Why I am not a Mormon

[_Yoda]

Just don't expect him to ever return the favor when an apologist is going to far with a critic on this board or any other board. Such a topic would likely just happen to be of no personal interest to him.

The pressure is simply too intense. I must yield.

For Gadianton, with apologies to St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

I abjure you, Will Schryver, evil and most cruel of posters. In other words, I no longer fear your humor, for Gadianton has rendered this humor humorless and made me a sharer in this board's overwhelming condemnation of you, whereby he destroyed my secret FARMSboy delight in your sexual metaphors so that I might not always be subjected to slavery. I abjure you, cunning and crafty serpent. I abjure you, tempter, you who brought about all forms of unpleasantness under the guise of apologetics and brought this otherwise sweet and collegial message board nigh unto perdition. I abjure you, Will Schryver, creator and accomplice of all evil. I abjure you. Amen and amen.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

Will needs to print this out and have it framed.

[_mentalgymnast]

Daniel,

Please under no circumstances never again, show any evidence of your level of education in your posts. Dumb it down to the lowest and basest language useage that you can. And while you're taking orders would you please include a number of typo's and spelling errors in your posts so folks around here don't get the idea that your elevating yourself above the masses?

Thank U,
Jerzee Gurl

tee-hee

Regards,
MG

[_marg]

tee-hee

Regards,
MG

Yuck, uck...I can't imagine any man saying "tee-hee'"

[_Jersey Girl]

Daniel,

Please under no circumstances never again, show any evidence of your level of education in your posts. Dumb it down to the lowest and basest language useage that you can. And while you're taking orders would you please include a number of typo's and spelling errors in your posts so folks around here don't get the idea that your elevating yourself above the masses?

Thank U,
Jerzee Gurl

LOL

You forgot grammar.

My mistake.

Addendum*:

Daniel,

And while yer doin' all that feel free to have yer made servants dish ya up a fine plait of grammer crackers to go with yo milk.

*Latin addendus to be added, gerundive of addere to add

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks, Jersey Girl, for being a voice of sanity and moderation here. And that goes for Liz, too.

:LOL:

Just don't expect him to ever return the favor when an apologist is going to far with a critic on this board or any other board. Such a topic would likely just happen to be of no personal interest to him.

And who would give a damn and for what purpose, Gad? This topic isn't of any particular interest to me but the dynamics of human behavior certainly are. Who gives a damn if Daniel uses Latin phrasing? Scratch regularly uses foreign language phrasing in his tabloidesque postings. Does anyone hop up and down about that?

No. And why?

It has to do with what petty little "side" of the LDS fence people are on.

I don't post on this board to solicit "favors". I post as I see fit. I always have and I always will. One of the many benefits in being my own "side" is that I don't have to think and function from a "one hand washes the other" mentality.

How anyone on this thread thinks it unreasonable or pretentious for a University Professor to include a foreign language phrasing is clear testimony to the pettiness of human nature and particularly on this board where Daniel is seen as some sort of symbol to attack.

How insecure are people here anyway?

[_Nightingale]

Re DCP involving GoodK’s father in one of GoodK’s posts on Shades, DCP boils his action down to "sending a friend a link to a public message board". I believe he does see only that aspect of it and that he did not seek to harm GoodK. Many (most?) others see it as something malicious. My take on this kind of thing, from both sides, is that we cannot ever be sure of another’s motivations or thoughts, unless they truthfully express them. Until that point, we can only suppose, surmise and assume with zero guarantee that we can actually discern another’s innermost life. I would hope that people on both sides could agree and remember this but I don’t hold my breath on that. The best I have ever been able to come up with through life is that I learn from my experiences and those of others and hopefully go forward “do[ing] no harm”.

My two thoughts about the peripheral matter (DCP/GoodK’s dad) as I read through this enormous and complex thread are:

1.
Using what we think or “would want” is not always the best yardstick to use in determining a course of action. Rather, we should also weigh the pros and cons from the others’ points of view. As has been mentioned, because DCP would want to know does not mean that GoodK’s father would (or should). However, GoodK’s father has happened to chime in to say he would want to know. To some, this would justify DCP’s action. To me though, the central person should be GoodK and what his preferences are. No doubt DCP and GoodK Sr. will disagree or they wouldn’t get involved in the first place. This leads me to:

2.
What I think DCP took away from GoodK, very likely without intending to (as I think he doesn’t understand or wouldn’t foresee this result – no offence intended) is GoodK’s right to privacy. I’m sure many will disagree with my take on this, perhaps especially those who apparently fail to see why most participants here and on other boards prefer to post anonymously. What I mean is that in the Mormon Church, where unquestioning obedience is often stressed by many leaders (whether the main leadership expects or teaches that or not it’s how it filters down to local leaders, in the experience of many members and former members) there can be an atmosphere that restricts one’s free expression of thoughts and opinions. This can spread out from church to family so that many people feel they can never fully and freely express themselves.

