Why I am not a Mormon

[_GoodK]

If GoodK wants to claim substantial harm, he's free to do so. Thus far, though, he hasn't done so.

Notice how he says, "substantial" harm.
That way, if I were to say, yes tattle tale, you did harm me, he would ask for some documentation (I.e. Medical records, notarized of course) preferrably verified by an LDS scholar, proving I was harmed "substantially."

Its not enough for me to say that I didn't want my dad to see that while my sister was still in the hospital, nor did I want to interfere with how they were coping with things (thus my posting anonymously), I need to state clearly for Professor Dumbeldore that I was "substantially" harmed.

Can you provide an actual quotation?

Yes I can. Just like I provided an actual quotation of you implying I was insensitive to my sister's situation.

But as long as you ignore the parts of my posts that you can't respond to in a cute, sarcastic tone, I don't see any reason to do so.

(Forgive my spelling, I'm without spell check today)

[Guest]

Incidentally -- for the record -- I'm a Mormon partially because I disagree with the reasons that you adduce to justify your decision to reject Mormonism.

FARMS has published 117 books, and materials totaling more than 100,000 pages. I've been a significant player in that, and it's in the public domain. And I have several book manuscripts in process right now. I make my case in print.

OK. Not sure if I have worked out the formatting here right.
But. Dan. I am interested in an elaboration of your statement here.
Are you saying that due to the effort you have invested, you are a Mormon (=sunk cost benefit).

No. I'm saying that I lay out my reasons in print, and, even more so, in some manuscripts that I'm working on (intermittently) right now.

Surely, as a responsible academic, you would change your opinion if that is what the evidence indicated.

I would.

I have been in that situation. It is awkward, but there is only one honourable course. In my case, the realisation (no evidence for massive memory repression) took a while and resulted in some difficilty with my family and my own belief in myself.

I applaud you for your integrity and, if I understand you correctly, for the particular stance you seem to have taken.

OK. I am a scientist. Not a linguist or historian or sociologist. But it is a matter of professional ethics to be willing to give up a long held opinion when the evidence suggests you are wrong.

I agree.

I have read a number of your books, and I know that you can make an excellent argument over just about anything. As an atheist, I find your reasoning on argument over whether Mormons are christians to be spot on. I cannot fault you on your logic.

Thank you.

But any logical argument relies on the strength of its premises.

Which, in the case of whether Mormons are Christians, I believe to be essentially inarguable.

For case after case of Mormon discussion, the premises are dodgy to probably fraudulent to weak.

We disagree.

So, when you cut down to the facts - why are you still a Mormon?

Because I believe the fundamental claims of Mormonism to be true.

As I say, I've published quite a bit on relevant topics, and am working on several relevant manuscripts at this very time, including two very large book-length manuscripts. I can't distill that down to an internet post and (sorry) I'm simply not going to devote weeks and months to setting it forth to the small (and, in this case, hostile) audience on a message board. (The time I've wasted here on this thread alone, where I felt an obligation to defend my character against attack, is enormous. It's also down the drain, having added no value at all.)

So the reason you feel ethically justified in tattling is not because a father needs to know when his son has disrespected him, but because it’s in a format that lasts for a while, and to a larger audience. Correct?

No. Not even close.

As I've said in response to each of your hypotheticals, none of them has come close to the ethical issue. In each and every case, as I've observed, the question of whether I would have contacted the person about whom a comment was made is entirely separate from the question of whether doing so would be ethical. In each and every case, as I've expressly said, telling the person would, in my view, have been ethically acceptable.

Next question: you are friends with a married couple. On an internet board, the topic of the frustration of dealing with overweight spouses has come up, and the male friend posts that he is frustrated that his wife is quite fat.

Would you alert the wife?

No. Frustration isn't contempt. Moreover, in your hypothetical, the almost-certain hurt far outweighs the need to know. In the case of GoodK's mockery of his father, on the other hand, I judged that GoodK's father would prefer to know and that the hurt, if any, would be marginal. I know GoodK's father. As fathers, we've even talked occasionally over the years about our challenges with our children. I happen to know for a fact -- having spoken face to face with him and communicated with him by e-mail since Unbelievably Horrible GoodK Letters 1 and 2 -- that my judgment of his likely reaction was precisely on target. This wasn't a theoretical exercise. This was an interaction with a friend with whom I first became acquainted in the 1980s.

