Why I am not a Mormon

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why go to all of that trouble, when you can have more fun making joke threats against his life here?

Oh my. I think this is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, an embarrassing debacle, a stunning revelation, and so forth. "Peterson threatens to murder Scratch!"

Actually, I simply had an image in my mind of him hopping on his little goat hoofs down the street, to the tune of bulllets from an AK-47 ricocheting off the asphalt under them. ("Dance, pardner!") Nothing quite so bloody as you suggest.

[_harmony]

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.

Interesting that Daniel needs to have you interpret his remarks for me.

Yes, I'm talking access. From his remarks, I thought that's what Daniel meant. Had he explained using your viewpoint, I'd have conceded immediately.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're simply not being reasonable, Harmony.

When I said that the Brethren are approachable, the adjective reasonably was implicit. I never said that they can always be approached. And I certainly didn't intend to say, and never imagined that anybody would imagine that I had said, that they're completely open to the public and available for a chat at any and all times, even when they're sick, sleeping, grievously ill, dying, or urgently trying to catch a plane.

Nobody is "accessible" in that sense, and it would be unfair and unreasonable to expect such accessibility.

[_beastie]

Suppose that you have an atheist friend who has a little sister dying in the hospital.

You are copied on an email, trumpeting the powers of the priesthood and the Mormon faith.

You come across your atheist friend's post on an internet forum, with parts of that letter and his expressions of frustration at the situation and email.

Now let's say that before you jump to conclusions, you contact your atheist friend for a few more details.

You later find out that his family (immediate and extended) is very Mormon and literally shuns him for the most part.

During this ordeal, he has largely been out of the loop in regards to his sister's progress and he only finds out details of his sisters condition third hand via his uncle in Seattle (who happens to not be a Mormon).

Finally, a week after he decides to just drive to Provo to go see her (still laying in ICU), he gets an email from his extremely Mormon father trumpeting the powers of the priesthood and highlighting references to the "laying on of hands" in the Old Testament. This is the first news your friend has heard about his sister from his parents.

In light of the details you gained by contacting your atheist friend, would you still be so quick to judge that friend's decision to vent his frustrations (anonymously) and drag things from cyberspace into real life?

This is tragic and sadly not uncommon. You would think that an individual who recognizes how fragile relationships can become once one party leaves the church would think twice about complicating it even more.


by the way, I have theory as to why Dr. P will not admit that perhaps he was wrong in this action - he probably prayed about it and the HG told him what to do, so to admit doubt about it, in retrospect, may be the equivalent of doubting the HG. I'm serious.

[_harmony]

You're simply not being reasonable, Harmony.

When I said that the Brethren are approachable, the adjective reasonably was implicit. I never said that they can always be approached. And I certainly didn't intend to say, and never imagined that anybody would imagine that I had said, that they're completely open to the public and available for a chat at any and all times, even when they're sick, sleeping, grievously ill, dying, or urgently trying to catch a plane.

Nobody is "accessible" in that sense, and it would be unfair and unreasonable to expect such accessibility.

I took you at your word and explained why I didn't agree with what you wrote. I can't be held responsible for your lack of clarity.

Maybe you need to employ EA to interpret for you. He evidently understood you differently than I did.

[_harmony]

by the way, I have theory as to why Dr. P will not admit that perhaps he was wrong in this action - he probably prayed about it and the HG told him what to do, so to admit doubt about it, in retrospect, may be the equivalent of doubting the HG. I'm serious.

Well, that's a better explanation than his ego is too big to admit when he's meddled in something not his business. It's not a good explanation, but at least it's better than overblown ego running amuck.

[_EAllusion]

You're simply not being reasonable, Harmony.

When I said that the Brethren are approachable, the adjective reasonably was implicit. I never said that they can always be approached. And I certainly didn't intend to say, and never imagined that anybody would imagine that I had said, that they're completely open to the public and available for a chat at any and all times, even when they're sick, sleeping, grievously ill, dying, or urgently trying to catch a plane.

Nobody is "accessible" in that sense, and it would be unfair and unreasonable to expect such accessibility.

I took you at your word and explained why I didn't agree with what you wrote. I can't be held responsible for your lack of clarity.

Maybe you need to employ EA to interpret for you. He evidently understood you differently than I did.

When I hear someone described as down-to-earth and approachable, I think that is in reference to their character - as in opposite of aloof. I don't immediately think the word approachable is expressing they are easy to get a hold of. DCP's isn't saying my interpretation is correct, but that's what I consider the most plausible reading of the quoted line. Maybe it reads differently in greater context.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

I'm supposed to take your word for it that you can and do change your mind and are open to correction. I've said that I am, too, but, for some reason, my assurance is not acceptable.

Curious, that.

Your thoughts occur in your mind, to be sure, but they also appear in voluminous quantity all over the internet.

On the board formerly known as FAIR and, in occasional bursts, here. All over the internet, in other words.

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.

You delude yourself. By far the largest part of my mental life, even regarding Mormonism, remains unexpressed on message boards.

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.

I've never asserted that I'm "always right."

And I hope you'll pardon me, but, if you're going to presume to lecture me, sight unseen, on my ethical shallowness, I'm just going to have to indicate that I regard you as an arrogant and presumptuous jackass.

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.

And a complacent fool.

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.

And a self-inflated gasbag.

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.

I'm not inclined to genuflect before your broader intellectual horizons, your superior learning, your profound wisdom, your greatness as a moral thinker, or your remarkable insight into the human experience.

I hadn't fully realized, until this post, what an utter buffoon you were. Unbelievable.

[_harmony]

I hadn't fully realized, until this post, what an utter buffoon you were. Unbelievable.

Goodness, Guy. He's reduced to calling you names. I think you can make bank on this one.

[_Daniel Peterson]

by the way, I have theory as to why Dr. P will not admit that perhaps he was wrong in this action - he probably prayed about it and the HG told him what to do, so to admit doubt about it, in retrospect, may be the equivalent of doubting the HG. I'm serious.

But wrong.

I took you at your word and explained why I didn't agree with what you wrote. I can't be held responsible for your lack of clarity.

Silliness.

I can't imagine that anyone, saying that someone is "accessible," means that anybody and everybody has free and unfettered access to him at every hour of the day and night regardless of his medical condition or schedule.

Well, that's a better explanation than his ego is too big to admit when he's meddled in something not his business. It's not a good explanation, but at least it's better than overblown ego running amuck.

I guess it's back to personal attacks on Peterson.

Many of you folks are genuinely pathetic. You appear incapable of carrying on a civil conversation with me, without attacks on my character and personality.