That is partly why it can be refreshing to participate on the boards and have your say about whatever you want, however you choose to express it, even anonymously. I see that that freedom is now curtailed for GoodK (or could be, depending on his needs and personality) in that he knows that people who know him or about him in real life, including his father, can read everything he posts. He may or may not want that. He mentioned considering changing his board name so I assume this is an issue for him. I see that as something having been taken away from him, whether DCP or his father think that is significant or of any merit or not. To me, it’s like DCP’s action (that was centered on what his own thoughts and preferences are and on his friend, Grosskreutz’s dad, and not at all on GoodK, it seems) took away Grosskreutz’s freedom to post in the way that he had before this occurred; i.e., he may feel he has to watch what he says or may feel that he needs to change his board name or even stop posting here and find another (hopefully private) place to just be himself without his father and his father’s friend/s peeking in and making comments or passing opinions about his words or actions. That is precisely what most people want to get away from! That freedom is what has been taken from Grosskreutz, or potentially so. This is one aspect of potential consequences that I would have considered before disclosing any information to Grosskreutz’s father. I would ask myself if I had the right to take something away from Grosskreutz and if so, for what potential return? I would not have alerted Grosskreutz’s father as I would have respected Grosskreutz's right to be an adult, separate from. Obviously, some people have a different viewpoint on that. I can't imagine my parents having significant say, or feeling the right to have, in my life when I was in my 20's and beyond. In Mormonism, the nuclear family connection seems to extend out beyond - into eternity?

One other thing about this: DCP essentially gave away GoodK’s age also, if inadvertently. That can be a main identifying factor and for many people is a significant piece of personal information that is not up to someone else to disclose. (I could figure out Grosskreutz’s likely age, before he stated it in response to a direct query, from DCP’s comment that he has been a friend of Grosskreutz’s father’s for 20 years, nearly as long as Grosskreutz has been alive, or words to that effect). It is difficult to be in possession of personal information and to be ultra-careful about avoiding leaking of any kind or extent. I have learned this the hard way in my career and volunteer work, all of which requires scrupulous care to avoid contravening privacy issues.

I see Grosskreutz asking several times for us to get back to the original subject of his thread. I wanted to say I really enjoyed reading his post and related to it in many ways.

Good K said: “Why I am not a Mormon. Surprisingly, no one has ever asked me.”

This was my experience too. It can make you feel like a throwaway – it apparently doesn’t matter to anyone why you don’t attend church any more. I tried to express to the Relief Society leaders why it’s so difficult as a convert to settle into the church. They said my opinion was interesting but even in a ward with a terrible convert retention rate they didn’t adopt a single suggestion I made about how to better meet the needs of new members. (Before anyone opines that I had no right to express my opinion on that or even that having an opinion is offensive, etc, they asked for my take on it and I told them, but nothing came of it).

Grosskreutz:
“Even BYU professors, who take interest in the personal identity behind the moniker GoodK, don't seem to care why I am not a Mormon. They seem content with knowing I am an "atheist" and commenting accordingly, as if that were good enough of an explanation, in their favor.”

That’s a very interesting point. Explaining a person’s reasons for leaving by saying they are an atheist does end the discussion. It is accepted as the entire explanation for one’s “defection” and doesn’t reflect a myriad of other reasons, besides being atheist, that one may leave Mormonism over. Indeed, many leave Mormonism first and become atheists later.

Grosskreutz:
”I'm going to share a few reasons with those … whom insist that only sin or contempt contribute to apostasy.”

This is well reflected in Grosskreutz’s dad’s post and I see it frequently. It is dismissive and disrespectful to ex-members in the extreme. It shows that current members think they know better about someone else’s life, experiences, motivations, thoughts and intentions than the person does themselves. (However, current members do not enjoy this type of approach when it’s centered on them. Here is one area where I’d love to see people see it from both sides. If you don’t like it, don’t do it to others). Much better communication could open up between people if instead of parroting the tired party line, current members could actually hear what ex-members are saying about their own experiences. As Grosskreutz says: "My issue is with those that see it fit to condemn me for leaving the church, and for reasons they don't understand or care to understand."

