Why I am not a Mormon

[_harmony]

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.

What this whole thread comes down to (including all the parts about #5) is respect. And there's precious little on this thread that demonstrates that any of the players in this discussion have respect for the other. GoodK's initial post regarding the infamous email was disrespectful to his father (stepfather?). Daniel's actions were disrespectful to GoodK. FatherK's response was disrespectful to GoodK. The church is disrespectful to the members on a daily basis (especially regarding #2, #4 and #5). Denying the disrespect doesn't make it go away. Explaining the disrespect also doesn't make it disappear. Finding a way to deal with the disrespect in the real world is the trick. I hope GoodK and FatherK can mend some fences, but those fences were already shredded before this came to light, judging by what was going in GoodK's situation (if his hypothetical was in any way indicative of his real situation) at the time of his sister's illness. FatherK did nothing to repair his relationship with his son in the aftermath, which is infinitely sad, imho. I'm not sure the man can still be taught the basics of the gospel. He and Daniel are in the same box, I fear.

On a related note, I had a discussion with my office manager last week, as I was reading an article in the newspaper at lunchtime. I was grumbling about the article, which was about a bunch of arrests made on the east coast (Boston? New York?) of pimps who pimped out children. The article used the words "runaway" and "throwaway" children. I wasn't familiar "throwaway" and could not imagine what a "throwaway" child was. My office manager gave the example of a young teenager who had told his parents that he was gay. Father said he would never have a gay son, and threw said child out of the house. I looked at him for about 10 seconds, and then said "Not ...in... my... house". He looked at me for a second then patted me on the shoulder, and said "that is why your children worship the ground you walk on."

I think this term, throwaway child, applies to GoodK's situation. Were a child of mine decide to leave the church for whatever reason, they are still my child. They would be greeted with open arms in my house. Lectures and pleadings to return to church would never occur with my permission. Were they to occur outside of my permission, and I would have words with whoever it was had stepped over that line. We would respect the child's decision, and carry on as a family. I refuse to allow my family to be torn apart by anything. Membership in any organization is not required in order to be part of my family. Adherance to an arbitrary set of rules, rules set by someone other than me and my Sweet Pickle, never takes precedence in my house. A son of mine would not write what GoodK wrote because no son of mine would be marginalized to the extent that he felt the need to post such a thing on an internet bulletin board. However, were he to do so for whatever reason and an email from a friend was sent to me to point it out, I would explain to the friend that it was family business and since he wasn't family, it wasn't his business. Were my Sweet Pickle to write something like FatherK wrote, I would be explaining why his position in my life was in jeopardy and what he would immediately be doing to rectify the situation. In my world, there is simply no reason that is significant enough to allow my family to be torn apart.

The church is clear on this: family first. The church itself may not live it; our leaders may not live it; obviously GoodK's family does not live it, but the Pickle family lives it and we've weathered some pretty serious earthquakes because we refuse to put anything in front of "family first".

My Native American friends named me Momma Bear for a reason.

[_beastie]

In regards to the animosity and personal attacks - frankly, the tone of a conversation is just as set by rude comments made about another poster's thoughts as it is by talking about the poster's personality or person. This was one of those ways that ZLMB used to try and control the animosity between LDS and exLDS, by saying you could attack the argument even to the point of insulting ("this is an idiotic idea"), but you couldn't attack "the person" ("you are an idiot"). In reality, however, both tendencies create animosity.

[_guy sajer]

Dan has probably gone off to his conference, but may I add a few thoughts? Dan is defending what he believes, just as you are defending what you believe, or disbelieve. GoodK's actions must be judged on his experiences as an exmo. Dan's actions must be judged on his actions as a believer.

I think that one's religious persuasion is totally irrelevant to the decision of whether to meddle in someone else's affairs. It is also irrelevant to the decision as to whether it is appropriate to display one's dirty family laundry (as it were) on the internet in an anonymous discussion board.

If you were a believer, would you have acted any differently than Dan did?

Absolutely, I don't meddle where I don't belong. Religious affiliation, or non-affiliation has nothing to do with it.

I do suspect, however, that were the tables turned--a Mormon complaining about his atheist parents on an anonymous internet discussion board--that Dan would not have taken the time to meddle. In other words, his behavior was, I believe, motivated to a degree by tribal loyalty and by a desire to expose the heretic, regardless of whatever other noble motivations he claims for himself.

On my part, I simply wouldn't meddle at all. I don't meddle, except in what I might consider an extreme circumstance.

And of course he's going to defend Mormonism to his last breath.

Our debate (in this case at least) had nothing to do with the validity of Mormonism but whether it is appropriate to stick one's nose into other persons' affairs.

Probably because he's had spiritual experiences which he feels he can't deny, no matter how irrational it may sound to the rest of us. He's simply being true to what he feels was revealed to him. Do you expect him to deny this?

Not in the least. I have no doubt that Dan has had experiences that are compelling to him. I have no doubt that Dan is being true to himself, and I would never, ever expect him to deny it.

I would, however, expect him to demonstrate some capacity to think objectively and critically about his beliefs--to subject them to some kind of critical self reflection. I see no evidence whatsoever that Dan does this. Nor do I think that critical self-reflection causes one to reject his/her beliefs. Jason Bourne is a prime example. He is a critically reflective believer, and I respect the hell out of him. He lacks Dan's degrees, but he is a far more honest intellectually.

I'd say that in Dan's "critical evaluation" he strongly considers what he's experienced spiritually, and maybe that's why "intellectual analysis" has little bearing in his overall evaluations. I mean, seriously Guy, did you really expect Dan to react any differently to GoodK's posted email?