Can I speculate about why you would probably not alert the father? Correct me and supply the correct reasoning if I am wrong (I’m just trying to save time but guessing at what seems obvious). The reason I think you would probably not alert the father is twofold:

1 – you are on the same side as the son, and are sympathetic to his viewpoint, and may actually agree with his viewpoint
2 – you empathize with the son. You compassionately understand why he felt the momentary need to vent. You compassionately understand the relationship may be fragile for the same reasons you’ve stated, on this thread, a friendship with an apostate may be changed and challenged as well, and compassionately hope that the son can maintain some sort of positive relationship with his father, despite his father’s obvious problems. You do not want to cause additional stress of pain in this relationship because you understand and empathize with the son’s position, and you know the son may well be hurt by your tattling.

That's probably more or less accurate.

And thank you for granting that I'm capable of compassion, at least in theory.

In other words, you allow your compassion and empathy with the son to override your ethics, which may otherwise demand tattling.

No.

First of all, my ethics didn't "demand" what, in a charged bit of rhetorical question-begging borrowed from the increasingly hostile GoodK, you call "tattling."

Second, as I've expressly said over and over and over and over again, I see nothing ethically problematic -- not at all, not even slightly -- in either the matter of the two Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles or in any one of the hypotheticals you've supplied. So there has been no ethical objection to be "overridden."

Not, that is, until your last example of the overweight wife, where I see a husband's frustation as starkly different from a son's ideological contempt, where I see worldview as more fundamental than bathroom scale, in which I see the almost inevitable infliction of real pain as deeply different from merely giving a father potentially further reason for disappointment, and where I see a danger to a relationship as different from something that might help one party to a relationship understand the other party in a very relevant way. It's a matter, to use an economic expression, of cost-benefit analysis. I reasoned that the help I would likely be giving to GoodK's father in knowing how to understand his son would outweigh the slight possibility of relatively small pain. By contrast, the help given to the overweight wife in understanding her husband would be slight, but the pain would be considerable. As someone who really does, contrary to my image among some on this board, try to act compassionately and ethically, I see the two cases as manifestly incommensurable.

And, again, I point out that I have known GoodK's father since the 1980s, and that our many conversations over the years have, yes -- and I can hear the sirens going off all over Scratchworld on this one -- occasionally lighted upon GoodK himself. There's a history here that I have not told and will not tell. It's none of this board's business. (For all the talk of my having allegedly meddled in a relationship, it's more than a bit ironic that some here seem have forgotten that GoodK's father and I also have a relationship, and that they appear to imagine that my relationship with my friend needs to be justified and given account of to them.)

And now, I've got things to do. I'm done with this.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It's a matter, to use an economic expression, of cost-benefit analysis. I reasoned that the help I would likely be giving to GoodK's father in knowing how to understand his son would outweigh the slight possibility of relatively small pain.

You really can say anything with a straight face. Must serve you well in apologia ... and in the bishopric.

And, again, I point out that I have known GoodK's father since the 1980s, and that our many conversations over the years have, yes -- and I can hear the sirens going off all over Scratchworld on this one -- occasionally lighted upon GoodK himself.

We always suspected this, given the two messages (as opposed to the one originally discussed).

There's a history here that I have not told and will not tell. It's none of this board's business.

Just as butting into GoodK's family affairs was none of your business, but that's never stopped you before.

[_Chap]

And now, I've got things to do. I'm done with this.

We shall (as they say) see.

But don't let your hopes run away with you, people.

[_GoodK]

First of all, my ethics didn't "demand" what, in a charged bit of rhetorical question-begging borrowed from the increasingly hostile GoodK, you call "tattling."

Increasingly hostile, LOL.

"nobody likes me, everybody hates me, might as well go eat some wooooooorrrrrmmmms."

Maybe I seem hostile towards you because you still seem incapable of acknowledging that you offended me and act as though I am defunct for feeling put off by you being a tattle tale and rubbing my dads nose in an anonymous post while his daughter, my little sister, lay in the hospital.

Forgive me if I didn't say this more clearly in the last 10 pages of this thread, but I find that what you did is worthy of my contempt. I would not be above forgiving you and accepting your explanation, but you seem to think you are beyond even acknowledging the increasingly hostile GoodK's feelings and how your actions affected him. You don't have to do it here, you can send me a PM or an email.

