Why I am not a Mormon

[_marg]

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.

LOL. That's why I come to such boards as this -- to learn new information.

Oh come on Dan. GoodK posted anonymously on a board that few Mormons read or venture onto. You and Crocket are not the norm as far as that goes. So GoodK's "harm" would be minor because he wasn't posting with his real name. The people who might have been offended were you and Crockett, that's about it. Didn't Crockett practically force GoodK to reveal his identity, but I don't believe GoodK ever did.

The problem that I see Dan is you didn't inform GoodK's dad to improve the relationship they have, you did it, to weaken it. GoodK was obviously not posting to mock his dad, if he was he would have posted with his real name and his fathers. It appears, both you and Crockett are interfering in other people's intimate rleationships in an effort to sabatoge them. There is a big difference between the honesty to be expected from a Church which rakes in billions of dollars and feeds off people's insecurities versus you meddling in the private lives of others and likely initiating an adverse affect on their relationship.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

At least two viewers of this board (rcrocket and I) recognized instantly who GoodK's father was. That's two people in a very small pool.

But I wasn't trying to protect GoodK's father from public harm or from damage to his public reputatation -- frankly, most in the general public, if not here, would have taken GoodK's derision of his father as counting against GoodK rather than against GoodK's father (and particularly so at a time of severe family crisis) -- but was simply trying to alert GoodK's father to what GoodK was saying about him. GoodK's atheism, as I've pointed out, wasn't news to GoodK's father, nor even to me. What I found appalling, and what I would have wanted to know had it been my son, was the level of personal contempt expressed for his father by GoodK.

I realize that many here, and perhaps most (if not all), disagree with what I did. As I've said, I myself hesitated for quite a while before I alerted my friend, GoodK's father, to what his son had said about him. But I finally decided to tell him. I feel fine about that decision, and I don't think that any amount of condemnation here is likely to change my view -- even when it comes from such normally loyal and sympathetic friends as Rollo Tomasi, who seldom otherwise have a negative word to say about me. My hesitation was never over the morality of drawing a friend's attention to a public statement about him by a family member (which seems to me completely unproblematic), but over whether I wanted to add, potentially, to the pain of a man whose daughter lay critically ill in a hospital. As it turned out, sadly, he was not even slightly surprised that GoodK had posted such derogatory things about him. Nor, in retrospect, should I have been.

[_beastie]

I think any parent who wants to be informed of any negative thing a child could possibly say about that parent is a nut and a control freak.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The problem that I see Dan is you didn't inform GoodK's dad to improve the relationship they have, you did it, to weaken it.

That's groundless mindreading of somebody you've never even met. And, as it happens, it's wrong.

It appears, both you and Crockett are interfering in other people's intimate rleationships in an effort to sabatoge them.

If you take comfort in believing me to be an unprincipled and malicious villain, that's your right.

There is a big difference between the honesty to be expected from a Church which rakes in billions of dollars and feeds off people's insecurities versus you meddling in the private lives of others and likely initiating an adverse affect on their relationship.

As I said above, the real fundamental problem here seems to be that I'm affiliated with the forces of evil (theism), while you're a representative of the dominion of light and truth (atheism).

The notion that GoodK's public derision of his father is an intimate part of their private life is risible, and your claim that my alerting GoodK's father's attention to that public mockery "initiat[ed] an adverse effect on their relationship" is without any basis in fact. There seems to have been none. (It's difficult to imagine, though, that the attitude toward his father revealed in GoodK's public posting hasn't had "an adverse effect on their relationship.")

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think any parent who wants to be informed of any negative thing a child could possibly say about that parent is a nut and a control freak.

And I think that anybody who creates a straw man like the above is intellectually unserious.

Have fun, folks.

Remember, I'm a mean-spirited and unethical monster.

Gotta go, though. There are people to hurt, and families to destroy.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Or old information, like your longtime penchant for gossiping and sticking your nose in others' affairs.

Unbelievably rich, coming from Miniscratch.

[_beastie]

And I think that anybody who creates a straw man like the above is intellectually unserious.

How is it a straw man? GoodK didn't use his name, didn't use his father's name, and posted on a board that very few people read. You insist that, under this scenario, you would want to know what your son had said. That sounds just like a parent who would want to know any negative thing his child could say about him.

For heaven's sake, it's not like he took out an ad in the newspaper, using everyone's names. In that case, yes, I agree, the parent needs to know. But posting anonymously on a board with a small readership? Please.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I like broccoli. It's delicious.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But I wasn't trying to protect GoodK's father from public harm or from damage to his public reputatation -- frankly, most in the general public, if not here, would have taken GoodK's derision of his father as counting against GoodK rather than against GoodK's father (and particularly so at a time of severe family crisis) -- but was simply trying to alert GoodK's father to what GoodK was saying about him.

In other words, you had absolutely no good reason to butt in where you shouldn't. Understood.

What I found appalling, and what I would have wanted to know had it been my son, was the level of personal contempt expressed for his father by GoodK.

Again, just because it is something you would have wanted, does not in justify your getting involved in another family's affairs.

I feel fine about that decision, and I don't think that any amount of condemnation here is likely to change my view ....

No surprise there, given what we saw from you with the Quinn episode.

My hesitation was never over the morality of drawing a friend's attention to a public statement about him by a family member (which seems to me completely unproblematic), but over whether I wanted to add, potentially, to the pain of a man whose daughter lay critically ill in a hospital.

How very 'Christian' of you.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Have fun, folks.

Remember, I'm a mean-spirited and unethical monster.

Gotta go, though. There are people to hurt, and families to destroy.

Nice cavalier attitude. Must help you sleep at night. Whatever works ....