Why I am not a Mormon

[_Daniel Peterson]

Happy Independence Day to Miniscratch and all the rest!

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?

Dan struck again.

One of the bizarre policies that I follow with my friends is to communicate with them from time to time, on a range of topics both serious and non-serious. A few days ago, I dropped a note to GoodK's dad. This is its complete text:

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Daniel C. Peterson <daniel_peterson@BYU.edu> wrote:

XXXXXX:

I've been repeatedly hammered this morning over on your son's message board for my arrogance and lack of ethics in sending the note below to you back in March, and, thus, meddling (maliciously) in your family's intimate private affairs.

If you perceived it as arrogant and unethical meddling, I apologize. It wasn't intended as such.

Sincerely,

Dan

This is what drew his interest to this thread and, to that extent, to the board.

Part of his response read as follows:

First off, no, I have never considered any communication from you to be either arrogant or unethical meddling.

Here's another part, which, I grant, is inexpressibly weird and purely evil:

Third, send me a link to his message board; I'd like to see what he is saying.

Your friend,

XXXXXX

Of course, since we're in Scratchworld, I probably either forged or ghostwrote the note that I've just cited.

Which provides a perfect segue to the ever-popular theme of my own off-the-charts wickedness:

But since he's an apostate, I guess hurting him is ethical?

Wow. I'm in awe. This is very nearly supernatural. Next to poor antishock8's various contributions, this may well be the most insightful and perceptive post on this entire thread: Yes, of course. In my ethical system, hurting ex-Mormons and non-Mormons is not only not a bad thing, it's a positive moral duty!

For all your slick rhetoric, I see you're still a belligerent dumbass. I don't think you're evil; just a little dim.

This is the kind of discourse that, once the word gets out, is going to bring believing Latter-day Saints here in unmanageable droves, seeking civil and respectful conversation. I predict a very bright future for this board as perhaps the premiere place for Mormon-related discussions.

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?

Yup. And you'll notice, if you trouble yourself to read Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles 1 and 2, that I make no "decisive negative moral judgment" about GoodK in either of them -- they're very brief, and their full texts are both available on this thread -- and, as a follow-up, you'll find that I have declared no such judgment about him anywhere else. Which contrasts rather sharply with the harsh judgments of me and of GoodK's dad that have been the mainstay of this thread (and of your posts about me), and with the uniformly negative views of me and all my works that are de rigueur in Scratchworld as a whole.

In its own very odd way, this place is inexhaustibly instructive.

[_Some Schmo]

But since he's an apostate, I guess hurting him is ethical?

Wow. I'm in awe. This is very nearly supernatural. Next to poor antishock8's various contributions, this may well be the most insightful and perceptive post on this entire thread: Yes, of course. In my ethical system, hurting ex-Mormons and non-Mormons is not only not a bad thing, it's a positive moral duty!

For all your slick rhetoric, I see you're still a belligerent dumbass. I don't think you're evil; just a little dim.

This is the kind of discourse that, once the word gets out, is going to bring believing Latter-day Saints here in unmanageable droves, seeking civil and respectful conversation. I predict a very bright future for this board as perhaps the premiere place for Mormon-related discussions.

I imagine you actually think you're contributing "civil and respectful conversation?" Alrighty then.

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?

Yup. And you'll notice, if you trouble yourself to read Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles 1 and 2, that I make no "decisive negative moral judgment" about GoodK in either of them -- they're very brief, and their full texts are both available on this thread -- and, as a follow-up, you'll find that I have declared no such judgment about him anywhere else. Which contrasts rather sharply with the harsh judgments of me and of GoodK's dad that have been the mainstay of this thread (and of your posts about me), and with the uniformly negative views of me and all my works that are de rigueur in Scratchworld as a whole.

In its own very odd way, this place is inexhaustibly instructive.

Again, you demonstrate you obvious lack of understand of the ethical breech. It's not the content of "epistless" but the intent and motivation behind them.

I have to wonder; if you're so innocent, why do you feel the need to defend yourself so vehemently? Nothing you've said in this thread speaks as loudly as the fact that you've posted about it so many times (all the while claiming you were done). Clearly, you aren't very confident in your position, despite all the bluster.

That's ok; you're only human. If only you could admit that to yourself, and emotionally own it. Although it might be good for you, it would take much of the entertainment out of your posts, so, you know... whatever.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Again, you demonstrate you obvious lack of understand of the ethical breech. It's not the content of "epistless" but the intent and motivation behind them.

