Why I am not a Mormon
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:24 pm
So I read the thread...(I did skim some--it was pretty long). Anyway, I'll comment.
Goodk, from what I've read, I think you want your father's attention. I think you came to the message boards looking for attention--and you'll take it from others, but you really want it from your father. I don't know when your father remarried, but I expect you've resented the church and have seen it as a rival for your father's time and attention. Then, at some point, your father remarried, added another family and you were shunted off even further to the sidelines. I couldn't understand why you posted that email of your father's when your step sister was seriously ill in the hospital--it seemed so inappropriate at such an inappropriate time..until I recognized that it was probably your way of trying to pull your father's attention back to you--especially since the spotlight was on your ill sister.
I suspect you were aware that your father's friend, Dr. Peterson posted on MADB and that's why you went there...it was another way to connect with your father. Then you got banned so you came here--knowing that Dr. P also views this board. I expect that consciously or unconsciously, you posted that email knowing that Dr. P would inform your father, which would bring his attention back to you..and off your sister.
Dr. Peterson obliged--because as a parent himself, I'm sure he thought he'd want to know if the tables were turned--and he's known his friend for 20 years--I know as a parent, I would have wanted to know--yes, it would have been painful to see my child mocking my beliefs, but a necessary pain, I think. Goodk's father really can't understand if he's kept in the dark. Being informed was the opening to dialogue--which this father/son relationship desperately needs.
Goodk, from your father's post on this thread, he sounds like he may be a parent who withholds approval--those are the kind who often end up with children who are either trying to be perfect to get that approval or they say "to hell with it"--they act out and often rebel--your path, I assume. If he is a parent who withholds approval, it can be very destructive to the parent/child relationship--parents who do this, unknowingly bring a lot of grief and disappointment to themselves.
If anything I've said sounds like it might fit your situation, then might I suggest you talk candidly with your father about your need for his attention, his approval and maybe he'll be able to see his own responsibility in this and how he could make changes as a parent and meet some of those needs. I think a frank, honest conversation about the expectations he has for you and your desire for his attention could only improve the situation.
Goodk, from what I've read, I think you want your father's attention. I think you came to the message boards looking for attention--and you'll take it from others, but you really want it from your father. I don't know when your father remarried, but I expect you've resented the church and have seen it as a rival for your father's time and attention. Then, at some point, your father remarried, added another family and you were shunted off even further to the sidelines. I couldn't understand why you posted that email of your father's when your step sister was seriously ill in the hospital--it seemed so inappropriate at such an inappropriate time..until I recognized that it was probably your way of trying to pull your father's attention back to you--especially since the spotlight was on your ill sister.
I suspect you were aware that your father's friend, Dr. Peterson posted on MADB and that's why you went there...it was another way to connect with your father. Then you got banned so you came here--knowing that Dr. P also views this board. I expect that consciously or unconsciously, you posted that email knowing that Dr. P would inform your father, which would bring his attention back to you..and off your sister.
Dr. Peterson obliged--because as a parent himself, I'm sure he thought he'd want to know if the tables were turned--and he's known his friend for 20 years--I know as a parent, I would have wanted to know--yes, it would have been painful to see my child mocking my beliefs, but a necessary pain, I think. Goodk's father really can't understand if he's kept in the dark. Being informed was the opening to dialogue--which this father/son relationship desperately needs.
Goodk, from your father's post on this thread, he sounds like he may be a parent who withholds approval--those are the kind who often end up with children who are either trying to be perfect to get that approval or they say "to hell with it"--they act out and often rebel--your path, I assume. If he is a parent who withholds approval, it can be very destructive to the parent/child relationship--parents who do this, unknowingly bring a lot of grief and disappointment to themselves.
If anything I've said sounds like it might fit your situation, then might I suggest you talk candidly with your father about your need for his attention, his approval and maybe he'll be able to see his own responsibility in this and how he could make changes as a parent and meet some of those needs. I think a frank, honest conversation about the expectations he has for you and your desire for his attention could only improve the situation.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7173
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm
The Nehor wrote:I for one eagerly await the return of Scratch so he can compile this into a thread filled with horrid outrage about how EVEN HE didn't think DCP could go this far. I suspect it will be an entertaining read. Where is he anyway? His little birdies need to get on the ball here.
