Why I am not a Mormon

[_beastie]

I haven't done so, won't do so, and, your evidently bizarre imaginings about me notwithstanding, have never had any inclination to do anything of the kind.

This nonsense grows ever more wearisome.

You used to collect offensive quotes from exmormon boards. What did you use them for?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I haven't done so, won't do so, and, your evidently bizarre imaginings about me notwithstanding, have never had any inclination to do anything of the kind.

This nonsense grows ever more wearisome.

You used to collect offensive quotes from exmormon boards. What did you use them for?

I've collected a few, not systematically but only sporadically, chiefly for use as signatures in e-mails to my friends. (Remember the world-threatening cabal known as Skinny-L?) I haven't collected any for several months now, though. And they've almost invariably been about me. (And, believe me, my recollection represents at most about 1-2% of the ones I'm aware of, to say nothing of the many more that I undoubtedly miss altogether.)

I draw no sweeping conclusions about anti-Mormonism or ex-Mormonism from them, and have never done so.

It's a false accusation, Beastie. Pure and simple. But, of course, it plays into the standard portrait here of Peterson as an unprincipled, mean-spirited, intellectually dishonest villain.

Don't you ever tire of the endless morality play in which you face the forces of darkness? You claim that that's the worldview of my side, but it isn't even remotely mine. More and more, ironically, I think it's yours. I'm not really into pop-psychology, but the term projection comes forcibly to mind. As when you paint theists and/or Mormons in aggressively negative broad brushstrokes in order to condemn us as judgmental.

Well, I'm headed into the mountains. I hope you can break away from this board and have a nice Independence Day.

[_beastie]

No projection. Perhaps I paid more attention to church leaders' teachings about apostates than you have.

by the way, saying a group tends to have problems with a sense of entitlement (Saturday's Warriors), and difficulties respecting personal boundaries doesn't equate to saying that group is from the dark side. Saying a group is inspired by satan and full of sin, however, is.

[_Daniel Peterson]

by the way, saying a group tends to have problems with a sense of entitlement (Saturday's Warriors), and difficulties respecting personal boundaries doesn't equate to saying that group is from the dark side.

LOL. If you can't even remember the things you yourself have said within the past day or two, why should I remind you?

They'd be better forgotten.

[_GoodK]

As I mentioned earlier, Goodk, knew Dr. P before he came to these boards.

I'm glad you think you know me so well. I almost responded to your last post, to correct you (and thank you Dr. Shades for doing it for me) but it would take entirely too much time and effort to respond to all your misdiagnosis's.

Yes, you are right. I did know of Dan Peterson before I came to this board. And the MAD board. I knew of him. I knew he was friends with my Dad.
This means what to you, exactly?

Only a short stint on MADB would have alerted Goodk to the fact that his father's friend was a participant.

Eureka! Good observation. Gold star for you.

It also would have taken only a little read at MADB to figure out that Dr. P also read MD.

Eureka! Good observation. Have another star.

Goodk started at MADB but was banned.

Another meaningless fact.

Then he came here--and anyone who reads this board soon becomes familiar with Dr. P--so Goodk definitely knew of his presence here.

Did I say I didn't know of his presence here? Or that I didn't want him to see it? Jesus Christ.

Goodk risked his own anonymity when he posted that email about his ill sister, because he was fully aware that Dr. P read this board and that Dr. P knew his father.

Maybe I did. Your point being?

--

What is your purpose, exactly?

Brother Peterson has pointed out that he has been belittled on this thread, but so have I.

Mental Gymnast tried to be funny and posted some nonsense about IMS.
Some internet discussion board pyschologist posting under the name Alter Idem has tried to say I just wanted attention from daddy (I see or talk to him daily)
and a whole lot of other nonsense (about when my dad remarried - which he never did???) and other false assumptions I don't even know how to respond to without simply posting my autobiography, which is frankly none of your business.

I think it is clear that there are those willing to take sides here without even considering the facts, how little they know about the involved parties, and how stupid they sound while making judgments based on this ignorance.

by the way Yong Xi, I'm 23.

[_Some Schmo]

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."

You just don't get it. The only reason why people "complain" that you're playing the martyr is because you don't seem to understand you made a mistake. You seem to think that if you point out people what people call you, it excuses you from any wrong doing.

And that's simply one example of why you appear in these boards to be a little dim.

"Forest? What forest? It's just a bunch of trees."

[_Jersey Girl]

Daniel,

Let me try to approach this in a different way. I'm admittedly just an observer here but here goes. What if you had acted on the philosophy of "first do no harm". Did your actions regarding the GoodK post help or do harm? Now, I don't mean harm to GoodK and Dad's relationship because I believe GoodK when he expresses that he and Dad communicate frequently (daily, I think he said) but the harm being in the taking of family attention away from concerns regarding their ill child.

Do you think it possibly took much needed attention away from the family addressing the needs/concerns of their ill child and instead shifted focus to an issue that was minor in comparison?

[Guest]

You just don't get it.

You're right. I don't.

The only reason why people "complain" that you're playing the martyr is because you don't seem to understand you made a mistake.

Oh. Okay. I see. So the way to describe somebody who doesn't realize that he or she has made a mistake is to call that person a "martyr"?

Got it.

Teacher: "That sum is incorrect."

Pupil: "I've gone over the figures three times, and I think it's correct."

Teacher: "No, you're a martyr."

You seem to think that if you point out people what people call you, it excuses you from any wrong doing.

No. I think that, in this matter, I did nothing wrong.

As I may perhaps have pointed out before on this thread, I don't think that there's anything even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board.

Daniel, Let me try to approach this in a different way. I'm admittedly just an observer here but here goes. What if you had acted on the philosophy of "first do no harm".

I did.

I'm very familiar with the Latin medical adage Primum non nocere ("First, do no harm"), cite it often, and try to follow it.

Did your actions regarding the GoodK post help or do harm?

I think my action -- there was, really, only one -- did a minor bit of good. At worst, it might have done a minor bit of harm, but, knowing GoodK's father and knowing a fair amount about the situation, I judged that it probably wouldn't. And I don't think it did.

Now, I don't mean harm to GoodK and Dad's relationship because I believe GoodK when he expresses that he and Dad communicate frequently (daily, I think he said) but the harm being in the taking of family attention away from concerns regarding their ill child.

Do you think it possibly took much needed attention away from the family addressing the needs/concerns of their ill child and instead shifted focus to an issue that was minor in comparison?

No. I don't think it did. If you want, though, I can ask GoodK's father. (Of course, some here will say that he's lying if he doesn't answer correctly.)

I think this ought to end.

[_Jersey Girl]

My questions to you were intended to be sincere and thoughtful. Thank you for answering them and I too, think this should end.

[_Chap]

I'm admittedly just an observer here but here goes. What if you had acted on the philosophy of "first do no harm".

I did.

I'm very familiar with the Latin medical adage Primum non nocere ("First, do no harm"), cite it often, and try to follow it.

QFT. Is DCP satirizing himself here? One does hope so.

Jersey Girl states a well known medical maxim in English, the language in which it is usually cited in the US.

DCP states the same maxim in Latin - and then gives us an English translation identical to Jersey Girl's original statement, presumably in case we have missed the point. He tells us that he cites (it would seem) the Latin version frequently.

We are all, no doubt, impressed, and feel ever more keenly what a privilege it is that DCP should lower himself so far as to come amongst us so very, very often.