Why I am not a Mormon

[_rcrocket]

Your point eludes me.

Or maybe it doesn't; pomposity becomes sophistry --- now let's argue accessibility of the brethren to counter the notion that the New Testament apostles weren't intended to meet the masses, which argument was offered to counter the notion that apostles are not accessible.

[_Runtu]

I have met Boyd K. Packer and Thomas S. Monson. I assure you all that I am one of the unwashed masses.

Oddly enough, so have I, and I'm one of the unwashed as well.

[_Trevor]

Your point eludes me.

Or maybe it doesn't; pomposity becomes sophistry --- now let's argue accessibility of the brethren to counter the notion that the New Testament apostles weren't intended to meet the masses, which argument was offered to counter the notion that apostles are not accessible.

Your response confuses me. I was simply adding my witness against the contention that the Brethren are so inaccessible, that I, being a nobody, managed to meet two of them. So what's the venom about?

Or maybe you are responding to someone else. I'll take it as that. My apologies.

[_Ray A]

I think that as the Church has grown larger access to the GAs has diminished. That's just the fact of worldwide growth. I listened to Apostle Monson speak in a chapel in South Sydney in 1975, for several hours non-stop, then we all later lined up and shook his hand. I listened to Gordon B. Hinckley speak in a chapel in Adelaide in 1976, again for several hours, and he mingled and talked with the missionaries after. Elder Tingey was of course the Sydney Mission President in 1975, and I've met and talked with him several times. Loren Dunn was the president after Tingey, and he once pulled me out of a congregation to bear testimony in a stake conference. The only living president of the Church I met was Spencer W. Kimball, at the Sydney Opera House, but didn't shake his hand, I was too scared, and thought he might see the devil in my eyes and predict my future apostasy.

[_guy sajer]

I see GoodK as becoming increasingly angry now, though -- and not only toward me but toward his father -- and that concerns me. I'm afraid that he now feels that he has to dig in his heels and harden his stance, and I regret that.

Do you live under a rock? Never associate with human beings?

For heaven's sake - what did you or GoodK's father expect???

GoodK's father's letter basically said that GoodK left the church because he's young (implied lacking experience and judgment) and a sinner who loves the world more than The Lord.

Again, what the heck did you expect??????

On this very thread, you stated that a friendship would be changed and challenged if a friend left the church. In other words - this type of thing makes relationships more fragile.

Again, what the heck did you expect?????

This is exactly why so many of us have stated that your choice to tattle to GoodK's father, from the beginning, was a very poor and risky choice.

Here's the problem - Mormons tend to be so self-absorbed, so egocentric, so imbued with a sense of entitlement, that neither you nor GoodK's father apparently had the slightest clue how is letter would sound, and what effect it would have.

You have THE TRUTH. Not only do you KNOW - with a sure knowledge - that GOD exists, and Joseph Smith was his prophet, and God will not be mocked! that you can't see beyond the tips of your own noses.

I've finally been following this thread, and Wow! For what it's worth, here's some of my thoughts:

1. It was inappropriate for Dan to meddle in the affairs of goodk and his family. It boggles my mind that Dan could not reasonably anticipate the outcome of his action, including its very real real possibility of creating a schism between goodk and his father. I agree with Dan in that what he did is not unethical, per se, but it was definitely ill-thought-out and inappropriate. Just because something is 'ethical,' doesn't mean it is the appropriate course of action. Surely Dan understands this. I can only hope that as a Bishop, Dan is not so tempted to meddle where he does not belong.

2. Goodk father's response posted in this forum was similarly ill-thought-out, offensive, patronizing, and inappropriate. I too am bothered that he would choose to make public cause with someone who is, in essence, impugning his son. He desperately needs to grow up and get a life outside of Mormonism, or at least make an effort to be a teeny tiny bit empathetic. His assumption that goodk really deep down knows it's all true, is acting out some kind of youthful folly, and will come running back to the Mormon Church is naïve in the extreme and totally out of touch with what actually happens in the world outside his narrow Mormon cloister. (I actually used to think just like this.) Just where does he teach college? He appears not to have gained much in world wisdom from his degrees. I wonder, are the rest of the .999% of humanity who also reject Mormonism foolish, wanna-be sinners like goodk?

