Why I am not a Mormon

[_Gadianton]

Moniker, I'm not sure I can sustain my agreement with you. :( I still agree that Fk gets some slack because self-righteous people deal with pain by being more self-righteous. So I do have some empathy for Fk.

But, after reading the letter EA directed me too, several new facts have come to light. While it didn't click before, perhaps my charity was getting the better of me, and I just didn't realize that Fk likely has some kind of deep connections to Skinny-L and circles with the apologetic watch dogs that are on 24/7 high alert for anti-Mormon activity and ready for a smear campaign at a moments notice. It's becoming clear that this man is letting his itchy trigger finger for the blood of the vile "critic" override the natural compassion he'd otherwise have for his own son. When I had posted previously, I had just assumed that Fk was the standard self-absorbed Mormon priesthood holder that believes he can part the Red Sea with a bottle of olive oil he bought for a buck forty-nine at Albertsons. But it's not just your typical "disease rebuking" self-righteousness going on here, but all that combined with the anger-filled wrath of the apologist for every and any criticism of the church. The "mad laughter" over the typical Shields/FARMS juvenile prank. And so focused is he on winning the day, Fk is now waging a blackmail campaign against his own flesh and blood.

Silence! For at any time, I could tell them all your dirty little secrets!

And he's an ethics professor? An ethics professor that assures his (non) drinking buddies and himself that they're all in the moral right by appealing to his own self as an authority? LOL! I can't imagine any philosophy professor at BYU I had justifying any particular behavior let alone the behavior of themselves or their friends mearly on the grounds of their own teaching position. Good heavens! That's almost more vulgar than the stuff Will has said. Dr. Peterson, I can't honestly believe you're not outraged at your friend's behavior. You should be.

I wonder if Shields is going to pick this one up with Fk's emails to DCP and all. Look at how Fk took apart that nasty critic, hilarious! What a laugh! That kid of his won't have a lot to say about apologetics now!

Just about the only think Fk forgot to do was mention how he'd be right there at the judgement bar of Christ nodding his head in "I told you so" victory when GoodK finally confesses.

Twenty years? If GoodK's ever going to rejoin the church, it's going to take a lot more than that with apologetic gang-ups he's going to have to endure.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I just didn't realize that Fk likely has some kind of deep connections to Skinny-L

LOL. He's not. But I think he's an agent of SMERSH.

and circles with the apologetic watch dogs that are on 24/7 high alert for anti-Mormon activity and ready for a smear campaign at a moments notice.

Oh yeah. Them.

It's becoming clear that this man is letting his itchy trigger finger for the blood of the vile "critic" override the natural compassion he'd otherwise have for his own son. When I had posted previously, I had just assumed that Fk was the standard self-absorbed Mormon priesthood holder that believes he can part the Red Sea with a bottle of olive oil he bought for a buck forty-nine at Albertsons. But it's not just your typical "disease rebuking" self-righteousness going on here, but all that combined with the anger-filled wrath of the apologist for every and any criticism of the church. The "mad laughter" over the typical Shields/FARMS juvenile prank. And so focused is he on winning the day, Fk is now waging a blackmail campaign against his own flesh and blood.

Nope. Nobody here's attacking GoodK's dad!

I wonder if Shields is going to pick this one up with Fk's emails to DCP and all. Look at how Fk took apart that nasty critic, hilarious! What a laugh! That kid of his won't have a lot to say about apologetics now!

Wow. I'd say you've got 'em dead to rights. How are they going to deny this?!?!?!

How incriminating!

Just about the only think Fk forgot to do was mention how he'd be right there at the judgement bar of Christ nodding his head in "I told you so" victory when GoodK finally confesses.

Good of you to remedy that oversight!

[_harmony]

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.

Well, the rest of us, it's relevant. We don't "know" the FP, the 12, or the 70. We don't know anyone above our SP. You aren't in a position to comment on the efficacy of our leaders' supposed approachability; I am. And said approachability doesn't exist.

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.

So? What does that have to do with their nonexistent approachability or their nonexistent accessibility?

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.

I would guess that we have several thousand more members in my stake than a couple of score. Therefore, my premise works; yours doesn't. The higher up the food chain, the more accessible the leaders are. So yes, the SP will meet DHO. My ward's webmaster won't.

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

My motivation to attend stake conference rises and falls based on what I've gained from stake conference over the last 37 years. That notwithstanding, I'll still attend, just so I can hear for myself why he's here.

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.

I am in the "world", Daniel. It's known as the mission field. It's been 20 years since we've seen an apostle in stake conference. And when we've seen our leaders outside of stake conference... well, it was on a monitor on the wall of the stake center. Not in person, and there was no handshaking in the parking lot.

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.