I think Grosskreutz’s list is a good one:

"1. Christianity. It can't be true. The Bible, and the existence of God, is easily the biggest reason why I am not a Mormon.

2. Joseph Smith Jr is not a saint. …he is not the saint that the church portrays him to be.

3. The Church omits details and tries to implicate those that bring unflattering information forward as dishonest, vindictive, "anti", or otherwise worthy of contempt. …This sort of roundabout secrecy makes me suspicious of the higher ups in the Church and where their hearts really are.

4. The church wants money. Lot's of it. Why? We don't know. They won't disclose their finances.

5.The Book of Mormon is not a translation of an ancient text. Neither is the Book of Abraham.

6. The prophet of the church seems more interested in meeting with politicians than communicating with the lowly members of his church. …he is out of reach to the average member of the church who would like nothing more than to shake hands with the prophet.

Politicians and lucky career-Mormons get the chance, but faithful members like my parents (who have likely given an obscene amount of money to the church through tithing) would never get the chance to meet their leader. I have told my parents many times that I wanted to meet the prophet myself and just shake his hand, so I could know what kind of man he was. I was told, in other words, that I have a better chance of meeting L. Ron Hubbard.”

That list seems like a good way to start an interesting and potentially enlightening conversation. Ex-members aren't hopeless apostate sinners just because they have questions like those that Grosskreutz poses.

Grosskreutz:
"I'd like members of the church to stop demonizing those that left, including myself. The reasons why I am not a Mormon have everything to do with the church and what it claims to be. I never set out trying to find an excuse to leave. I miss the comradery of teachers quorum, of morning basketball, of mutual activities. I grew up in a wonderful ward and stake. If I could suspend all skepticism and go back to believing, I think I would."

I can relate to Grosskreutz’s wish that ex-members are not "demonized". I remember being shocked when I first realized that just for leaving the church you get called "apostate", which was quite a charged word for me. As a convert, I didn’t have the same social network as BICs do so fortunately I didn’t have much to miss there. But I did make commitments and did want to honour them. I don’t really think anyone leaves lightly; at least, anyone I’ve spoken to or read posts by on these boards.

Grosskreutz:
"…the guys at the top, they should know. And that's who I want to talk to. I want them to know why I am not a Mormon."

Of course, they’re "busy" ‘n all that but I can’t see what is more important or enjoyable than getting in amongst the people. I cannot stand elitism in any arena and at church it seems even more unjust. I always love that moment when the Queen stops the motorcade and gets out to salute the elderly in wheelchairs or when a celebrity honours their fans, etc. The Canadian PM turning his plane around and picking up Canadians stranded in a war zone was pretty cool too. I think more hands-on stuff should happen for the "regular members". If I were the the pope, the prime minister, the president, whoever, I wouldn’t stay in the halls of power but would want to talk to the people. If I were the prophet, I’d like to read Grosskreutz’s post and call him up and have a chat. Why not?

[_Nightingale]

DCP:
For several years, I've been editing and publishing Moses Maimonides' Arabic/Hebrew commentaries on Galen's "medical aphorisms."

I knew this and was going to offer it as a possible explanation. Then I saw that DCP had responded already.

To anyone who regularly uses medical or legal language and certainly for someone with second and third languages or who works with ancient texts, there is not so much "foreign" in the other languages. For people who love language, it's all in keeping, I'd say.

[_Jersey Girl]

DCP:
For several years, I've been editing and publishing Moses Maimonides' Arabic/Hebrew commentaries on Galen's "medical aphorisms."

I knew this and was going to offer it as a possible explanation. Then I saw that DCP had responded already.

To anyone who regularly uses medical or legal language and certainly for someone with second and third languages or who works with ancient texts, there is not so much "foreign" in the other languages. For people who love language, it's all in keeping, I'd say.

Nightingale,

I appreciate what you've stated above. The love of languages and those who engage in the preservation of languages is to be admired in the global community. While Daniel's work involves the preservation of language, my own work involves the facilitation of language development. When I use a word or phrase that is unknown in context, it helps to facilitate the neurological process of language mapping in young children.

How anyone can fault a person for naturally doing what it is they are immersed in, is just beyond me.

Do we fault the techies on the board for their use of techspeak? Of course not. But this is Daniel, you see. Any possible nit cannot go unpicked.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Needless to say, Nightingale, we disagree. But I appreciate the reasonable and charitable tone of your post.

Grosskreutz: “Even BYU professors, who take interest in the personal identity behind the moniker GoodK, don't seem to care why I am not a Mormon. They seem content with knowing I am an "atheist" and commenting accordingly, as if that were good enough of an explanation, in their favor.”