3. Goodk's response to his father was, if at all possible, even worse than his father's original retort. I squirmed uncomfortably reading it. I am embarrassed for goodk that he so brazenly mocked his father as as he did in public. I think that another of a string of inappropriate and ill-thought-out actions in this whole sorry mess. (And congratulations Dan, this is the not unreasonably predictable outcome of your original decision to tattle on goodk. This IS a direct result of your poor decision. You set the chain of events in motion. Yet I get absolutely no sense from you that you feel you did anything inappropriate (not unethical but inappropriate) or ill-advised. In light of overwhelming evidence that what you did was ill-advised, your unwillingness to accept any responsibility for this fiasco IS ethically problematic. Some advice, next time, just butt the hell out.

[_GoodK]

3. Goodk's response to his father was, if at all possible, even worse than his father's original retort. I squirmed uncomfortably reading it. I am embarrassed for goodk that he so brazenly mocked his father as as he did in public. I think that another of a string of inappropriate and ill-thought-out actions in this whole sorry mess. (And congratulations Dan, this is the not unreasonably predictable outcome of your original decision to tattle on goodk. This IS a direct result of your poor decision. You set the chain of events in motion. Yet I get absolutely no sense from you that you feel you did anything inappropriate (not unethical but inappropriate) or ill-advised. In light of overwhelming evidence that what you did was ill-advised, your unwillingness to accept any responsibility for this fiasco IS ethically problematic. Some advice, next time, just butt the hell out.

I don't really feel good about that post, but I don't think I would have felt good not responding to it either.

He implied a lot of things that I couldn't let go unanswered. He patronized and belittled me at the drop of a hat, per Dan's request.

I think it was a power move more than anything. It feels like he wanted to show me who was on who's side. Unfortunately, I knew the answer long before I started posting here. And hardly care.

[_Trevor]

Unfortunately, I knew the answer long before I started posting here. And hardly care.

Sorry about that, GoodK. That is heartbreaking.

[_rcrocket]

Suppose that you had a very good friend who had a son and a daughter. He loves them both very much.

Your friend's daughter is dying.

He appeals to his friends by email for spiritual support, fasting and prayers. All the friends he has. All whom could help him emotionally, spiritually and socially.

The son was one included on the email distribution because he was considered essential to the family's plight.

The son reposts the private post on a public board, along with mocking and denigrating statements about the father and the sibling's situation. In particular, a mockery is made of religious beliefs -- often the last refuge of emotional support for the family of the dying.

You wouldn't say anything to the now-mocked, embarrassed and publicly humiliated father, whose private email was made public along with mocking commentary?

[_guy sajer]

3. Goodk's response to his father was, if at all possible, even worse than his father's original retort. I squirmed uncomfortably reading it. I am embarrassed for goodk that he so brazenly mocked his father as as he did in public. I think that another of a string of inappropriate and ill-thought-out actions in this whole sorry mess. (And congratulations Dan, this is the not unreasonably predictable outcome of your original decision to tattle on goodk. This IS a direct result of your poor decision. You set the chain of events in motion. Yet I get absolutely no sense from you that you feel you did anything inappropriate (not unethical but inappropriate) or ill-advised. In light of overwhelming evidence that what you did was ill-advised, your unwillingness to accept any responsibility for this fiasco IS ethically problematic. Some advice, next time, just butt the hell out.

I don't really feel good about that post, but I don't think I would have felt good not responding to it either.

He implied a lot of things that I couldn't let go unanswered. He patronized and belittled me at the drop of a hat, per Dan's request.

I think it was a power move more than anything. It feels like he wanted to show me who was on who's side. Unfortunately, I knew the answer long before I started posting here. And hardly care.

In my experience, NOT responding is often the best course of action. Just as I criticize Dan for him imprudent decision that started this whole mess, I would criticize you for continuing to fan the fire and make things between you and your dad even worse than they are. Somebody has to take the noble course of action and call it off, or even (gasp) apologize.

Being right is not always worth the price, especially when our relationships with loved ones is at stake. (Few things pain me more than a child-parental rift. I couldn't imagine a rift either between my parents or between my children. Either would just eat me up inside.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

This IS a direct result of your poor decision.

No it's not.

GoodK has told me that he wasn't even angry with me at the beginning of this thread. Yet Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle 1 was sent back in March. This thread has followed its own dynamic, quite distinct from what I did nearly four months ago.

I get absolutely no sense from you that you feel you did anything inappropriate (not unethical but inappropriate) or ill-advised.

You're right. I don't.

GoodK and his father seem to have gotten along just fine from March until this thread in July, and I trust that they still get along. I didn't think that Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistle 1 would seriously impact their relationship, and it apparently hasn't.

He patronized and belittled me at the drop of a hat, per Dan's request.

I neither requested his letter nor dictated its contents. I first heard of it when he sent it to me.