Am I supposed to be equally impressed that your son spoke with Elder Bednar? Sorry. My fourth son spoke with Elder Packer, while on his misison. It was enough to almost send him on the next flight home from Costa Rica. The only reason he stayed was because I asked him to not make a hasty decision, based on the malarky of one over-blown ego.

They spend their lives avoiding being amongst the people.

That's simply false.

This is unfortunately true. How many of the leaders, the FP or the 12, actually live among the members, out here in the mission field? None. Zero. Nada. They live in Utah. All of them.

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.

You said they "spend their lives" meeting with the members. You said they were "approachable". Now you're backing away from that statement, since they're old and illness is making travel difficult?

I said they weren't in my stake, and since my stake isn't Richland or Spokane Washington, I stand by my statement. We've had 70's in our stake; it's been over 20 years since we had an apostle here.

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.

[/quote]

Well, I agree. that was an exceptionally pissy remark for me to make. I'm just sorry it appears to be justified.

*edited to fix quotes.

[_Moniker]

Moniker, I'm not sure I can sustain my agreement with you. :(

:(

Shades, I think attack is akin to harsh criticism.

EAllusion, I hadn't even read that comment you posted.

To others: I am concerned for GoodK and fear that criticisms that his father faces here would likely hurt his relationship with his father. I think that coming to the defense of GoodK by making comments about his father (justified or not) probably will not help the situation and would more than likely escalate what tensions there may be because of this fiasco.

[_harmony]

Moniker, I'm not sure I can sustain my agreement with you. :(

:(

Shades, I think attack is akin to harsh criticism.

EAllusion, I hadn't even read that comment you posted.

To others: I am concerned for GoodK and fear that criticisms that his father faces here would likely hurt his relationship with his father. I think that coming to the defense of GoodK by making comments about his father (justified or not) probably will not help the situation and would more than likely escalate what tensions there may be because of this fiasco.

It looks to me like FatherK is a great deal like Daniel, and very little like GoodK.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, the rest of us, it's relevant.

You might find it interesting, or appalling, or whatever, but it's not logically relevant to what I said.

You aren't in a position to comment on the efficacy of our leaders' supposed approachability; I am. And said approachability doesn't exist.

BS. I live in a normal ward, attend stake conferences, etc., just like any other member of the Church.

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.

So? What does that have to do with their nonexistent approachability or their nonexistent accessibility?

Nothing. Are you really so incapable of following a conversation?

So yes, the SP will meet DHO. My ward's webmaster won't.

In every stake conference I've ever attended -- unless there was an urgent plane to catch, or some such thing -- if somebody really wanted to go up and shake hands with the conference visitor, somebody could go up and shake hands with the conference visitor.

Am I supposed to be equally impressed that your son spoke with Elder Bednar?

No. Try to follow the discussion. My son is simply one missionary among hundreds. Yet he (along with many other missionaries, and many Japanese members) was easily able to shake hands with Elder Bednar and to speak with him. The point isn't that such a thing is unusual. The point is that it's not.

Elder Perry has a sister in my home ward. So, once every year or two, if he has no assignment on a weekend, he drops by our ward. He's always very friendly and approachable. Once, before I had gotten to know him at all, he dropped by to visit one of my sons, who was his sister's junior home teacher, just to have a chat with him because his sister and her husband had said some nice things about my boy. He's a very nice man.

Sorry. My fourth son spoke with Elder Packer, while on his misison. It was enough to almost send him on the next flight home from Costa Rica. The only reason he stayed was because I asked him to not make a hasty decision, based on the malarky of one over-blown ego.

Hmmm. His experience is completely different from mine. When I first met Elder Packer, many years ago as a missionary, I was intimidated. Since then, I've had several experiences with him, including several hours discussing Islam with him in his home on a Sunday morning. I've found him to be extremely pleasant, modest, quiet, and very thoughtful.

How many of the leaders, the FP or the 12, actually live among the members, out here in the mission field? None. Zero. Nada. They live in Utah. All of them.

That's true. But it's a consummately silly objection. How many cabinet officers live in your neighborhood? How many of the senior Vatican Curia live within your stake boundaries?

The Twelve are the senior administrative officers of a large organization headquartered in Utah. Occasionally, in recent years, they've lived for an extended period out in the mission field (e.g., Elder Holland in Chile, Elder Oaks in the Philippines, and Elder Perry in Germany). But they're pretty much obligated to live in Utah. Still, they travel incessantly, all around the world.

You said they "spend their lives" meeting with the members. You said they were "approachable". Now you're backing away from that statement, since they're old and illness is making travel difficult?

They do travel constantly, until they wear themselves out. In their eighties and nineties, some of them tend to slow down a bit. I find it rather odd that you seem to take their aging and their illnesses as a personal insult to your dignity.

