Eric.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Exactly. I don't think for a moment that it has much to do with my poor grasp of English or my execrable writing style.

I'm the Enemy. My motives are very often, if not always, ulterior and disreputable. I seldom tell the truth. I'm simply not a good person -- because I accept and defend the claims of Mormonism. If I seem to be saying A, I must really intend B, and my words have to be spun and twisted in order to reveal the sordid truth.

It must be somehow comfortable for you to excuse what people think of you as a simple byproduct of being a Mormon. I imagine that helps you sleep at night.

And I'm certain it would do me no good to let you know the painfully obvious: it has nothing to do with being Mormon, and everything to do with the way you act online.

Lots of people are Mormon. Very few get the same treatment as you get. But in your mind, you get it because you "accept and defend the claims of Mormonism." That's it, huh?

Like I said... obtuse.

It is rarely useful to criticize a group. There is too much variation to validate the criticism. It is much more salient (and fun) to poke individuals. DCP is great for this, because he has a thick skin and is a good sport. Plus he squeals.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I've offered precisely no gossip. I've said that there is another side to this story.

That should surprise nobody.

It's not gossip. It's simple common sense.

I've cautioned against the temptation, quite visible here, to pronounce verdicts about an obviously difficult and troubled parent/child relationship in a family that virtually nobody here has ever met, on the basis of one side's claims.

Nobody here needs to pronounce judgment, anyway.

I think judgment is natural to humans, and we tend to make them based on the information at hand. I welcome any new information to include in my personal analysis, but you are refusing to share anything. You are just being mysterious and such. More power to ya, but as was mentioned above, it makes you look mean.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nobody here needs to set himself up as judge or jury in this case.

Sorry I haven't given you as much information as you crave. That's going to continue to be so.

Seems to me like the appropriate response from the ward leader would be a comment about the inappropriateness of gossip.

And that's exactly what I would say.

I am, incidentally, neither Eric's bishop nor his family's bishop. I've been told nothing about his family in connection with my calling as a bishop. I'm under no ecclesiastical confidentiality requirement with respect to either Eric or his family.

Nonetheless, I've offered no gossip here.

I've pointed out the obvious fact that those on this board who are judging Eric's parents (rather harshly, and, to a considerable extent, on ideological grounds) have neither the duty nor the information to do so.

[_Jersey Girl]

I've offered precisely no gossip. I've said that there is another side to this story.

That should surprise nobody.

It's not gossip. It's simple common sense.

Hold on, Daniel. Are these comments of yours a response to my recent post?

What am I, chopped liver over here? Answer me, Daniel.

[_Daniel Peterson]

What am I, chopped liver over here? Answer me, Daniel.

Not so far as I know.

Why do you ask?

[_Jersey Girl]

What am I, chopped liver over here? Answer me, Daniel.

Not so far as I know.

Why do you ask?

Might you be so kind (and stop pussy footing around 'cause it's ticking me off) and reply to the post I made to you?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Nobody here needs to set himself up as judge or jury in this case.

Sorry I haven't given you as much information as you crave. That's going to continue to be so.

Seems to me like the appropriate response from the ward leader would be a comment about the inappropriateness of gossip.

And that's exactly what I would say.

I am, incidentally, neither Eric's bishop nor his family's bishop. I've been told nothing about his family in connection with my calling as a bishop. I'm under no ecclesiastical confidentiality requirement with respect to either Eric or his family.

Nonetheless, I've offered no gossip here.

I've pointed out the obvious fact that those on this board who are judging Eric's parents (rather harshly, and, to a considerable extent, on ideological grounds) have neither the duty nor the information to do so.

Why not judge? So long as you don't make that judgment dogmatic and always be open to correction and not objectify the person, why not make value judgments? It helps people stay away from mean people, understand individuals and come up with neat little theories about what drives a person. I know almost nothing about Eric's situation, just that you ratted him out to his parents. You aren't his bishop, and as far as I know he didn't threaten violence or fraud, so what you did was pretty slimy. I recognize that you probably have done other good things, but this seems pretty fundamental to a person's character. So I make a judgment, that you are lacking in honor. I could change my mind on a myriad of things, if I see you helping someone secretly, if I learn more that reveals that you did the right thing with Eric, or you someday regret your action, I adjust my judgment. It is foolish to assume ALL bishops are like you, meddling and pompous, but I know how THIS one behaves.

Klart?

[_asbestosman]

I've pointed out the obvious fact that those on this board who are judging Eric's parents (rather harshly, and, to a considerable extent, on ideological grounds) have neither the duty nor the information to do so.

But, but, since Eric's story dovetails nicely with the exmormon side of what happens when children rebel against Mormon parents it is probably true. Oh, and since the ranch only accepts boys with mild problems, he couldn't have been in enough danger to himself or his family to warrant what happened. Therefore Eric's story is probably true. Or something.


Note: I am not claiming that Eric's story is false (even though I believe that both sides probalby misperceive some parts of it), nor am I claiming that such institutions as the ranch have enough positives to outweight the negatives. I'm only claiming that we should be careful about beliving something just because it fits nicely into our paradigms--perhaps even especially when it does since it plays on our prejudices. I am trying to give both Eric and his parents the benefit of the doubt. Could that possibly be the point? Naw. It must be something more nefarious than that.

[_Jersey Girl]

I've offered precisely no gossip. I've said that there is another side to this story.

That should surprise nobody.

It's not gossip. It's simple common sense.

Hold on, Daniel. Are these comments of yours a response to my recent post?

Daniel,

I asked you a simple question to which you have offered no reply. Perhaps it's because you're so used to posters jerking you around and in turn, jerking them around that you're reluctant to communicate with someone who is upfront and straightforward with you. That's your problem. My problem is that I made a post the intent of which I think you misunderstood and I could be scrapbooking right now instead of attempting to communicate with you which would be far more enjoyable then placing importance on one who misunderstood and possibly took offense to my comments.

My comments regarding gossip/speculation/buzzing had nothing whatsoever to do with you or Eric. Nothing. I was speaking in general terms based on my "first hand" observations and what I have witnessed in real life on the part of LDS women.

For future reference...if I choose to criticize you, Daniel, I would name you. I don't screw around and make subtle references, and you should have no problem whatsoever knowing if I were referring to you because my post would have your name on it.

Jersey "revving up the Cricut-thank you, Provo Crafts!" Girl

[_Pokatator]

Might you be so kind (and stop pussy footing around 'cause it's ticking me off) and reply to the post I made to you?

Hey, Jersey Girl, you have to pitch Danny a very slow soft ball or he won't swing at it. Like what I pitched him here.

Pokatator wrote:
My opinion, which is worth nothing, is that we have situation where a father, actually a step-father, is unwilling to take the time and effort to raise a child. It somehow became easier to pay out money and farm the work of parenting out, put the situation out of sight and out of mind, put it "on ice" so to speak.

I concur, Pokatator, with your estimation of the value of your opinion on this matter. It's rare that you and I agree, so I think this is an occasion for celebration.