Why I am not a Mormon

[_Trevor]

He may be hiding in the bushes outside my house.

Does that thought excite you?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Does that thought excite you?

It makes me wish that my assault rifle weren't in my neighbor's gun safe.

Do you realize that the barrel of that gun actually begins almost to glow when I fire a few rounds?

[_Trevor]

Does that thought excite you?

It makes me wish that my assault rifle weren't in my neighbor's gun safe.

Do you realize that the barrel of that gun actually begins almost to glow when I fire a few rounds?

I'll take that as a big "yes."

Scratch couldn't have hoped for a better response from you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'll take that as a big "yes."

And I'll assume that you're joking.

Scratch couldn't have hoped for a better response from you.

Absolutely everything I say is grist for Scratch's mill, a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, an embarrassing debacle, etc., etc., and so forth.

If I tried to steer my life in order to avoid generating material for Scratch's exposés and creepy "dossiers," my only hope would be to change my name and retire to the Australian outback. Which would itself provide him fodder for years to come. Mit anderen Worten, it would be futile to try. (The German there is for Chap and Marg, who may be feeling left out.)

[_harmony]

My only objection was the generalization that all the leaders are always approachable.

A generalization that I've never made.

Oh, balderdash. Of course you have. Back on Page 18 to be exact:

In my experience with the leaders of the Church -- I know all of the members of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, and many of the Seventy -- they are very down-to-earth and approachable.

That's a generalization, Daniel. Not only did you not say they are occasionally approachable, you said they're approachable period, with no caveat for age, illness, or schedule.

{We haven't even gotten to "very down to earth" yet. I'm sure that will be good for another 7 or 8 pages.}

My point is that the Brethren are generally reasonably accessible, and that they're out there meeting members virtually every week of the year, all across the United States and around the world, almost always without security escort.

That's not what you originally said, Daniel. See your above quote.There was no "reasonable", no "generally". It was "they are approachable", period. And my point has always been: no, they aren't.

[_Trevor]

And I'll assume that you're joking.

Sure. After all, I assumed you were.

Absolutely everything I say is grist for Scratch's mill, a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, an embarrassing debacle, etc., etc., and so forth.

Yes, surely he gives you far too much credit. But then, when the biggest news in Mormon apologetics tends to be the latest way to make the Book of Mormon disappear in limited geographies or how to obfuscate Book of Abraham origins into oblivion, one should almost be thankful that someone can make it seem a little interesting at least!

If I tried to steer my life in order to avoid generating material for Scratch's exposés and creepy "dossiers," my only hope would be to change my name and retire to the Australian outback.

Why go to all of that trouble, when you can have more fun making joke threats against his life here? Seems to me Scratch has become quite an entertaining diversion for you. And why not?

[_Yong Xi]

I'll take that as a big "yes."

And I'll assume that you're joking.

Scratch couldn't have hoped for a better response from you.

Absolutely everything I say is grist for Scratch's mill, a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, an embarrassing debacle, etc., etc., and so forth.

If I tried to steer my life in order to avoid generating material for Scratch's exposés and creepy "dossiers," my only hope would be to change my name and retire to the Australian outback. Which would itself provide him fodder for years to come. Mit anderen Worten, it would be futile to try. (The German there is for Chap and Marg, who may be feeling left out.)

Daniel,

Of course, you know you could make Scratch go away. You enjoy this too much for that to happen, however. You created Scratch. He has tapped into the part(s) of you that you are oblivious to (nothing personal, we all have them).

[_guy sajer]

Ok, I'm game. Show me a post you made where you do indicate an open-mindedness to, at least consider, that you might not have made the most prudent decision, or where you concede the reasonableness of the contrary point of view, even if you don't agree with it.

My thoughts occur in my mind, not necessarily on this board.

With thousands upon thousands of posts to your name, Dan, we have more than enough data points to draw informed inferences about your (on-line) character. There is precious little to suggest there that critical self reflection is one of your strong suites.

