Why I am not a Mormon

[_GoodK]

It's clear you understand Goodk. But then I'm not surprised--I've always found you to be very insightful and a good judge of character.

LOL. Get a room you two.

[_Dr. Shades]

For what it's worth, I've learned through sad experience that it's never good to "go public" with family issues, and I think GoodK's initial posting demonstrates that quite well. I wouldn't have done what he did, nor would I have done what Dr. Peterson did.

Keep in mind that GoodK never posted anyone's names, so I strongly believe that, for him, it merely counted as "venting" and not "going public."

[_GoodK]

I know that the original post and theme of this thread has quickly become about something else, but lets review what I said originally and what has become more clear a 8 days later:

Even BYU professors, who take interest in the personal identity behind the moniker GoodK, don't seem to care why I am not a Mormon. They seem content with knowing I am an "atheist" and commenting accordingly, as if that were good enough of an explanation, in their favor.

Anyone who denies that this has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt here is simply, as DCP would say, a gasbag.

1. Christianity. It can't be true. The Bible, and the existence of God, is easily the biggest reason why I am not a Mormon.

Richard and I have begun a thread on this in the Celestial Forum.

2. Joseph Smith Jr was not a saint. Even if he was never "convicted" of fraud in the money digging trial, even if he "didn't consummate" the marriages to his other wives, even if he didn't intentionally defraud those who had money invested in his bank, he was not the saint that the church portrays him to be.

The reason why this is number 2 on my list is not because of the issues nearly as much as it is about how the church responds.

For instance, in 1st Nephi 12:18 Nephi mistakenly refers to "Jesus Christ" a generation before he would have known him by that name, contradicting 2 Nephi 10:3. Instead of the Church officially explaining this the way Royal Skousen has, someone edited it to read "Messiah" and all is forgiven.

The church has clearly swept the embarrassing parts of his life under the rug, and have cleverly commanded their members to avoid the anti-Mormon in a very Village-esque way.

Not only does 1st Nephi 12:18 indicate that the church is willing to change the Book of Mormon without telling its members, not only does it indicate that those in charge of changing the Book of Mormon knew that Joseph Smith Jr. had made a mistake, it also indicates that number 5 on my list is valid.

If Mormon's accept Royal Skousen's explanation for this change, then the Book of Mormon was not translated in any literal sense of the word translation.

Ignoring any wishy-washy explanation from Skousen or those apologists who attempt to explain this away, the church's decision to change the
word in the text is highly suspect.

No one here touched this.

The sad thing is members don't even care if the church changed the text of the Book of Mormon without telling them.

The church lets "anti-Mormon" literature explain the changes, so the super gullible, naïve chapel Mormon's who avoid "anti-Mormon" literature like the plague never hear about it.

Those that do hear about it can reduce it to being anti-Mormon literature, and that is that.

The .03% of members that are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the change to 1st Nephi 12:18 couldn't care less that the church changed it and would accept any explanation by any FARMS boy.

3. The Church omits details and tries to implicate those that bring unflattering information forward as dishonest, vindictive, "anti", or otherwise worthy of contempt.

Any objections? Didn't think so.

4. The church wants money. Lot's of it. Why? We don't know. They won't disclose their finances.

They build absurdly expensive temples and conference centers. They also pay their leaders. Why won't they tell anyone how much this compensation (or "stipend", or "living expenses", or any other less offensive term that Mormon's like to use instead of "salary") is? Any one else find that a little suspect? A little Benny Hinn-ish?

5.The Book of Mormon is not a translation of an ancient text. Neither is the Book of Abraham.

[Cartman voice]Clearly.[/Cartman voice]

6. The prophet of the church seems more interested in meeting with politicians than communicating with the lowly members of his church.
He actually had the audacity to issue a letter, urging members to refrain from sending in letters that pose doctrinal questions!
His counsel is consistently under-whelming (don't gamble, don't look at porn, don't borrow more than you can pay back, lobby to keep gays from marrying...) yet he is out of reach to the average member of the church who would like nothing more than to shake hands with the prophet.

Last but not least, I understand that President Monson is a busy man. Heading a massive corporation/religion must be busy work (although I have met the president of Countrywide, who is probably busier).

