Why I am not a Mormon

[_Gadianton]

oh boy.

huh.

rrrrrr.

[_Yong Xi]

I am uncomfortable that in a defense (??) of GoodK people are attacking his father.

I trust you are not stating that you approve of the letter written by Goodk's father. It's quite hard to understand how a father could publicly treat his son in such a manner.

[_harmony]

If that's happening Moniker, and I haven't followed this thread too much (seriously) then I agree with you. Just as people joke about not having a manual for raising kids, parents who are members of controlling religions don't have a manual for how to deal with a child when he or she leaves the religion (oh ok, you got me, sometimes they do, but it's a really, really bad manual). And children don't have a manual on dealing with parents when they make the break. So we can have some sympathy for both.

I wrote, "So this self-professed Mormon is a blowhard. Go figure." But that wasn't in defense of GoodK. That was an ironical statement in reply to FatherK writing of this thread:

" 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. "

I don't know if what Moniker is referring to includes my comment, but I stand by it. It's textbook braggart.

I'm having a hard time keeping up with the various players on this thread. Where is this from? I mean the comments of the father... where are those from?

[_Dr. Shades]

I am uncomfortable that in a defense (??) of GoodK people are attacking his father.

Nobody is attacking GoodK's father. People are merely criticizing him for his words that are criticism-worthy.

[_Yong Xi]

I'm having a hard time keeping up with the various players on this thread. Where is this from? I mean the comments of the father... where are those from?

Try page 10 of this thread.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you know all the leaders as claimed, you are not in the same group as the vast majority of the members.

I never said I was. Nor is that relevant to anything I've said.

I know no one who can claim to know any of our leaders personally, let alone most of them.

I don't claim to know them intimately, nor to know all equally well. But I've met with and spoken with all of them more than once, and with some of them quite a few times.

And this fall, our stake will be visited by DHOaks.

I would guess that, at your stake conference, at least a couple score stake members will at least get to shake hands with Elder Oaks. That would be pretty typical.

Of course, one has to attend stake conference in order to meet visitors to stake conference . . .

Our leaders do not spend most of their lives anywhere near here.

I never said that they spend their lives in your neighborhood.

I said that they spend their lives traveling and meeting with the Saints around the world.

At this very moment, I have friends among the Seventy, for example, living in fairly modest apartments or condos in Japan, Germany, the UK, New Zealand, etc. They attend wards. They travel around to the various units. And those of the Twelve who are healthy enough to travel are almost constantly out and about, as well. My son got to talk with Elder Bednar of the Twelve a few months ago in Japan, as did other missionaries and members there. This is not unusual.

They spend their lives avoiding being amongst the people.

That's simply false.

It's been 20 years since we had an apostle here. Twenty years.

In the state of Washington, right?

Flatly false. President Hinckley dedicated the Spokane Temple in 1999 and the temple in Richland in 2001, and I'm sure at least one of the Twelve acccompanied him. And I would be astounded if there weren't quite a number of other apostolic visits during the past twenty years.

In your region? Possible, depending upon how one defines region.

In your neighborhood? Very possibly. There are only twelve apostles in a Church with millions of members and thousands of stakes, and some of them, owing to age and illness find it difficult to travel.

We're unimportant unless our tithing contributions drop or our stellar missionary numbers drop; then we're lower than pond scum. Which makes me wonder what we've done to deserve Elder Oaks now. I bet we're going to be hammered for the drop in the number of missionaries we're putting in the field or something similiar.

I'm quite aware that you hold the leaders of the Church in unjustified contempt. I've always thought it very unattractive.

[_Jersey Girl]

If that's happening Moniker, and I haven't followed this thread too much (seriously) then I agree with you. Just as people joke about not having a manual for raising kids, parents who are members of controlling religions don't have a manual for how to deal with a child when he or she leaves the religion (oh ok, you got me, sometimes they do, but it's a really, really bad manual). And children don't have a manual on dealing with parents when they make the break. So we can have some sympathy for both.

I disagree with the above, Gad. Not having a manual for raising kids is a joke for they exist. They're called parenting and child development books. Religious families do have a manual for dealing with family members who leave the religion, it's called their scriptures.

That people fail to avail themselves of earnest and reflective study of any of the above, doesn't mean they arent' available.

[_Some Schmo]

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."

Surely, even you can't be this stupid.

When I said, "The only reason why people "complain" that you're playing the martyr is because you don't seem to understand you made a mistake" I continued it with a supporting thought, "You seem to think that if you point out people what people call you, it excuses you from any wrong doing." Quoting one line without context (at least, until your next quote, as though the two thoughts weren't related at all) is an old apologetic trick that only makes you look dumber than... well, what I already suspected you were.

I think deep down, you know you did make a mistake, but it's beyond the ability of you unjustified ego to admit you were wrong, even to yourself. I mean, seriously... who could be this dumb?

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.

I can't believe you keep repeating this, as though you think someone with even a smattering of sanity would buy it at face value. Of course there's nothing ethically wrong with sending a friend a link, assuming there was nothing in that link that could potentially damage the relationships in the friend's family... ya dumbass.

[sarcasm]
Ooooohhhh, the riddle! The unmitigated brain bender! It's sooooo complicated to understand what he possibly did wrong! It was just an innocent link-sending, for god's sake!! Where's the harm?!
[/sarcasm]

Here's a news flash for you: we aren't all as stupid as the people who read and are convinced by your apologetics.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Surely, even you can't be this stupid.

An excellent point.

I'm not.

an old apologetic trick that only makes you look dumber than... well, what I already suspected you were.

This is high quality material, SS.

But perhaps you need to get together with Marg. She thinks that those who disagree with her are crazy. You seem to believe that disagreement with you results from stupidity. If you and Marg can work out the bugs and bring the two theories together into one unified paradigm, you'll have a remarkable and comprehensive model that will account for all who fail to see things your way. It could revolutionize the world.

I think deep down, you know you did make a mistake, but it's beyond the ability of you unjustified ego to admit you were wrong, even to yourself. I mean, seriously... who could be this dumb?

I'm guessing probably nobody.

I can't believe you keep repeating this, as though you think someone with even a smattering of sanity would buy it at face value.

Do I do it because I'm stupid? Or because I'm insane . . .

ya dumbass.

I take it that you're still going with the Stupidity Model.

Ooooohhhh, the riddle! The unmitigated brain bender! It's sooooo complicated to understand what he possibly did wrong! It was just an innocent link-sending, for god's sake!! Where's the harm?!

Your lithium is in the bathroom cabinet, third row down on the right.

Here's a news flash for you: we aren't all as stupid as the people who read and are convinced by your apologetics.

Wow. That's a relief. If there weren't at least some people here at your level of brilliance, who would write such meaty and substantial posts?

[_harmony]

Try page 10 of this thread.

Thanks. I guess it's comforting to know that Daniel isn't the only one of his kind roaming the earth.