That’s a very interesting point.

It's not an accurate one, though. I've written voluminously on precisely such reasons as GoodK outlined. They interest me very much, and demonstrably so.

Grosskreutz: ”I'm going to share a few reasons with those … whom insist that only sin or contempt contribute to apostasy.”

This is well reflected in Grosskreutz’s dad’s post and I see it frequently. It is dismissive and disrespectful to ex-members in the extreme. It shows that current members think they know better about someone else’s life, experiences, motivations, thoughts and intentions than the person does themselves.

May I respectfully suggest that, since you presumably know neither GoodK nor GoodK's father, you're in no position to know whether or not GoodK's father's view of his son has any merit or not? Surely you don't think that you know better about someone else’s life, experiences, motivations, thoughts, and intentions than does a person who is intimately acquainted with him. GoodK's father may be wrong, of course, but it doesn't seem that you're in a particularly good position to make the argument.

I think Grosskreutz’s list is a good one:

It's an okay starting point for a discussion.

Here, for what it's worth, are some summary responses from me to those questions. I won't be around to discuss them, though. Partly because I leave on Wednesday morning for a speech and a debate in Las Vegas, for which I need to prepare, and then go from Vegas to Oregon for a week, and because I'm busy all day tomorrow and will be busy all day Tuesday with meetings of various kinds. And partly because these are big issues on which I would prefer to publish (or have already published).

"1. Christianity. It can't be true. The Bible, and the existence of God, is easily the biggest reason why I am not a Mormon.

I think the evidence for the central claims of Christianity is reasonably strong, as is the evidence for the existence of God.

2. Joseph Smith Jr is not a saint. …he is not the saint that the church portrays him to be.

Joseph Smith was not perfect, but he seems to have been a pretty good man.

3. The Church omits details and tries to implicate those that bring unflattering information forward as dishonest, vindictive, "anti", or otherwise worthy of contempt. …This sort of roundabout secrecy makes me suspicious of the higher ups in the Church and where their hearts really are.

On the whole, I think this perception is unfounded.

4. The church wants money. Lot's of it. Why? We don't know. They won't disclose their finances.

The Church needs lots of money -- for temples, chapels, missions, humanitarian aid, seminaries, institutes, universities, welfare, etc. -- but money is plainly not its driving force, nor anywhere near.

5.The Book of Mormon is not a translation of an ancient text. Neither is the Book of Abraham.

The Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text. So is the Book of Abraham.

6. The prophet of the church seems more interested in meeting with politicians than communicating with the lowly members of his church. …he is out of reach to the average member of the church who would like nothing more than to shake hands with the prophet.

In my experience with the leaders of the Church -- I know all of the members of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, and many of the Seventy -- they are very down-to-earth and approachable.

Politicians and lucky career-Mormons get the chance, but faithful members like my parents (who have likely given an obscene amount of money to the church through tithing) would never get the chance to meet their leader.

President Monson was just down here for the opening of the new library at Utah Valley University (until Tuesday, Utah Valley State College). Some of my ward members got to meet him and shake his hand. They're neither politicians nor "lucky career-Mormons." They're just college students who work at Wal-Mart.

Ex-members aren't hopeless apostate sinners just because they have questions like those that Grosskreutz poses.

Nor does the fact that they might have questions mean that they aren't hopeless apostate sinners. The two matters are quite separate.

I can relate to Grosskreutz’s wish that ex-members are not "demonized".

As a pretty continual victim of demonization here and elsewhere, I would prefer to see nobody demonized.

Grosskreutz: "…the guys at the top, they should know. And that's who I want to talk to. I want them to know why I am not a Mormon."

Of course, they’re "busy" ‘n all that but I can’t see what is more important or enjoyable than getting in amongst the people.

That's what they spend most of their lives doing!

I cannot stand elitism in any arena and at church it seems even more unjust.

The Brethren are constantly traveling around the world meeting with members. And they belong to wards. There is no real "elitism" here.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP:
For several years, I've been editing and publishing Moses Maimonides' Arabic/Hebrew commentaries on Galen's "medical aphorisms."

I knew this and was going to offer it as a possible explanation. Then I saw that DCP had responded already.

To anyone who regularly uses medical or legal language and certainly for someone with second and third languages or who works with ancient texts, there is not so much "foreign" in the other languages. For people who love language, it's all in keeping, I'd say.

On this, we do agree.

I love language(s). The shelves to my right are stocked with lexicons, grammars, etymological dictionaries.

I really don't think that I need to apologize for this to Chap and Marg.