Actually, I think Dan sees the internet as a game, a game in which the objective is to 'win.' (Much like I think he sees apologetics, although it is much less a game to him than an ennobling quest, but the objective remains the same, to win.) At some level his spirituality informs what he does here on elsewhere on the internet, but it is totally dominated by his prime imperative to win.

No, I don't expect anything else from him. His behavioral patterns are well established through thousands of posts.

I fully understand GoodK's reasons for posting this, because he felt left out, the "black sheep" of his family seeking comfort in others who might understand. But was it really wise to post this email? I think not. He obviously wanted to subject his father, and "TBM" family to ridicule, which he is no stranger to himself. But he should have taken the higher ground and dealt with this privately, and not subjected his father to open ridicule, because he (his father) believes things he considers weird.

I agree with you 100%. I feel uncomfortable when people air their family's dirty laundry to in public and to strangers. It is one of the many reasons I find Steve Benson to be a prick of the first order, the way in which he mocks and ridicules his family on line and in open public, including his father, who for his faults, is probably a loving father doing the best he can. As I posted in this thread, I found goodk's response to his father to be very unsettling and inappropriate.

Sorry, but I don't believe anyone should "rat" on their family, and GoodK purposely exposed them to ridicule by posting that email.

I can see your point, and I'm not sure I don't agree. His 'sin,' as it were, is mitigated, however, by the fact that few know his identity or that of his father/family. I took it for what it was, an anonymous rant to get something off his chest, less an attempt to publicly denounce his family, though I can see why you find it inappropriate. I think, however, that his father's response was very, very troubling. His father publicly declared his loyalty to the tribe over his loyalty to his son, and he belittled his son to perfect strangers. For all of goodk's bad decisions, his father should have known better.

And who can really judge his father's motivations in posting that email, late as it was. I think this is a man who loves his son, enough to include him, albeit late ( and maybe he was in some sense respecting his son's belief boundaries), and I also think that in the end, notwithstanding religious differences, he will love his son until the day he dies. Would any parent think otherwise?

You are most likely correct. Whatever his motivations, though, it was a very ill-thought-out action and sad display of tribe over family. But, I have no reason to believe that he does not love his son, in fact, I assume he does. I'm betting that both of them are by now feeling a bit embarrassed and sorry over the whole affair.

Thanks Ray for taking the time to point all of this out. I appreciate your spirit of reconciliation.

[_GoodK]

I'm betting that both of them are by now feeling a bit embarrassed and sorry over the whole affair.

Hardly.

[_beastie]

I do suspect, however, that were the tables turned--a Mormon complaining about his atheist parents on an anonymous internet discussion board--that Dan would not have taken the time to meddle. In other words, his behavior was, I believe, motivated to a degree by tribal loyalty and by a desire to expose the heretic, regardless of whatever other noble motivations he claims for himself.

I asked him this very question earlier, and he did say he would likely not contact the family in this scenario, but still thinks it would be ethical behavior to do so.

My response is that he would not do so under this scenario because sharing religious affiliation with the complaining individual makes it easier for DCP to feel compassion and empathy for the complainer, and be willing to judge them less harshly.

It is very obvious that tribal loyalties have a great deal to do with this issue. I also think that LDS often have problems respecting the personal boundaries of their adult children.

[_guy sajer]

I'm betting that both of them are by now feeling a bit embarrassed and sorry over the whole affair.

Hardly.

Good thing I didn't bet a lot.

[_marg]

What this whole thread comes down to (including all the parts about #5) is respect.

I agree Harmony. And no one other than GoodK and his parents know all the family dynamics and what has gone on in the past. I do think that GoodK posting that letter is small potatoes in the disrespect dept. relative to the larger issues involved and all the abuse/disrespect he's had to endure from his dad as a consequence of his excessive controlling behavior and his irrational religious belief system. And so in my opinion if GoodK needs to vent at the expense of his dad, then so be it if there is disrespect shown. Just because fatherK is a parent does not mean he automatically should be immune from being disrespected. It may be that he fully deserves it from his son and more. But if GoodK is going to do that, he has to be prepared for the possibility of the relationship being dmaged possibly severed.

The dad has the church, extended family and busy-bodies like Dan to offer emotional support. In comparison it seems to me GoodK has been pretty much left to defend for himself with little emotional support offered by family, and so venting may be therapeutic.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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?

No. It stands to reason that "GoodK's closest friends who did connnect the dots" would discuss it with GoodK. There was no reason to discuss it with the father other than to be a busybody.

[_Some Schmo]

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.

Wow guy... looks like you struck a nerve. How funny.

So, Danny boy, I guess you can become one of my disciples, since disagreeing with you tends to make one a buffoon (apparently) or perhaps a self-inflated gasbag. (by the way, when I read that, I forgot it was you speaking and imagined someone else talking to you, which actually makes more sense).

You've taken hypocrisy to new heights, big guy. Impressive.

[_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.

Wow guy... looks like you struck a nerve. How funny.

So, Danny boy, I guess you can become one of my disciples, since disagreeing with you tends to make one a buffoon (apparently) or perhaps a self-inflated gasbag. (by the way, when I read that, I forgot it was you speaking and imagined someone else talking to you, which actually makes more sense).

You've taken hypocrisy to new heights, big guy. Impressive.

I guess Dan must have felt that adding the phrase 'self inflating' somehow made the insult all that much more stinging. I mean, on a scale of 1-10 where 10 indicates complete moral depravity (you know, like Grant Palmer) and 1 indicates complete Sainthood (like Joseph Smith), where does a normal, non-self-inflating gas bag rank compared to a self-inflating gas bag?