Eric.

[_Morrissey]

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.

A long-winded, round-about way of saying that you do not have the courage of your convictions when it comes to the truth claims of Mormonism. As I fully expected, you have privileged your religious beliefs from the very common sense advice you freely passed on to the rest of us.

I am sure that those making the decisions about these sorts of things high up in LDS Inc. make similar convoluted arguments (in addition to others) in justifying in their own minds the willful distortion of correlated Mormon history.

By the way, nowhere did I say or imply that the standard being discussed was my particular reasons for disbelieving in Mormonism about which you are only speculating and despite (as I seem to recall from someone's signature line) you yourself have stated that are legitimate reasons for someone to question Mormonism's truth claims.

Also, by way of full disclosure, with my own children, I have encouraged them to look at ALL the evidence and make a decision with regards to Mormonism, including supporting their attendance of Mormon meetings and participation in Mormon social events, while assuring them that I will love them regardless what decision they make. I am not afraid of full disclosure.

No problem Daniel, I expected nothing less.

[_Paul Osborne]

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?

I'm insane. I listen to Alice Cooper. School teachers, such as yourself, never really impressed me. Schools out, pal!

Paul O

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for your very valuable contribution, Paul. I'm sure that, in some alternative universe somewhere, it's relevant.

A long-winded, round-about way of saying that you do not have the courage of your convictions when it comes to the truth claims of Mormonism.

Ah, yes. Civil and charitable conversation. The hallmark of this fabulous board.

As I fully expected, you have privileged your religious beliefs from the very common sense advice you freely passed on to the rest of us.

As I should have expected, you don't have the faintest idea what you're babbling about.

I am sure that those making the decisions about these sorts of things high up in LDS Inc. make similar convoluted arguments (in addition to others) in justifying in their own minds the willful distortion of correlated Mormon history.

A "willful distortion" that I deny.

By the way, nowhere did I say or imply that the standard being discussed was my particular reasons for disbelieving in Mormonism about which you are only speculating

Actually, I very pointedly didn't speculate at all.

and despite (as I seem to recall from someone's signature line) you yourself have stated that are legitimate reasons for someone to question Mormonism's truth claims.

Something I stand by, and think is manifestly obvious.

Also, by way of full disclosure, with my own children, I have encouraged them to look at ALL the evidence and make a decision with regards to Mormonism, including supporting their attendance of Mormon meetings and participation in Mormon social events, while assuring them that I will love them regardless what decision they make. I am not afraid of full disclosure.

Nor am I.

My children have always been free to read anything and discuss anything they wanted. My library is stocked with Russell and Hitchens and Sartre and the Tanners and Quinn and Dawkins and Harris and Bagley and the like, and they've been perfectly free to wander about in that sort of thing at will.

No problem Daniel, I expected nothing less.

I expected more. My problem.

[_Paul Osborne]

Thanks for your very valuable contribution, Paul. I'm sure that, in some alternative universe somewhere, it's relevant.

My universe? All you got to is choke your neck and hold your breath, Dan. You'll start to feel pretty good after a while. Take a few deep breaths first.



Paul O

[_Yoda]

Let me just remind everyone, for the record, that Eric is more than welcome here at any time. Management of the board neither suspended nor banned him from posting.

He chose, of his own accord, to delete his account here.

If he chooses to open a new account and post here, he will be most welcome.

Although Eric became angry with me, and didn't believe me, I am extremely empathetic with his situation, and my heart honestly ached for any abuse he suffered as a child/teen at the hands of staff at Westridge.

I am going to say something here, though, which, may not set well with Ray and several other strong supporters of Eric. However, it is true, nonetheless.

Many of us who post here were banned from MAD because of arbitrary treatment by MAD's moderating team. One of the reasons Shades created this board was to create a venue for anyone who wanted to voice an opinion, and not face sanctions due to "special treatment" by a select group of posters.

Eric seemed to think that he was immune to the board rules based on his "special status".

We do not have a "special status" at MDB.

Yes, Eric went through a horrific experience, and was unfairly treated. However, that did NOT give him the right to post personal information about others.

As a Moderating Team, we were extremely lenient with our warnings, and never did "force" Eric to leave the board.

I hope that he does decide to return. I would be very interested in hearing of his progress with his book, his movie, and how he is moving his cause against the abuse that happened at Westridge forward.

Sorry to be a killjoy, Ray, but I did feel that certain things needed to be stated.

[Alf'Omega]

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.

Yes, obvious points are sometimes forgotten, like that fact that I made no judgments in my post about Eric's situation. But you can't help bringing it up. I didn't say anything about it. This is why it's seems rather obvious you were whoring for attention.

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

Not that I've heard.

What possible difference would that make to my post? I was speaking about my own experience, not Eric's.

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?

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

The question wasn't whether you needed to expose reasons for disbelief, but rather, would you advise an investigator to seek it. Learn to read.

Your feeble attempts at distraction and misdirection may work on others, but they certainly don't work on me, and I doubt they work on many others around here.