I am simply not naïve enough to believe that I would ever have a chance of meeting him and talking to him. Dan's experiences meeting General Authorities in Utah wards has harldy given me cause to question my position. Neither have Jason's letters.

But if you follow the order of things, after number 1 on my list, Monson's celebrity status hardly makes the case for or against Mormonism's truth claims.

[_Runtu]

For what it's worth, I've learned through sad experience that it's never good to "go public" with family issues, and I think GoodK's initial posting demonstrates that quite well. I wouldn't have done what he did, nor would I have done what Dr. Peterson did.

Keep in mind that GoodK never posted anyone's names, so I strongly believe that, for him, it merely counted as "venting" and not "going public."

Yeah, I thought about that. But, as GoodK mentioned, the email was sent to over 100 people, so it should have been easy to determine that someone would connect the dots. That's what I meant about predicting possible outcomes. He may have been venting, but he also should have expected that his venting would eventually get back to his father.

[_GoodK]

For what it's worth, I've learned through sad experience that it's never good to "go public" with family issues, and I think GoodK's initial posting demonstrates that quite well. I wouldn't have done what he did, nor would I have done what Dr. Peterson did.

Keep in mind that GoodK never posted anyone's names, so I strongly believe that, for him, it merely counted as "venting" and not "going public."

Yeah, I thought about that. But, as GoodK mentioned, the email was sent to over 100 people, so it should have been easy to determine that someone would connect the dots. That's what I meant about predicting possible outcomes. He may have been venting, but he also should have expected that his venting would eventually get back to his father.

I imagined that many people would connect the dots. Certainly Bob Crockett and Dan Peterson.

What I naïvely assumed was that they would respect the anonymity of the post, not do the exact opposite.

I assumed they would understand why I was posting a portion of the letter anonymously.

[_Runtu]

I imagined that many people would connect the dots. Certainly Bob Crockett and Dan Peterson.

What I naïvely assumed was that they would respect the anonymity of the post, not do the exact opposite.

I assumed they would understand why I was posting a portion of the letter anonymously.

I've learned never to assume that other people will do what I expect them to do.

I've said my piece here, and I won't be commenting again. I am sorry that things have been so acrimonious between you and your father. I hope you two can get past this rather rough patch.

[_GoodK]

I hope you two can get past this rather rough patch.

Me and my Dad are fine. Despite popular belief, I would not post things here if I thought they would ruin our relationship.

[_rcrocket]

For what it's worth, I've learned through sad experience that it's never good to "go public" with family issues, and I think GoodK's initial posting demonstrates that quite well. I wouldn't have done what he did, nor would I have done what Dr. Peterson did.

Keep in mind that GoodK never posted anyone's names, so I strongly believe that, for him, it merely counted as "venting" and not "going public."

Yeah, I thought about that. But, as GoodK mentioned, the email was sent to over 100 people, so it should have been easy to determine that someone would connect the dots. That's what I meant about predicting possible outcomes. He may have been venting, but he also should have expected that his venting would eventually get back to his father.

And if your ultimate conclusion is true, then it would stand to reason that GoodK's closest friends who did connect the dots would be the most likely to discuss it with the father. Wouldn't you, if you were in my position?

[_GoodK]

For what it's worth, I've learned through sad experience that it's never good to "go public" with family issues, and I think GoodK's initial posting demonstrates that quite well. I wouldn't have done what he did, nor would I have done what Dr. Peterson did.

Keep in mind that GoodK never posted anyone's names, so I strongly believe that, for him, it merely counted as "venting" and not "going public."

Yeah, I thought about that. But, as GoodK mentioned, the email was sent to over 100 people, so it should have been easy to determine that someone would connect the dots. That's what I meant about predicting possible outcomes. He may have been venting, but he also should have expected that his venting would eventually get back to his father.

And if your ultimate conclusion is true, then it would stand to reason that GoodK's closest friends who did connect the dots would be the most likely to discuss it with the father. Wouldn't you, if you were in my position?

I would have discussed it with GoodK if I were in your position.

[_Runtu]

And if your ultimate conclusion is true, then it would stand to reason that GoodK's closest friends who did connect the dots would be the most likely to discuss it with the father. Wouldn't you, if you were in my position?

No, I wouldn't, and I've explained why.