Dang. You're right.
I wonder if he's out there going through my trash cans again.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 15602
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm
So, I just got to the part where Dan posted GoodK's father's letter, and I have to wonder... if he doesn't read the board as Dan claims, I wonder how he found out about this thread. Did Dan strike again, or is he just lying?
And by the way, something else lost on you, Danny boy... while it may not have been harmful to your long time friend, it is obviously hurtful to GoodK. But since he's an apostate, I guess hurting him is ethical?
For all your slick rhetoric, I see you're still a belligerent dumbass. I don't think you're evil; just a little dim.
And by the way, something else lost on you, Danny boy... while it may not have been harmful to your long time friend, it is obviously hurtful to GoodK. But since he's an apostate, I guess hurting him is ethical?
For all your slick rhetoric, I see you're still a belligerent dumbass. I don't think you're evil; just a little dim.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 15602
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm
Daniel Peterson wrote: To issue decisive negative moral judgments about a relationship without knowing the people involved in the relationship or their histories is ethically frivolous.
Stopped to respond to this... too good to resist.
Didn't you say you hardly knew GoodK, and that you wouldn't recognize him if you saw him?
Still want to claim your actions were ethical?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 15602
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm
Alright, a rare triple post from me... looks like things may have worked out privately somehow. Could Danny boy have possibly apologized? One can only hope.
No matter what, we won't see it publicly.
I think the funniest implication in this whole, sad thread was the notion that Danny boy was "defending his good name."
LOL... you can't make up stuff like that.
No matter what, we won't see it publicly.
I think the funniest implication in this whole, sad thread was the notion that Danny boy was "defending his good name."
LOL... you can't make up stuff like that.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
Alter Idem wrote:Goodk, from what I've read, I think you want your father's attention. I think you came to the message boards looking for attention--and you'll take it from others, but you really want it from your father. I don't know when your father remarried, but I expect you've resented the church and have seen it as a rival for your father's time and attention. Then, at some point, your father remarried, added another family and you were shunted off even further to the sidelines. I couldn't understand why you posted that email of your father's when your step sister was seriously ill in the hospital--it seemed so inappropriate at such an inappropriate time..until I recognized that it was probably your way of trying to pull your father's attention back to you--especially since the spotlight was on your ill sister.
Apologies in advance, Alter Idem, but I disagree with every single thing you said.
First, I think GoodK participates here for the very same reasons that anyone else participates here; there's no need to psychoanalyze him. Second, I think he posted that e-mail from his father out of frustration over the fact that an otherwise intelligent man (his father) was putting his, uh, faith in vegetable oil and magic words rather than good ol' fashioned medical practice at a time when his sister was fighting for her very life.
I suspect you were aware that your father's friend, Dr. Peterson posted on MADB and that's why you went there...it was another way to connect with your father. Then you got banned so you came here--knowing that Dr. P also views this board. I expect that consciously or unconsciously, you posted that email knowing that Dr. P would inform your father, which would bring his attention back to you..and off your sister.
I disagree vehemently. I find that scenario just a bit too far-fetched. Just read a few of GoodK's posts; he's far too rational to consider hogging the spotlight when another human being's life is at stake, especially his little sister's.
CHANGE OF FOCUS:
Mr. GoodK, if you're reading this, why did you disrespect your son's (dis)beliefs vis-a-vis religion by sending him an e-mail chock-full of Mormon memes? If you grant yourself the privilege of sending Mormonism-laced e-mails to him, do you similarly grant GoodK the privilege of sending Atheism-laced e-mails to you?
If not, then methinks thou might've brought this upon thyself.
"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?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
A.I. - I think you don't understand what it's like to be an atheist in a culture so heavily influenced by religion (like in the Bible Belt or the Mormon Belt). We are constantly inundated by uninvited and unwelcome references to God and religion. Personally, the fact that I'm bombarded by religion - even at work - and yet do not feel able to protest due to the social censure that would result - is the main reason I post here. It's the one place where I can freely state exactly what I think of all these religious claims. I may be engaging in projection here, but I can't help but imagine that is the reason that GoodK posted what he did. He got fed up with it. There is no need to psychoanalyze some secret desire of GoodK to be ratted out to his father - GoodK has stated several times that he's said these same things to his father, anyway.