[_Some Schmo]

Let me just remind everyone, for the record, that Eric is more than welcome here at any time. Management of the board neither suspended nor banned him from posting...

I know he left voluntarily liz, and I have never at any time held the moderating team here responsible for his departure.

When I say I'd like to see him come back, I mean I'd like for him to feel comfortable doing so. That's all.

[_Yoda]

Let me just remind everyone, for the record, that Eric is more than welcome here at any time. Management of the board neither suspended nor banned him from posting...

I know he left voluntarily liz, and I have never at any time held the moderating team here responsible for his departure.

When I say I'd like to see him come back, I mean I'd like for him to feel comfortable doing so. That's all.

Thanks, Schmo. I appreciate you saying that.

And, I honestly hope he feels comfortable returning to the board at some point as well.

[_Mary]

This says it better than I can...

Every generation
Blames the one before
And all of their frustrations
Come beating on your door

I know that Im a prisoner
To all my father held so dear
I know that Im a hostage
To all his hopes and fears
I just wish I could have told him in the living years

Crumpled bits of paper
Filled with imperfect thought
Stilted conversations
Im afraid that's all we've got

You say you just don't see it
He says its perfect sense
You just can't get agreement
In this present tense
We all talk a different language
Talking in defence

Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
Its too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye

So we open up a quarrel
Between the present and the past
We only sacrifice the future
Its the bitterness that lasts

So don't yield to the fortunes
You sometimes see as fate
It may have a new perspective
On a different day
And if you don't give up, and don't give in
You may just be o.k.

Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
Its too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye

I wasn't there that morning
When my father passed away
I didn't get to tell him
All the things I had to say

I think I caught his spirit
Later that same year
Im sure I heard his echo
In my babys new born tears
I just wish I could have told him in the living years

Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
Its too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye

[_Morrissey]

Note the following juxtaposition

Thanks for your very valuable contribution, Paul. I'm sure that, in some alternative universe somewhere, it's relevant.

With

Ah, yes. Civil and charitable conversation. The hallmark of this fabulous board.

I curious as to what standard you'd invoke to claim that the not-so-veiled insult above constitutes "civil and charitable discourse." Just curious, is it your position that you are not guilty of engaging in discourse that fails to achieve the standard of "civil and charitable?" I ask as one might possibly infer this from your statement.

Oh, and it was a long and rambling non-answer. This is not a normative statement, but an objective observation. There is a difference.

As I fully expected, you have privileged your religious beliefs from the very common sense advice you freely passed on to the rest of us.

As I should have expected, you don't have the faintest idea what you're babbling about.

More civil and charitable discourse, I suppose. Oh, by the way, I disagree, but that probably goes without saying.

I am sure that those making the decisions about these sorts of things high up in LDS Inc. make similar convoluted arguments (in addition to others) in justifying in their own minds the willful distortion of correlated Mormon history.

A "willful distortion" that I deny.

As I fully expect you to do. I suppose after all it may possible that the various omissions and commissions that liberally sprinkle correlated history are accidental and nobody on the correlation committee or anywhere in the bureaucracy is aware of them.

By the way, nowhere did I say or imply that the standard being discussed was my particular reasons for disbelieving in Mormonism about which you are only speculating

Actually, I very pointedly didn't speculate at all.

Yeah, maybe I did mis-speak here. Sorry.

and despite (as I seem to recall from someone's signature line) you yourself have stated that are legitimate reasons for someone to question Mormonism's truth claims.

Something I stand by, and think is manifestly obvious.

So then it seems to me that it is prudent for anyone contemplating making a decision to invest his/her life (and $$) in Mormonism ought to be aware of what these legitimate concerns are. I am sorry, I do not understand why you, or anyone, would object to the simple, intuitive, and common sense advice that one ought to get the other side of the story on Mormonism as well. And I am happy to concede that this should cut both ways.

quote="Morrissey"]Also, by way of full disclosure, with my own children, I have encouraged them to look at ALL the evidence and make a decision with regards to Mormonism, including supporting their attendance of Mormon meetings and participation in Mormon social events, while assuring them that I will love them regardless what decision they make. I am not afraid of full disclosure.

Nor am I.

My children have always been free to read anything and discuss anything they wanted. My library is stocked with Russell and Hitchens and Sartre and the Tanners and Quinn and Dawkins and Harris and Bagley and the like, and they've been perfectly free to wander about in that sort of thing at will. [/quote]

Good for you. Really. It is obvious that you are nothing if not very well read and well informed, and it would be very out of character I think if you did not pass this on to your children. All (good natured) sparing aside, have you ever contemplated what you would do if one of your children read this and decided that the Church was not true? Or have you already faced this?

No problem Daniel, I expected nothing less.

I expected more. My problem.

Whoops. I'm pleased that you expected more. Does that mean you had decided I was a worthy debating partner? If so, I hope I have not disappointed you too much and that you're not now contemplating dropping me from your circle of worthy debatees. It's late, I just finished watching Season 1 of the X-Files, and I'm going to bed. Take care.