Why I am not a Mormon

[_harmony]

My conversation with you over the past few pages has been somewhat exasperating, as you seemed less interested in understanding what I was saying than in rebutting what you thought I had said.

Your words, Daniel. I didn't interpret nor apply any unintended or intended implication. Now if you're retracting them, I'll accept that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You wrote them, Daniel.

I did. No question about that. And they were clear enough. Several here seem to have understood them just fine.

You might want to work on your clarity.

That's always good to do. But there was nothing unclear in what I wrote.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your words, Daniel. I didn't interpret nor apply any unintended or intended implication. Now if you're retracting them, I'll accept that.

I'm not.

[_Gadianton]

Mock me, you pompous fool.

Where do you think the kid got his arrogance from? I'm thinking his mom?

; )

[_harmony]

You wrote them, Daniel.

I did. No question about that. And they were clear enough. Several here seem to have understood them just fine.

You might want to work on your clarity.

That's always good to do. But there was nothing unclear in what I wrote.

Well, you made me laugh. It took all day, but you finally accomplished it.

I'm off to shower and watch some baseball. You have a good trip.

[_Gadianton]

I gained nothing

Thank you! This clearly answers the question I posed. The fact that Fatherk assured you that you made the right decision by appealing to his own authority as a college level ethics teacher did not bolster your belief that you did the right thing at all.

[_Jersey Girl]

Well, I'm going to say the unpopular thing here but since that's never stopped me before, here goes.

If anyone on this thread or on this board were at all self honest, they would admit that Daniel Peterson is subjected to ad hom attack on this board and slippery innuendo and accusations on the part of Mister Scratch on a fairly regular basis and who appears to salivate at any tidbit he can work up into a frenetic tabloid rendering.

I've been reading this thread since it began and the thread itself has become entirely toxic. I am more than confident that I'm not the only person who thinks that is so.

By all means, don't let that stop you from attacking a symbol of the very same authority that many of you claim has no relevance to your life and remaining silent when the bottom feeder known as Scratch spins his digusting little webs.

There is no courage in that.

[_harmony]

By all means, don't let that stop you from attacking a symbol of the very same authority that many of you claim has no relevance to your life and remaining silent when the bottom feeder known as Scratch spins his digusting little webs.

There is no courage in that.

Daniel is a symbol of the church's authority? He says he makes no such claim.

The only authority I allow to have relevance in my life is my bishop, and even then his authority is limited. Daniel has no authority whatsoever. Attacking him? Only after he repeatedly attacked me. I was the soul of discretion and mildness, which for me is quite an accomplishment!

[_Ray A]

Forthcoming:

Daniel C. Peterson, Offenders For A Word: Why I Now Believe Ed Decker is a Good Guy

[_guy sajer]

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.

As I find your obstinate unwillingness to reflect critically on your beliefs and actions to be equally unbelievable (well, believable, actually, as I've met many just like you over the years).

And this from the person who is now whining about being subjected to personal attacks?

I call them as I see them Dan, and I am hardly making my conclusions sight unseen. You have left voluminous indications of your thoughts on the internet, enough, were they to be accumulated, to fill books. Were someone writing a posthumous biography of you, they would have substantial source material from the internet alone, as much or more than others have who write lengthy biographies and who draw inferences about the person's beliefs and mental activity from the records at hand. (News flash, Dan, the term 'all over the internet' was not intended as a literal statement.)

I don't claim to be the great moral thinker you think I think I am. I do, however, claim to have a broader understanding of human experience than you, not because I'm smarter than you, but because I am not constrained in my understanding by a narrow intellectual framework that requires me to interpret what I observe through a pre-determined, limited lense.

I stand by my conclusions.

But I'm willing to reconsider them if anyone can produce in one or more of Dan's thousands upon thousands of internet postings evidence of a willingness to critically reflect on his beliefs.

As to whether I'm willing to engage in critical self-reflection, the fact that I have done precisely that, and in the process completely changed how I view the world, religion, God, etc. is one big data point.

So tell us Dan, what are the great moral issues your mind turns over and what evidence can you offer that you are willing to subject your beliefs to serious, critical self-reflection?

As for being a buffoon or gasbag, I tend to disagree. I'm content to let others judge for themselves, however.