, if still ongoing, could jeopardize the church's tax exempt status. That's big money and cause enough for the swift and severe reaction.

http://www.mormonthink.com/politics.htm

I keep asking myself 'Why now?' It doesn't make sense from a public relations perspective, as is evidently clear from the comments on Daily Beast, which I'm trying to wade through.

I suppose some of the speculation on this thread gets at the truth. They were probably worried about the tax exempt status and gambled that David would back down. (Thanks for standing firm, David, and for going public.)

I have a theory that they use threats of excommunication generally to control and manipulate those they think will back down. They don't bother with those who aren't afraid to lose membership. For instance, as has been noticed, they haven't tried to ex Tom Phillips. I've thought this ever since they exed me, years ago. They probably didn't realise how 'done' I was with the cult until they began proceedings. If I hadn't been on their radar by having attended, they wouldn't have bothered with me.

Anyway, back to the point, they may have felt that David was posing a thread that had to be dealt with and, more importantly, must have believed he would back down.

Boy, did they ever bet wrong on that. John L and Petra should be on the Obama campaign payroll, the amount of damage they are doing to undecideds looking at Romney.

Edited to Add: And the video lecture to the missionaries: Priceless. David, I realise you don't blame the man yourself, and it's true it's unconnected with the current issues. I understand your concern. However, what the video reveals about the church's fixation on sex and porn, the little window into the life of a missionary, is powerful to those who haven't been on the inside. Very revealling, I'd say. And then Petra's response to it only reinforces the point. Wow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2012 06:01AM by Lorraine aka síóg.