I reasoned that the help I would likely be giving to GoodK's father in knowing how to understand his son

I won't resort to the all too easy Dr. Phil joke here. But seriously, you really thought my father needs your help understanding his son?

What qualifies you to help in our relationship? Your trolling through this MB?

You really think anything in that post was news to him?

You were being a tattle tale, plain and simple. Please, stop with the altruistic explanations. I know better.

And, again, I point out that I have known GoodK's father since the 1980s, and that our many conversations over the years have, yes -- and I can hear the sirens going off all over Scratchworld on this one -- occasionally lighted upon GoodK himself. There's a history here that I have not told and will not tell. It's none of this board's business. (For all the talk of my having allegedly meddled in a relationship, it's more than a bit ironic that some here seem have forgotten that GoodK's father and I also have a relationship, and that they appear to imagine that my relationship with my friend needs to be justified and given account of to them.)

No. No one cares about the history between you and my dad. I think you are playing it up quite a bit, as well, though I could be wrong.

And now, I've got things to do. I'm done with this.

Do you mean it this time?

(You probably ought to, you aren't going to win this one)

[_antishock8]

I suppose the Talking Carcass could just man up and say, "I'm sorry, I definitely crossed a boundary. I shouldn't have done that. Please forgive me." I mean... Isn't that what a Mormon is supposed to do? Where ARE these high standards that supposedly exist?? Where are these "fruits" that the gospel is supposed to bring forth in people?

What will this esteemed professor do? He clearly offended you.

Will he beg your forgiveness? "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either."

Maybe you should publicly forgive him, no? And then move on...?

[_GoodK]

I suppose the Talking Carcass could just man up and say, "I'm sorry, I definitely crossed a boundary. I shouldn't have done that. Please forgive me." I mean... Isn't that what a Mormon is supposed to do? Where ARE these high standards that supposedly exist?? Where are these "fruits" that the gospel is supposed to bring forth in people?

What will this esteemed professor do? He clearly offended you.

Will he beg your forgiveness? "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either."

Maybe you should publicly forgive him, no? And then move on...?

I had forgiven him, at least personally, until he came to this thread to point the finger at me and accuse me of being insensitive to my little sister (whom he has never met, as far as I know) and her illness.

I find that so ubelievably crass and rude, and for him to justify it here for 10 pages with dismissive, sarcastic remarks is just too much.

I'll keep you posted if I receive any sort of apology message in my inbox.

[_marg]

I reasoned that the help I would likely be giving to GoodK's father in knowing how to understand his son

I won't resort to the all too easy Dr. Phil joke here. But seriously, you really thought my father needs your help understanding his son?

What qualifies you to help in our relationship? Your trolling through this MB?

You really think anything in that post was news to him?

You were being a tattle tale, plain and simple. Please, stop with the altruistic explanations. I know better.

It is obvious Dan was not interested in helping your father further understand you. He viewed your post as "mocking" your dad. He even distorted what transpired by failing to mention that you were posting anonymously to a very small group of people of little significance. Had Dan given your father the proper context of the post, he'd have a leg to stand on in defence of his stated intent. But no, the wording in Dan's letter makes it sound like it is just so horrendous what you've done that even though your dad was going through a very stressful time, he needed to know about this "mocking" to the world you were doing of him, and it couldn't wait. Dan apparently agonized over it before acting. So what exactly did Dan think he was going to accomplish? Did he really think that a highly religious parent such as your dad was going to understand you better? Dan already knew your views are atheistic and knew your dad knew so that wasn't news. No if anything Dan was quite aware that revealing that post and not giving it the proper context would only serve to drive a wedge or perhaps deepen it between you and your dad. He was in effect protecting the interests of his tribe.. Mormonism and totally unconcerned about protecting and strengthening the relationship between you and your dad.


Speaking generally, highly religious parents whose kids become atheist are likely to be negatively judgmental about the moral values of their kid. That's because highly religious individuals believe by virtue of their religious beliefs they have higher moral values than others without those beliefs and belief system. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, a highly religious parent such as indicated of your dad in that letter, is unlikely to be accepting of "atheism". So Dan was obviously giving your highly religious father more ammunition with which to judge you and your "fallen" ways.

