Daniel Peterson wrote:People who typically rail against the LDS Church for suppressing facts and failing to fully disclose now rail against me for failing to suppress a fact and for disclosing.
Presumably, it's because GoodK is on the Right Side (atheism), while I'm on the Wrong Side (Mormonism).
Geesh, Dan pulls out the 'martyr card' again. This has utterly nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with butting into a family's business.
rollo tomasi wrote:Have you talked to the father or some other member of the family, to know this?
Yup. GoodK's father and I are friends. We communicated by e-mail while GoodK's sister was in intensive care here in Utah Valley, and we also spent time together when GoodK's father was in town. GoodK's public derision of his father merited, at most, thirty to sixty seconds of our conversation.
It should have merited no discussion at all, because you should not have inserted yourself in that family's business. Sorry, Dan, but you simply can't justify what you did.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:GoodK never designated you as his "messenger" -- it's something you took upon yourself, when you should have just stayed out of it.
I wasn't aware that the author of a public post on a public message board needed to authorize somebody as a "messenger" in order for that person to have the authority to draw the attention of any other person to the public message board on which that public post was publicly posted.
Precisely my point -- you took it upon yourself to be the family's "messenger," when in fact it was none of your business and you should have kept out of it.
That's why I come to such boards as this -- to learn new information.
Or old information, like your longtime penchant for gossiping and sticking your nose in others' affairs.
Last edited by Yahoo [Bot] on Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Daniel Peterson wrote:I wasn't aware that the author of a public post on a public message board needed to authorize somebody as a "messenger" in order for that person to have the authority to draw the attention of any other person to the public message board on which that public post was publicly posted.
With all due respect to you, sir, since GoodK had the forbearance to withhold his father's, his sister's, and his own names, no casual viewer of this board could have possibly known whom he was talking about, so I don't think that GoodK was out of line for sharing what he did--and thus didn't merit having his words brought to his father's (or sister's) attention, since they couldn't have been affected in real life.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Daniel Peterson wrote:I wasn't aware that the author of a public post on a public message board needed to authorize somebody as a "messenger" in order for that person to have the authority to draw the attention of any other person to the public message board on which that public post was publicly posted.
With all due respect to you, sir, since GoodK had the forbearance to withhold his father's, his sister's, and his own names, no casual viewer of this board could have possibly known whom he was talking about, so I don't think that GoodK was out of line for sharing what he did--and thus didn't merit having his words brought to his father's (or sister's) attention, since they couldn't have been affected in real life.
Excellent point!
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
So what if Christianity and Mormonism are man created religions and not true as to what those religions claims they are. What difference does that make as long as one doesn't hurt others and as long as one finds greater personal benefits believing and belonging than not doing so? Why is "truth" so important to you? Is your decision solely about you or do you also consider the greater good of all?
Believing that religious truth matters more than culture, more than social conventions, more than familial loyalties, is a part of Mormonism itself. This, in my opinion, is the reason exmormons continue to believe it matters.
Roger Loomis wrote an excellent essay on this very topic. The site that hosts it seems to be down at the moment. I'll see if it comes back up later and I'll link it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
antishock8 wrote:Do Mopologists ever apologize, for anything, outside of Mormonism? Unbelievable.
I think I heard your Mom calling.
I think you should take that as a 'no', antishock.
You see, the knowledge of the constant presence of the Holy Ghost in your own life (and of its absence from the lives of wicked anti-Mormons) has the same effect on the conscience as a teflon coating on a frying pan.