Let's just look at the particular incident that prompted this. First, I'm sure everyone agrees that it's wonderful GoodK's sister recovered from her severe illness. Aside from that, think of all the times people pray, light candles, use special oil or other implements, to induce God to heal someone on this planet. It happens all the time. Sometimes the person recovers. Sometimes the person does not recover. It's difficult to do controlled studies on this, but I'm pretty certain that nothing more than the placebo effect would be demonstrated. When the person recovers, God is celebrated, the power of belief of the individuals involved, is celebrated. When the person dies, God is still celebrated because "his will be done". You can perhaps imagine how this all looks to an atheist. Now imagine that atheist being bombarded with these messages, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. (I know at work I receive mass emailed prayer requests on a weekly basis, someone's friend, someone's acquaintance, someone's family member, someone associated in some way with our school, etc etc)
We atheists aren't saints. Sometimes we just need to vent about this silliness, and I imagine in a stressful personal situation the need to vent may even be heightened. Venting anonymously on a message board is a safe way to handle these frustrations - unless, of course, one happens to cross the path of someone who takes it upon himself to tattle.
There really is no need for a more complex motivation when this simple one is so obvious.
Let's just look at the particular incident that prompted this. First, I'm sure everyone agrees that it's wonderful GoodK's sister recovered from her severe illness. Aside from that, think of all the times people pray, light candles, use special oil or other implements, to induce God to heal someone on this planet. It happens all the time. Sometimes the person recovers. Sometimes the person does not recover. It's difficult to do controlled studies on this, but I'm pretty certain that nothing more than the placebo effect would be demonstrated. When the person recovers, God is celebrated, the power of belief of the individuals involved, is celebrated. When the person dies, God is still celebrated because "his will be done". You can perhaps imagine how this all looks to an atheist. Now imagine that atheist being bombarded with these messages, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. (I know at work I receive mass emailed prayer requests on a weekly basis, someone's friend, someone's acquaintance, someone's family member, someone associated in some way with our school, etc etc)
We atheists aren't saints. Sometimes we just need to vent about this silliness, and I imagine in a stressful personal situation the need to vent may even be heightened. Venting anonymously on a message board is a safe way to handle these frustrations - unless, of course, one happens to cross the path of someone who takes it upon himself to tattle.
There really is no need for a more complex motivation when this simple one is so obvious.
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.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2425
- Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am
The thing is Mormons can understand what it's like to be an Atheist in a Christian world precisely because they're Mormon in a Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim/etc world. They're shown disdain and contempt for their beliefs. Their god is not accepted as Christian, Muslim, or on equal footing with a host of other deities.
They know exactly, what's it like, to be hated for being different.
And yet, they show themsleves to be entitled and hostile toward Atheists because they're... Different.
*honesty alert*
The feeling is mutual. I would have SERIOUS issues with my kids becoming religious. While I would never throw them under the bus like Mr. Ethics did, I can understand his sentiment; the only difference I see is he's expecting his kid to live in a fantasy while I would expect my children to be more critical. I think there's a significant difference.
They know exactly, what's it like, to be hated for being different.
And yet, they show themsleves to be entitled and hostile toward Atheists because they're... Different.
*honesty alert*
The feeling is mutual. I would have SERIOUS issues with my kids becoming religious. While I would never throw them under the bus like Mr. Ethics did, I can understand his sentiment; the only difference I see is he's expecting his kid to live in a fantasy while I would expect my children to be more critical. I think there's a significant difference.
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.
Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4085
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm
Daniel Peterson wrote:I thought it might be fun to see what it's like to serve up personal attacks for a change, instead of always being on the receiving end here.
You really are out of touch with your own actions -- no wonder you're oblivious about your behavior on this thread (either that, or you just love pulling out the 'martyr card').
"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)
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4085
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm
Daniel Peterson wrote:The Nehor wrote:I for one eagerly await the return of Scratch so he can compile this into a thread filled with horrid outrage about how EVEN HE didn't think DCP could go this far. I suspect it will be an entertaining read. Where is he anyway? His little birdies need to get on the ball here.
Dang. You're right.
I wonder if he's out there going through my trash cans again.
No need -- all your trash is right here on this thread to be read by all. Well done, bishop.
"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)
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)