When I read your post I didn't view it as mocking. I can understand how a religious person might though. Religious individuals do not want to be viewed as irrational. And if there is the appearance of exposing their irrational views, and they appreciate the views can not withstand this rational critical exposure it can be perceived as mocking, which sometimes it is. But other times it is meant as a critical thinking exercise and I think that was your main intent, along with a bit of venting. The fault does not lie in the exposing. If the views were not irrational they couldn't be mocked or even have the appearance of being mocked.

[_Chap]

I suppose the Talking Carcass could just man up and say, "I'm sorry, I definitely crossed a boundary. I shouldn't have done that. Please forgive me." I mean... Isn't that what a Mormon is supposed to do? Where ARE these high standards that supposedly exist?? Where are these "fruits" that the gospel is supposed to bring forth in people?

What will this esteemed professor do? He clearly offended you.

Will he beg your forgiveness? "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either."

Maybe you should publicly forgive him, no? And then move on...?

I had forgiven him, at least personally, until he came to this thread to point the finger at me and accuse me of being insensitive to my little sister (whom he has never met, as far as I know) and her illness.

I find that so ubelievably crass and rude, and for him to justify it here for 10 pages with dismissive, sarcastic remarks is just too much.

I'll keep you posted if I receive any sort of apology message in my inbox.

Go on. Forgive him.

You will heap coals of fire on his head ...

You know that he cannot possibly admit that he is in the wrong without taking a colossal hit to his self-esteem, and (he believes) to the credibility of the Church to which he has committed himself.

Show you are bigger than he is.

[Guest]

I have, as I say, bowed out of this ridiculous thread. (Incidentally, marg, it's simply ridiculous to claim that calling one's father a "blow-hard" isn't mocking him.) But this item just showed up on my e-mail, and I think it merits inclusion in the public record regarding my culpability for the Crime of the Century:

Hi Dan:

I have followed this thread ("Why I am not a Mormon") and here are a few comments I'll make which you have my permission to post on that message board if you wish (though you certainly don't have to and I'm not asking you to do so for my sake):

1. What you did in alerting me to my son's post was in no way unethical. As one who teaches ethics at the college level I think I know something of the subject. There was simply no ethical breach involved here whatsoever and any and all posters who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

2. My son's angst over your informing me of his post is a simple matter of him being exposed for something he did that he should not have done. He knows this, and I know this and I am confident that deep down inside he is ashamed of himself for mocking the priesthood (as he should be.)

3. As you and I have enjoyed a warm friendship for over 20 years now, I am grateful to you for having alerted me to my son's public posting. You did the right thing, I would have done the same, and I think, though they won't admit it, most everyone on that message board who condemns you would have behaved in like manner if they had any common sense or conscience at all. They will deny this, but that is beside the point.

4. While I normally do not spend time in forums of this sort, I have found the experience of reading through the various posts to be both hilarious and depressing. You, Dan, are hilarious with most of the things you have posted and I have had many a laugh watching you run circles around a bunch of bitter, angry people who think they've vanquished you and yet often betray a deep misunderstanding of your wit or your point. It's also depressing to read what some would consider to be their own contributions to reasoned discourse.

5. As to my relationship with my son, let me say that while I was disappointed in what he wrote -- especially in the fact that he did so in a public forum -- it in no way did any significant damage to our relationship. He is quite young and inexperienced and I think if and when he matures a bit in the next ten to twenty years or so, he will see things quite differently than he does at this time. (One would hope so.) He's not a fundamentally bad person and he's a lot more cocky in print than he is in a face-to-face encounter. This forum is one way for him to vent and work out some of the bigger questions he's wrestling with. I have high hopes for him long-term.

6. Finally, the purpose of this thread, which he titled "Why I am not a Mormon" is a farce. By that I mean that his reasons are a smoke-screen. They are an excuse. I won't confess his sins in public, but at the risk of stating the obvious, let's just say that if he loved God more than the things of the world he would be a very strong Latter-day Saint. As it is, the "world" has his attention at this time. I hope he will, in time, realize the path he is on has only brought him much pain, much sorrow, and much deprivation. God is at the helm and God will not be mocked. Eventually every knee shall bow before Christ and every tongue will confess His Messiahship. And that includes my son and every self-professed atheist on this list. When he finally gets tired of sin, I think he will make the right decisions, repent, and return. And we will welcome him with open arms. And you and he will probably look back on this thread and have a good laugh together.

Your friend,

Of course, I probably forged it.