Why I am not a Mormon

[_guy sajer]

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.

No, which you've inferred (inappropriately, but given your penchant for assuming the airs of a persecution complex, expectantly).

[_GoodK]

Bishop:

Suppose that you have an atheist friend who has a little sister dying in the hospital.

You are copied on an email, trumpeting the powers of the priesthood and the Mormon faith.

You come across your atheist friend's post on an internet forum, with parts of that letter and his expressions of frustration at the situation and email.

Now let's say that before you jump to conclusions, you contact your atheist friend for a few more details.

You later find out that his family (immediate and extended) is very Mormon and literally shuns him for the most part.

During this ordeal, he has largely been out of the loop in regards to his sister's progress and he only finds out details of his sisters condition third hand via his uncle in Seattle (who happens to not be a Mormon).

Finally, a week after he decides to just drive to Provo to go see her (still laying in ICU), he gets an email from his extremely Mormon father trumpeting the powers of the priesthood and highlighting references to the "laying on of hands" in the Old Testament. This is the first news your friend has heard about his sister from his parents.

In light of the details you gained by contacting your atheist friend, would you still be so quick to judge that friend's decision to vent his frustrations (anonymously) and drag things from cyberspace into real life?

[_guy sajer]

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.

And out of curiosity, what net good did you expect to gain from this course of action, and in hindsight, what net good did you gain?

[Guest]

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.

Yes, because thinking the ethics of an action can be different in different circumstances is moral relativism. For instance, if I randomly walk up to you and push you, that's wrong. But if I do the same while you are in the middle of the road with a car about to run you over, that's fine, even heroic. That's moral relativism. Wait, no, that's dumb as hell.

What would be moral relativism is if he thought the rightness or wrongness of same action in the exact same circumstances depending on who was doing the judging or being judged. As long as guy thinks the ethical status of an action is the same for all people in the same circumstances, he isn't advocating a morally relativist position. You wouldn't be able to tell that from this post, because all he is doing is expressing the mundane truth that sometimes it's right to meddle and sometimes it's not. Of course, when it is and isn't depends on the details.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, it means an unwillingness even to consider your behavior was perhaps not appropriate.

And you know that I've refused to consider this possibility . . . how, exactly?

I suppose you deduce it from the fact that I haven't come to your conclusion . . .

I don't expect you to agree with the dominant opinion,

Really?

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.

And you know that I've exercised not even a scintilla of critical self-reflection . . . how, exactly?

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.

I simply disagree with you. I'm sorry that that offends you.

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.

Obstinately, I think I'm right.

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

It shouldn't be too surprising that I tend to agree with my opinions. I'll bet that you often agree with yours.

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.

I'm pleased to hear it.

[_GoodK]

He patronized and belittled me at the drop of a hat, per Dan's request.

I neither requested his letter nor dictated its contents. I first heard of it when he sent it to me.

I believe that, although I also believe that if you knew my dad well (and maybe you don't, I don't really know) you would have expected him to post something here in your defense. I was expecting it. I actually was waiting for him to create an avatar. Your email to him was either an honest attempt to clear the air on this issue or an attempt to get some back-up. Honestly, I don't know you well enough to make that judgement call.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And out of curiosity, what net good did you expect to gain from this course of action, and in hindsight, what net good did you gain?

I gained nothing, and I sought to gain nothing.

[_rcrocket]

Bishop:

Suppose that you have an atheist friend who has a little sister dying in the hospital.

You are copied on an email, trumpeting the powers of the priesthood and the Mormon faith.

You come across your atheist friend's post on an internet forum, with parts of that letter and his expressions of frustration at the situation and email.

Now let's say that before you jump to conclusions, you contact your atheist friend for a few more details.

You later find out that his family (immediate and extended) is very Mormon and literally shuns him for the most part.

During this ordeal, he has largely been out of the loop in regards to his sister's progress and he only finds out details of his sisters condition third hand via his uncle in Seattle (who happens to not be a Mormon).

Finally, a week after he decides to just drive to Provo to go see her (still laying in ICU), he gets an email from his extremely Mormon father trumpeting the powers of the priesthood and highlighting references to the "laying on of hands" in the Old Testament. This is the first news your friend has heard about his sister from his parents.

In light of the details you gained by contacting your atheist friend, would you still be so quick to judge that friend's decision to vent his frustrations (anonymously) and drag things from cyberspace into real life?

There was no quick judging going on here.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your email to him was either an honest attempt to clear the air on this issue or an attempt to get some back-up. Honestly, I don't know you well enough to make that judgement call.

I do.

But there are others here who plainly think they know me better than I do, so I think we should defer to their explanations of my motives and hopes.

Why, incidentally, is the matter of the two Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles suddenly boiling up again? I had thought it had simmered down, but now it seems to be back. Sorry to disappoint, but I simply won't be able to respond to all attacks and Scratchoscopies as much as some here would like. I have a lot of work to do before a trip that commences on Wednesday morning,* and I have several meetings and probably six hours of bishop's interviews between now and then.

* http://www.freedomfest.com/freedomfest.htm

[_guy sajer]

No, it means an unwillingness even to consider your behavior was perhaps not appropriate.

And you know that I've refused to consider this possibility . . . how, exactly?

I suppose you deduce it from the fact that I haven't come to your conclusion . . .

I don't expect you to agree with the dominant opinion,

Really?

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.

And you know that I've exercised not even a scintilla of critical self-reflection . . . how, exactly?

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.

I simply disagree with you. I'm sorry that that offends you.

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.

Obstinately, I think I'm right.

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

It shouldn't be too surprising that I tend to agree with my opinions. I'll bet that you often agree with yours.

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.

I'm pleased to hear it.

Ok, I'm game. Show me a post you made where you do indicate an open-mindedness to, at least consider, that you might not have made the most prudent decision, or where you concede the reasonableness of the contrary point of view, even if you don't agree with it.

With thousands upon thousands of posts to your name, Dan, we have more than enough data points to draw informed inferences about your (on-line) character. There is precious little to suggest there that critical self reflection is one of your strong suites.

Nor is it one of your character traits to give ground in arguments or grant concessions to your debating opponents.

I think this falls comfortably within the boundaries of the definition of obstinacy as defined here: "stubbornness: resolute adherence to your own ideas or desires"

I'm confident in my assessment, based on the evidence at hand. Give me more evidence, and I'm happy to reassess.