And who is better situated to know my intent and motivation than . . . you?

LOL. In Scratchworld, I actually think that must seem plausible.

I have to wonder; if you're so innocent, why do you feel the need to defend yourself so vehemently?

Because I'm innocent.

Perhaps you've had no experience with being innocent?

In any case, have a great Independence Day.

[_Some Schmo]

Again, you demonstrate you obvious lack of understand of the ethical breech. It's not the content of "epistless" but the intent and motivation behind them.

And who is better situated to know my intent and motivation than . . . you?

LOL. In Scratchworld, I actually think that must seem plausible.

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. If it walks like a duck... well, you get the idea. It obviously doesn't strike you as odd that so many people are incredulous to your motives, huh? I guess if you work from the premise that most everyone on this board is out to get you, it gives you the out you need to protect your "ethical" ego.

I have to wonder; if you're so innocent, why do you feel the need to defend yourself so vehemently?

Because I'm innocent.

Perhaps you've had no experience with being innocent?

In any case, have a great Independence Day.

LOL... No, I've never been innocent. (Are you from this planet? That was pretty funny.)

I'm sure you've heard the line, "methinks he doth protest too much." When I'm confident in my position, I don't feel the need to convince strangers of it. Why would that be important to me? The only people whose opinions truly matter are my loved ones, and to a lesser extent, my employer. Perhaps you can explain why the opinion of strangers is so important to you.

And thank you; you have a great day too.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. If it walks like a duck... well, you get the idea.

There's no smoke, and it doesn't walk like a duck.

It obviously doesn't strike you as odd that so many people are incredulous to your motives, huh?

Here? No. Not at all.

Perhaps you can explain why the opinion of strangers is so important to you.

I'm a teacher by trade and avocation. I want even my least capable students to "get it." And I'm very willing to explain things over and over again, quite patiently, to try to help them.

[_Some Schmo]

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. If it walks like a duck... well, you get the idea.

There's no smoke, and it doesn't walk like a duck.

I guess you can't see the smoke if your head's in the clouds.

It obviously doesn't strike you as odd that so many people are incredulous to your motives, huh?

Here? No. Not at all.

LOL. Shocker. It would be redundant to point out your use of the martyr card.

Perhaps you can explain why the opinion of strangers is so important to you.

I'm a teacher by trade and avocation. I want even my least capable students to "get it." And I'm very willing to explain things over and over again, quite patiently, to try to help them.

I have to hand it to you; your talent for coming up with rationalizations for your behavior is well-honed. I guess that comes with years of practice.

You're a funny one, Danny boy.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I guess you can't see the smoke if your head's in the clouds.

You also can't see it if it's not there.

LOL. Shocker. It would be redundant to point out your use of the martyr card.

It would. It's been done many times already.

And the funny thing is that it's typically the very same people who accuse me of malicious dishonesty, reckless cruelty, gross incompetence, and the like, who then, if I so much as allude to their own accusations, complain that I'm playing the "martyr."

Take yourself, for example: On just the immediately preceding page alone, you've suggested that I'm "lying" and that I consider it ethical to hurt ex-Mormons, called me rhetorically "slick" but "dim" and a "belligerent dumbass," hinted that I'm in need of psychological help, accused me of malice, insinuated that I'm fantasizing, dismissed me as a rationalizer, and then, when I briefly note the obvious personal hostility that I routinely face on this board (from you, Miniscratch and his Master, and virtually every other poster here, as well as from poor antishock8, who even posts obscene references to my wife), you criticize me, right on cue, for my alleged martyr complex.

This is a very funny place, in a bleak sort of way. That's why I find it oddly fascinating. (I certainly wouldn't come here for the board's substantive discussions!)

[_Yong Xi]

How old is Goodk?

[_Daniel Peterson]

How old is Goodk?

I know, but I'll let him share that information himself if he wants to.

[_Jersey Girl]

when I briefly note the obvious personal hostility that I routinely face on this board (from you, Miniscratch and his Master, and virtually every other poster here, as well as from poor antishock8, who even posts obscene references to my wife), you criticize me, right on cue, for my alleged martyr complex.

Not from me, Daniel. You don't face personal hostility from the Jersey Girl and there are many others here whose treatment of you is the same or similar as my own. I say what's on my mind in any given situation and I certainly am not one who rides the Scratch bandwagon.