Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_Dr. Shades]

The moderators should have calmed down the situation with warnings.

How could we do that and stay true to the principle of free speech?

[_Pokatator]

What I find more interesting is that it seems that Bob Crockett has once again bailed with his tail between his legs because this is an argument he can't win. It's a pity, realiy.

I don't know whether he bailed but my experience is you can't get anywhere with him in discussion. He evades and ignores constantly, such as at least twice I asked what specifically Eric lied about with regards to the school and he responded but didn't answer the question. I linked to an article on the issue of these behavior modification schools and he didn't address it but came back with another web site put out by the government which did a study on state run boot camps for essentially convicted criminals and wanted me to address that which I did, but I doubt he'll address that link. It truly goes nowhere trying to talk with him.

This is exactly my complaint with Dr. Dan but he does it more elegantly and charming than Lawyer Bob.

[_Pokatator]

To have a difference in opinion with the patriarch, or anyone else with 'authority' is to deliberately offend them. The worst sin a child can commit is 'wilful disobediance'. So to turn things around, if a patriarch cannot produce perfectly compliant children, is his priesthood weakened? In his eyes, or the eyes of the rest of the priesthood?

Yes, and this was precisely my point. It was perhaps the Mopologist(s) who revealed GoodK's email who sought to humiliate his stepfather by drawing attention to the fact that he had raised a child who lacked faith in God or Mormonism, and by letting him know that the other Mopologists were aware of this. It's just a theory, but given the light recently cast on this issue, I can't help but find in somewhat plausible.

Kish, interesting theory. I think that the step-father's peers do this whether they know they are doing it or not. I think this pecking order goes on in all levels of the church. It is a way to control people. It is done in SS and Primary right on up to the top. The members are always worried about how they are viewed and how they look to each other. I am am not sure it is done to humiliate, possibly, maybe it is done to help one another to "achieve perfection" or help the fellow member hold on to the "iron rod" or some other polite, benevolent, or kind sounding way of saying it. Still it is part of herd mentality.

I think that somewhere in this herd mentality and the desire to "look normal" and perfect to other Mormons (peers) is the reason that GoodK's stepfather sent him to the UBC in the first place. Somehow, GoodK became an embarrassment to the "family". GoodK became something that had to be explained or excuses made for. It was probably easier in the stepfather's view to have the situation "out of sight and out of mind" than face his inability to be a father or face his peers or invest the time. I have seen this happen in many different forms in my Mormon experience, it is pride, a maneuver to save face and ego. The church is full of it and I am not just singling out Mormons.

If I was a betting man, I would bet that the stepfather had no time for GoodK, after all he is portrayed and described as a higher than average church person. My best friend through school was a Bishop's and then SP's son. He was the youngest child. The man was old and tired and busy with business and church, that was it. He was not a father. The father took zero time with the kid. They didn't even know each other. Somehow this is how I envision GoodK's parent. Then you add the difficult dynamic of the parent being a step-parent and we can go anywhere with this. I was a step child and I could speak volumes about the difficulties that brings into a family situation.

My stepfather made the same mistakes as my friends father made with me. The only thing different was my stepfather was not Mormon or anything. The Mormon stuff I got from my mother and my grandparents. I lived with them most of the time. So I guess I was sent away too. But it was in no way, shape or form close to a UBC. I was loved and cared for and they got it back.

I am a step father today. The only thing I can say is I have made mistakes, but they are normal parental mistakes at least and not stepfather mistakes. I learned from how I was raised and how I saw my friend and other friends raised and I haven't made those mistakes, thankfully. I have a great relationship with my stepson, we love each other genuinely. It has been difficult but all kids are but there is nothing that can singled out because it is a "step" relationship. I view it as this boy is lucky enough to have two fathers that love him. It was more difficult for me to build that kind of relationship with his blood father than anything to do with the relationship with this boy.

I will conclude with my opinion that GoodK had a tough situation and I would guess handled it the best he could. I feel if grades were to be given out on this relationship the lower grade would go to the stepfather, after all he was supposed to be the adult in the situation. All a kid can do try to adapt to a situation.

I would bet that GoodK was pretty close to just a normal run of mill teenager that didn't do or think very different from what I did or thought. He probably needed more love and time given to him from someone and for whatever reason his stepfather wasn't the guy to give it. Today, well I think GoodK is still pretty normal, after all how good do you have to be, to be normal?

[_Pokatator]

The moderators should have calmed down the situation with warnings.

Hey, whyme, I have one comment for you.

Get off our moderators asses, be this brave over at MAD the mods suck over there.

[_Kishkumen]

The link that you gave seems more like an intellectual exchange of ideas--give or take a couple of issues.

Oh the hypocrisy! "It's real bad until I am confronted with an example in which a righteous apologist did it, and then I will come up with an excuse that explains how what the apologist did was different and thus not bad at all."

[_Kishkumen]

I would bet that GoodK was pretty close to just a normal run of mill teenager that didn't do or think very different from what I did or thought. He probably needed more love and time given to him from someone and for whatever reason his stepfather wasn't the guy to give it. Today, well I think GoodK is still pretty normal, after all how good do you have to be, to be normal?

Relationships between teenage stepsons and their stepfathers have a propensity to be real difficult. I had a friend for whom this relationship destroyed this young man's life. The stepfather was a real hard ass FBI man who treated the son of his own blood like a little darling and his stepson like a cur.

It is not for me to say what the case is here, or who the guilty party would be. I am throwing this out there for some perspective. In my friend's case, the stepfather was a hard ass hick--the kind who would love Sara Palin to bits. The stepson, poor guy, was an artistic type. The dynamic here may have been similar. On the one hand you have a stepfather who is a "success" junkie and a Mopologist. On the other hand you have a son who is an aspiring writer in quite a different vein.

Is there the potential for tension and misunderstanding? Oh yes.

[_why me]

The moderators should have calmed down the situation with warnings.

Hey, whyme, I have one comment for you.

Get off our moderators asses, be this brave over at MAD the mods suck over there.

The moderators at Mad would have nailed that thread in the butt before it escalated into what it had become. Once goodk forgave rcrocket, it should have ended. But....It was allowed to continue.

[_why me]

The link that you gave seems more like an intellectual exchange of ideas--give or take a couple of issues.

Oh the hypocrisy! "It's real bad until I am confronted with an example in which a righteous apologist did it, and then I will come up with an excuse that explains how what the apologist did was different and thus not bad at all."

I just see a difference with posting an intellectual debate in email with someone's personal email (with an added comment by the postee).

Also, once FARMS was mentioned, it was very revealing since I think that most FARMites would recognize the family in that situation.

[_Kishkumen]

I just see a difference with posting an intellectual debate in email with someone's personal email (with an added comment by the postee).

As I said, you find a way to exonerate (in your mind, at least) your precious apologists. I am not surprised.

Also, once FARMS was mentioned, it was very revealing since I think that most FARMites would recognize the family in that situation.

Yes, the one or two FARMSies who come here would recognize it. And your point is?

[_why me]

The moderators should have calmed down the situation with warnings.

How could we do that and stay true to the principle of free speech?

There are reasons why it is against the law to stir racial incitement in Europe and yet, there is still free speech. Free speech entails personal responsibility for how something is said and for what purpose.