Why I am not a Mormon

[_guy sajer]

Suppose that you had a very good friend who had a son.

Your friend's daughter is dying.

He appeals to his friends by email for spiritual support, fasting and prayers. All the friends he has. All whom could help him emotionally, spiritually and socially.

The son was one included on the email distribution because he was considered essential to the family's plight. And loved by all of the family.

The son reposts the private post on a public board, along with mocking and denigrating statements about the father and the sibling's situation. In particular, a mockery is made of religious beliefs -- often the last refuge of emotional support for the family of the dying.

You wouldn't say anything to the now-mocked, embarrassed and publicly humiliated father, whose private email was made public along with mocking commentary?

No I would not. There ARE times when meddling is appropriate, but this is not one of those. I cannot see what possible good could come out of this course of action.

[_guy sajer]

This IS a direct result of your poor decision.

No it's not.

GoodK has told me that he wasn't even angry with me at the beginning of this thread. Yet Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle 1 was sent back in March. This thread has followed its own dynamic, quite distinct from what I did nearly four months ago.

I get absolutely no sense from you that you feel you did anything inappropriate (not unethical but inappropriate) or ill-advised.

You're right. I don't.

I'm disappointed. Your obstinance on this issue does you no credit.

[_rcrocket]

No I would not. There ARE times when meddling is appropriate, but this is not one of those. I cannot see what possible good could come out of this course of action.

This goes to show, dear readers, that the typical anti-Mormon (hmm, his name is still on the records of the Church) is a moral relativist.

[_GoodK]

The son reposts the private post on a public board

The "private" email was sent to more than a hundred people, not all of them LDS.

[_Runtu]

No I would not. There ARE times when meddling is appropriate, but this is not one of those. I cannot see what possible good could come out of this course of action.

This goes to show, dear readers, that the typical anti-Mormon (hmm, his name is still on the records of the Church) is a moral relativist.

Actually, it shows that guy sajer wouldn't meddle in someone else's business unless he thought some good would come of it. Which is the default position? To meddle or not to meddle in someone else's family?

[_guy sajer]

No I would not. There ARE times when meddling is appropriate, but this is not one of those. I cannot see what possible good could come out of this course of action.

This goes to show, dear readers, that the typical anti-Mormon (hmm, his name is still on the records of the Church) is a moral relativist.

WTF????

So, let me get this straight, because I believe that there are appropriate times to meddle in someone else's affairs and inappropriate times to do so, I am a moral relativist???

I think then than I, as well as almost the rest of humanity, are moral relativists as well, including the typical believing Mormon, many of whom I am quite confident would agree with my quite reasonable proposition.

[_Daniel Peterson]

i'm disappointed. Your obstinance on this issue does you no credit.

Obstinance here meaning simply that I don't share the dominant opinion of those posting on this thread.

[_guy sajer]

No I would not. There ARE times when meddling is appropriate, but this is not one of those. I cannot see what possible good could come out of this course of action.

This goes to show, dear readers, that the typical anti-Mormon (hmm, his name is still on the records of the Church) is a moral relativist.

Actually, it shows that guy sajer wouldn't meddle in someone else's business unless he thought some good would come of it. Which is the default position? To meddle or not to meddle in someone else's family?

The default is not to meddle. As a general rule, one only meddles if one can reasonably conceive that more good would come out of it than bad. Even then, however, it may still be inappropriate to meddle. It depends.

Meddling in goodk's affairs does not meet the standard.

There's no categorical imperative I can think of to meddle.

[Guest]

i'm disappointed. Your obstinance on this issue does you no credit.

Obstinance here meaning simply that I don't share the dominant opinion of those posting on this thread.

No, it means an unwillingness even to consider your behavior was perhaps not appropriate. I don't expect you to agree with the dominant opinion, I do, however, expect you to demonstrate even a scintilla of critical self reflection, if even in hindsight (which is justifiable given how things have turned out), examining your actions and considering whether they were well-advised.

No, you obstinately refuse even to concede the possibility that what you did was not the best judgment you might have made, even if, after critically reflecting, you still conclude you did the right thing.

Meanwhile, you refuse to concede even the smallest credibility in any argument offered contrary to your course of action and dismiss them out of hand while inventing some kind of fairly tale 'woe is me' persecution refrain.

THAT is what I find disappointing (though not unpredictable).

And, before you say the predictable, I find the similar behavior among other posters disappointing as well. And, when I engage in the same behavior, I am disappointed in myself.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The default is not to meddle. As a general rule, one only meddles if one can reasonably conceive that more good would come out of it than bad. Even then, however, it may still be inappropriate to meddle. It depends.

True.

Meddling in goodk's affairs does not meet the standard.

I disagree.

Which, I'm told, constitutes obstinacy.