Well, I agree. that was an exceptionally pissy remark for me to make. I'm just sorry it appears to be justified.

I'm sorry, too, that it appears to you to be justified.

I've long found it amusing to watch you set yourself up, despite your virtually complete cluelessness regarding relevant fact, as a hanging judge of Church leaders (and of me), often in the very midst of denouncing others as "judgmental." In its own weird way, it's one more comical displays of behavior I've ever seen on a message board.

You claim that it's been twenty years -- twenty years!!!! -- since an apostle has visited your stake. But think of it: There are roughly 3000 stakes, which means that there are approximately 6000 stake conferences annually. That's five hundred per apostle. That's ten per week. And, of course, if any of the apostles are incapacitated, the per-apostle number rises. And to think that apostles haven't been at every one of your stake conferences!

[_marg]

Moniker, I'm not sure I can sustain my agreement with you. :(

:(

Shades, I think attack is akin to harsh criticism.

EAllusion, I hadn't even read that comment you posted.

To others: I am concerned for GoodK and fear that criticisms that his father faces here would likely hurt his relationship with his father. I think that coming to the defense of GoodK by making comments about his father (justified or not) probably will not help the situation and would more than likely escalate what tensions there may be because of this fiasco.

Which is why I've pretty much kept quiet. I think FatherK does deserve to be criticized on the things he has said in the note. He likely is in denial or oblivious to his wrong-doings in the past, against GoodK. I'm sure given his note, he justifies them if he acknowledges them in any way. But if there is a God the God will be angry with him, not GoodK. And quite frankly I'm not concerned Beastie that your imagination might conjure up something extremely terrible if you don't know the details. It was quite okay for his father to leave GoodK's sins to everyone's imagination. As a parent I can not imagine any parent doing anything worse than what GoodK's dad did. So it doesn't bother me that I'm not giving any details.

[_beastie]

Which is why I've pretty much kept quiet. I think FatherK does deserve to be criticized on the things he has said in the note. He likely is in denial or oblivious to his wrong-doings in the past, against GoodK. I'm sure given his note, he justifies them if he acknowledges them in any way. But if there is a God the God will be angry with him, not GoodK. And quite frankly I'm not concerned Beastie that your imagination might conjure up something extremely terrible if you don't know the details. It was quite okay for his father to leave GoodK's sins to everyone's imagination. As a parent I can not imagine any parent doing anything worse than what GoodK's dad did. So it doesn't bother me that I'm not giving any details.

No, it wasn't ok to leave GoodK's sins to the imagination, either, but GoodK explained that, anyway. Knowing Mormons, it wasn't hard to figure out what GoodK's father meant. Given GoodK's own comments, it isn't difficult to figure out some of FatherK's own wrong-doings, too. But I hope I didn't imply it was ok for GoodK's father to do it, either. I thought I responded to him vigorously.

I agree with the main gist of your post. I just really dislike it when people say "I know something horrible about this person but can't tell you the details". It really isn't fair to that person.

[_Gadianton]

He likely is in denial or oblivious to his wrong-doings in the past,

He's gone. There is no way he has the slightest grip on his own shortcomings. I agree with Moniker, sort of, and I feel bad for my fellow student of Leykis, GoodK, but FatherK's apparent affiliation with apologetics can't go without comment. I hope I'm wrong, and that the overbearing confidence of Fk is just a coping mechanism to mask his hurt over his son's decisions. But I kind of know how the apologetic mind works, it takes the weaknesses that became strengths, and turns them back into weaknesses an order of magnitude beyond what they originally were.

So I'll be shocked if Fk ever gives an inch. I hope he does, and that I'm wrong.

[_marg]

He likely is in denial or oblivious to his wrong-doings in the past,

He's gone. There is no way he has the slightest grip on his own shortcomings.

I agree. I don't think he can be reasoned with. As far as his (the father's) past actions they are done and overwith, what's done is done and GoodK is now an adult such that the father no longer has control over him in that way. But the father is not Mr Innocent. And in my books he's not nor was he a loving caring dad, he was more a strict rather heartless controlling provider..that was partially due to his extreme ignorance of what he calls "worldly" things. I'm sure GoodK loves him just the same. As one can see, the dad is quite willing to take sides with others outside the family. And obviously the dad is set in his ways, extremely negatively judgemental against those who don't live up to the ideals he has in his own mind.

So I'll be shocked if Fk ever gives an inch. I hope he does, and that I'm wrong.

I'm certain the dad won't give an inch. But if per chance he should read this, and I don't think he will but if he should, he owes GoodK big time. He owes him all the help he can give him to help him succeed in life. Unfortunately with his mind set, in my opinion, he wants GoodK to fail. Because that would show or be proof that GoodK should live according to his strict ideals and of course repent (his word) and become Mormon.