Mormonleaks hires shady attorney and responds to PP takedown

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Mormonleaks hires shady attorney and responds to PP take

Post by _moksha »

Xenophon wrote:He appears to be a pretty successful defender of first amendment rights...

That First Amendment stuff is not going to fly in Utah courts, especially if the Church is involved.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Mormonleaks hires shady attorney and responds to PP take

Post by _I have a question »

The Church has propagated far more profile for this PowerPoint slide by sending that take down letter than it would have otherwise received. It's response also legitimized the slide as being genuine, removing doubt for those who were so inclined.

If it pursues this further, again legitimizing the slide as genuine, it has opened itself up (probably) to some form of litigation from those individuals named as "Enemies Of The Church". Is it slanderous? Libellous? That's without considering the obvious conclusion for people that perhaps Dehlin and Snuffer are on to something if the Q15 rank them up there with pornography and member laziness as reasons people stop paying tithing....

The Church is becoming very adept at taking something a little bit embarrassing and turning it into a full blow press frenzy.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Mormonleaks hires shady attorney and responds to PP take

Post by _sock puppet »

I have a question wrote:The Church has propagated far more profile for this PowerPoint slide by sending that take down letter than it would have otherwise received. It's response also legitimized the slide as being genuine, removing doubt for those who were so inclined.

If it pursues this further, again legitimizing the slide as genuine, it has opened itself up (probably) to some form of litigation from those individuals named as "Enemies Of The Church". Is it slanderous? Libellous? That's without considering the obvious conclusion for people that perhaps Dehlin and Snuffer are on to something if the Q15 rank them up there with pornography and member laziness as reasons people stop paying tithing....

The Church is becoming very adept at taking something a little bit embarrassing and turning it into a full blow press frenzy.

The skin on the corporate sole is very thin, indeed.
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Mormonleaks hires shady attorney and responds to PP take

Post by _I have a question »

Remember when...
The release of a new book by an important, official LDS Church press is a signal that a current era of bold transparency about the church's history is still in full swing.
Link

Is the Church's "era of bold transparency" no longer a thing then?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Mormonleaks hires shady attorney and responds to PP take

Post by _Analytics »

Sanctorian wrote:After thinking more about it, I think this attorney is merely showing the church what type of fight this will be if they pursue it. This will be a fight in the media more than anything. Everything in the letter was designed to get the media talking. This letter was not designed to be a back and forth jab between attorneys. Not only does he want to get the PowerPoint more media coverage, but also the Book of Mormon musical. This attorney will continue to reference other things the church would rather not add more publicity to. If they pursue the case, they now know they have an attorney that will constantly do things and say things to get airtime. That's probably not the sort of legal case the church wants to pursue. And guess which Utah news outlet didn't want to give it airtime... KSL.

Round one goes to mormonleaks.


That makes sense. His strategy reminds me of Donald Trump--say your message surrounded by tangential details that technically are irrelevant, but which will drive the public discussion.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Mormonleaks hires shady attorney and responds to PP take

Post by _mentalgymnast »

IHAQ wrote:.

If it pursues this further, again legitimizing the slide as genuine, it has opened itself up (probably) to some form of litigation from those individuals named as "Enemies Of The Church". Is it slanderous? Libellous? That's without considering the obvious conclusion for people that perhaps Dehlin and Snuffer are on to something if the Q15 rank them up there with pornography and member laziness as reasons people stop paying tithing....

The Church is becoming very adept at taking something a little bit embarrassing and turning it into a full blow press frenzy.


sock puppet wrote:.
The skin on the corporate sole is very thin, indeed.


I think we need to remember that from the church's POV this slide wasn't supposed to see the light of day and that they believed they were discussing these matters with confidentiality. Over at the Trib site one of the commenters says:

They are afraid of the fact that somebody hack into their system and stole from them either internally or externally. Regardless of the corporation, all should be concerned with this. For example: How would it be somebody hacked into a studio system and took a film and posted it? Or what would you say if somebody hacked your computer and took your private information. Or the governments hacking into your system and monitoring it. Constitutionally, that is wrong. On principle, this is not good, regardless how one feels about "the church".


Now, here we are at the point where names of those that church authorities are discussing...in confidentiality...have, through no fault of those same authorities, become public. Is it possible that church authorities...just as they would in a church court situation...would rather not break the confidentiality/privacy rules and/or practices that are part and parcel of discussing and/or working with those that are being observed/watched/seen as being potential "wolves among the flock"?

It seems to me that the church authorities should have every right to discuss folks and/or influences,etc., that they see as being harmful to the church's mission...behind closed doors. They are doing so believing that those that are being discussed are not going to have their names made public. The church didn't make Dehlin's, Snuffer's, and other names public...Mormonleaks did. They should be the ones liable for any further insult/injury/harm that could potentially come to those that church authorities were discussing behind closed doors.

It may well be that one of the reasons the church is 'stepping forward' at this point is because they are saddened by the fact that these folks and their families may now be subject to harassment...or what have you.

Just another way of looking at what's been going on.

Regards,
MG
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Mormonleaks hires shady attorney and responds to PP take

Post by _I have a question »

Isn't the more interesting question now - why is the Church scared to admit to the wider public the reasons it believes are behind members leaving the church?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_SuperDell
_Emeritus
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 12:27 am

Re: Mormonleaks hires shady attorney and responds to PP take

Post by _SuperDell »

"shady attorney"?

Isn't that redundant?
“Those who never retract their opinions love themselves more than they love truth.”
― Joseph Joubert
_toon
_Emeritus
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:13 am

Re: Mormonleaks hires shady attorney and responds to PP take

Post by _toon »

moksha wrote:
Xenophon wrote:He appears to be a pretty successful defender of first amendment rights...

That First Amendment stuff is not going to fly in Utah courts, especially if the Church is involved.


If it goes to court, it won't be in a Utah state court.
Post Reply