My thoughts occur in my mind. Some of my conclusions are posted to this board once in a while.

Nor is it one of your character traits to give ground in arguments or grant concessions to your debating opponents.

I tend to think I'm right.

If, by contrast, you tend to think that you're wrong, we can agree on that.

I think this falls comfortably within the boundaries of the definition of obstinacy as defined here: "stubbornness: resolute adherence to your own ideas or desires"

I think, rather, that you're using obstinate in the sense defined by Ambrose Bierce: "OBSTINATE, adj. Inaccessible to the truth as it is manifest in the splendor and stress of our advocacy."

I'm confident in my assessment, based on the evidence at hand. Give me more evidence, and I'm happy to reassess.

I'm not even slightly interested in contesting the question with you of whether I have an internal mental life and engage in ethical reflection.

Well, Dan, everyone tends to think that they're right. I am not familiar with anyone who holds opinions that they know to be wrong.

So what's your point?

Not everyone, however, obstinately refuses to consider the possibility that they're wrong. You do not appear to be one of them, however.

I don't think I'm wrong, but I do often come to the conclusion that I'm wrong, and when I do, I change my mind. Unlike you, it appears, I don't see willingness to accept the possibility that I'm wrong as some kind of character defect.

Your thoughts occur in your mind, to be sure, but they also appear in voluminous quantity all over the internet. I think that we have a good gauge of what thoughts, or what kind of thoughts, go on in your mind, at least relevant to topics related to Mormonism and the like.

I have no doubt that you have an internal mental life and engage in ethical reflection, but since, as you assert, you are 'always right,' I have a hard time seeing that this ethical reflection has much depth to it. In my experience, real learning and wisdom come from seeing the world from other points of view and making a good faith effort to understand them. Activities in which I see no evidence that you engage.

You produce the appearance of depth by virtue of a wordy vocabulary, knowledge of esoterica, inveterate name dropping, and frequent bragging about your wonderful work and many travels, but your thousands upon thousands upon thousands of posts do not reflect a real depth of understanding of the human experience. You are, in other words, a prisoner of the narrow mental constructs you have created for yourself (or allowed to be created for you), despite the appearance of worldliness you try so hard to cultivate.

Oh, and I mean obstinacy in the sense I proposed it originally: "stubbornness: resolute adherence to your own ideas or desires." I find this to be a far more accurate description than the one you propose.

[Guest]

Harmony - What DCP meant is they have an approachable disposition. We often call people like that easy to talk to. It's important that therapists are approachable, for instance.

What you mean by approachable is easy to access. It's possible that to be approachable in the former sense while not being in the latter sense. Take Barak Obama. He seems approachable enough, but good luck getting access.

But, for what it is worth, GoodK also seemed to be talking about access. I don't think it is his strongest point.

[_guy sajer]

Clearly you thought to gain something not you personally, perhaps, but you clearly anticipated some kind of outcome of your action.

Or did you not consider the possible outcome?

I did.

Perhaps you were driven by some categorical imperative to meddle?

I was not.

If you did not anticipate some kind of outcome of your action, how does this qualify as a prudent decision?

I did anticipate an outcome, so your question is moot.

So what positive outcome did you anticipate?

I anticipated a modest enhancement of the father's understanding of where is son was coming from and what his son was thinking.

I tend to regard knowledge as a good thing.

How do the resulting events square with your expectations?

Quite well, although I had not anticipated the hysterical and over-the-top indignation that would take possession of some of the denizens of this board, and certainly never anticipated that it would lead, for example, to obscene posting about my wife.

Was the gain created by your action enough to compensate for the rift it has created, or worsened, between goodk and his father?

The relationship between GoodK and his father seems to have continued pretty much unchanged, so far as I can tell.

Incidentally, I simply sent a link to GoodK's father, who then decided, on his own initiative, to raise the issue with GoodK.

Ok, thanks for the reply.