Eric.

[_Analytics]

One of the ways it is risky is that while you happily believe the one side you got your story from, you might inadvertently drive away a child who committed the “sin” of examining the issue more broadly.

As I thought was obvious, the "issue" to which I was referring was not the issue of the truthfulness of Mormonism, but the issue of who and what is to blame for Eric's situation, and to what extent.

Yes, the "issue" to which you were referring to was in fact obvious. I was simply entertaining myself with the fact that your words are true for other issues as well.

I don’t believe I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Eric or his family, but I do know the scenario that Ray A described isn’t all that infrequent and perhaps could be avoided if the church and its members more frequently applied your advice to the church's truth-claims.

Have you noticed that the people who are the most judgmental and the least tolerant also tend to be the ones who get most of their information from one side?

[_asbestosman]

Have you noticed that the people who are the most judgmental and the least tolerant also tend to be the ones who get most of their information from one side?

I have noticed no such correlation be it anecdotal or otherwise.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Clearly, you are. It's been established (you keep responding to the accusation... I'd think if you were trying to avoid making it about you, you'd ignore the charges). Funny how you can be here encouraging it, yet not acknowledge it... but then, you have a way of ignoring blatant evidence. Occupational hazard of being a Mormon apologist, I suppose.

*shrug*

So repetition of my actual point -- which is that stories have two sides -- and my denial that it's about me, is proof that it really is about me?

Any sane people here?

[_asbestosman]

which is that stories have two sides

Heaven forbid that one side (or both) might be sincere but mistaken in his recollection of events.

Any sane people here?

Pandemonium doesn't reign in here--it pours.

[_Jersey Girl]

Then quit futzing around and tell your side, Dan.

Totally Scratch-lifting this word!

[_Analytics]

Have you noticed that the people who are the most judgmental and the least tolerant also tend to be the ones who get most of their information from one side?

I have noticed no such correlation be it anecdotal or otherwise.

Really? Here’s an example just to make sure you understand what I'm getting at. Say there are two people: one is a fundamentalist Christian who gets all of his information from one-sided fundamentalist Christian sources. The other person is a Unitarian Universalist type that seeks to understand every side of the issue and understand different people on their own terms.

Which would be more tolerant of Mormons? Of homosexuals? Of Muslims? Of atheists?

Here’s another example. Say there are two fathers. One is a very strict Mormon who get all of his information about religion from the Mormon church: he only reads books written by GAs, only reads church magazines, and only reads church newspapers. He only attends Mormon churches and only has Mormon friends. The other father is liberal. He reads a wide variety of books, including many not written by Mormons, has a wide-variety of friends, including many that aren't Mormon, and a wide-variety of world experiences, meaning he has a lot of information about the world from sources other than the Mormon church.

Which father would be more tolerant of Muslims? Of homosexuals? Of a son or daughter who just couldn’t swallow the Mormon truth-claims?

[_Morrissey]

Absolutely certain of the condemnation that will come my way for pointing out the obvious, I proceed to do so:

Getting your story from only one side of that story is potentially risky. In many, many ways.

Not to derail this thread any more than it is, let me say that I agree with Dan. It is generally quite good advice to get more than one side of the story. I really doubt that there's much controversy on this point here.

Having said this, I think that Dan has opened himself up to KA's very simple question. Do you Dan believe that a potential Mormon convert ought to get 'the other side of the story?' More, if a potential convert asked for your advice, would you remain true to your principles and advise him/her to seek out the other side of the story?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Then quit futzing around and tell your side, Dan.

It's not "my" side. And, no, I won't get involved with this.

"Your" side, the "other" side, whatever. And too late: you've already "gotten involved with this." You have been attempting to blacken and impugn Eric's character practically from Day 1. You tried to sabotage him by contacting his father; you have suggested repeatedly that his claims about being sent to the camp aren't to be trusted ("There's another side to this"); you told a gross and despicable falsehood about him being, as I recall, addicted to drugs. And now here you are, yet again, making more insinuations. I think you need to work harder on understanding where to draw the line as far as apologetics are concerned.

I content myself by pointing out the obvious and undeniable fact that those who know only Eric's version of things are being overhasty and at least potentially unfair when they pronounce judgment on the situation. (Is there anybody out there to whom this really isn't undeniably, intuitively, apparent?)

Here's a question for you: Why is it necessary to raise this point, especially if it's "undeniably, intuitively apparent"? The answer is obvious: you want to cast doubt on Eric's claims. So, I'll repeat what I said to begin with---either tell what you know, or shut up and butt out. Your multi-month crusade to discredit Eric is really growing tiresome.

[_Some Schmo]

Clearly, you are. It's been established (you keep responding to the accusation... I'd think if you were trying to avoid making it about you, you'd ignore the charges). Funny how you can be here encouraging it, yet not acknowledge it... but then, you have a way of ignoring blatant evidence. Occupational hazard of being a Mormon apologist, I suppose.

*shrug*

So repetition of my actual point -- which is that stories have two sides -- and my denial that it's about me, is proof that it really is about me?

Any sane people here?

LOL... you're so obtuse.

Your "point" is painfully obvious to everyone, and only serves to distract from the glaring reason you made your post in the first place. As a reminder, this is what you said (emphasis mine):

Absolutely certain of the condemnation that will come my way for pointing out the obvious, I proceed to do so:

If it's so obvious (which it is), why bother to point it out, especially knowing condemnation would come your way? Unless, of course, you want to indirectly emphasize your own point of view (the "other side of the story"). Hence, the attempt to make it about you. The thread is about Mormon families ostracizing non-believing members, not about you and Eric and your intervention with his family, or what you think his family thinks.

You can keep moronically repeating "the point" of your post, as if nobody really gets it, but the only one you're kidding is yourself. Your agenda is obvious (and, as I said before, pitiful).

It does make me laugh though; I'll give you that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why did I raise an absolutely obvious point?

Because it seemed to me that the opening posts of this thread were, in fact, forming judgments based upon hearing only one side of the story. Obvious points are sometimes forgotten.

Have Ray and Some Schmo spoken with Eric's parents?

Not that I've heard.

I believe that Ray is a fair-minded person, though.

Having said this, I think that Dan has opened himself up to KA's very simple question. Do you Dan believe that a potential Mormon convert ought to get 'the other side of the story?' More, if a potential convert asked for your advice, would you remain true to your principles and advise him/her to seek out the other side of the story?

Well, first of all, I was referring to a very specific, reasonably well-defined "story." The truthfulness of the Church is a quite different matter, an issue that can be and has been debated for years and years and years. Apples and oranges, in my view.

But I'll address the matter, anyway.

I don't believe that there are just two stories here. There are thousands. There are Buddhist and Sikh and secular and Quaker and Presbyterian and Shi'ite and Methodist and Orthodox Jewish and Hindu and Baptist and a myriad of other stories.

And there is, generally, the commonly shared disbelief in, or lack of interest in, Mormon claims.

Viewed in that way, the assertion of the claims of the Restoration is itself another side of the story, or, in another fashion, another story altogether.

Do I have to encourage the typical investigator to find reasons not to accept or choose to live by Mormonism? It doesn't seem so to me. There's enough rationalism, secularism, Catholicism, evangelicalism, general cussedness, skepticism, fundamentalism, and everything else to ensure that most people won't convert.

Do I need to guarantee that they're fully exposed to your particular reasons for disbelief? No. I don't think so.