Eric.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Jersey Girl:

I thought the "Not so far as I know" would have been enough. Since it evidently wasn't, I'll try this:

NO.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I know almost nothing about Eric's situation, just that you ratted him out to his parents. You aren't his bishop, and as far as I know he didn't threaten violence or fraud, so what you did was pretty slimy.

We all have opinions.

In mine, your comment above is almost preternaturally stupid.

Sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board that's plainly about that friend is neither "ratting" the poster out, nor "meddling," nor dishonorable, nor "pompous" (pompous????), nor "slimy."

The fact remains that neither you nor anybody else on this board has any business pronouncing judgment on relationships within a family that virtually nobody here has ever met, and that doing so on the basis of having heard only one essentially unverifiable side of a story involving those relationships is transparently foolhardy in any case.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I know almost nothing about Eric's situation, just that you ratted him out to his parents. You aren't his bishop, and as far as I know he didn't threaten violence or fraud, so what you did was pretty slimy.

We all have opinions.

In mine, your comment above is almost preternaturally stupid.

Sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board that's plainly about that friend is neither "ratting" the poster out, nor "meddling," nor dishonorable, nor "pompous" (pompous????), nor "slimy."

The fact remains that neither you nor anybody else on this board has any business pronouncing judgment on relationships within a family that virtually nobody here has ever met, and that doing so on the basis of having heard only one essentially unverifiable side of a story involving those relationships is transparently foolhardy in any case.

Ah, but you are quite mistaken. I have every right to judge what you have done. When you provided that link, you ratted out somebody that was not under your "care". That is the action of a moral coward and a person lacking in honor that does not treat fellow humans as people. Then you condemn my judgment and withhold further information by playing the "confidence" card? Nah. So NOW you are respecting boundaries? Oh my good bishop, why? Is there anything rattling around that tin can of a head that resembles consistency?

I invite you to correct me. Why did you feel justified in turning over the link? What was so bad about what he wrote? Can I see the link? If I am wrong in my judgment, and I do have the right to judge you, I will apologize publicly in any venue you choose and take you out for dinner at the restaurant of your choice.

Otherwise.....well, you are the one who has to look at yourself every day.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have every right to judge what you have done.

You have a right to do all sorts of stupid things, and to hold an unlimited number of foolish opinions.

When you provided that link, you ratted out somebody that was not under your "care". That is the action of a moral coward and a person lacking in honor that does not treat fellow humans as people

Bilge.

Then you condemn my judgment and withhold further information by playing the "confidence" card? Nah. So NOW you are respecting boundaries? Oh my good bishop, why?

Passing on a link to a note posted on a public message board is, I think fairly obviously, not at all the same thing as posting information on a public message board about problematic relationships within a private family that doesn't participate on the board.

If you can't see that difference, you're in no position to treat me as if I'm the one with a warped sense of ethics.

I invite you to correct me. Why did you feel justified in turning over the link? What was so bad about what he wrote? Can I see the link? If I am wrong in my judgment, and I do have the right to judge you, I will apologize publicly in any venue you choose and take you out for dinner at the restaurant of your choice.

There are several very lengthy threads about this topic. I don't think that two or three hundred additional posts are likely to change anybody's mind. My original note to GoodK's father is cited on several of them, in its entirety. I'm surprised, frankly, that you apparently haven't read it and yet still presume yourself qualified to pronounce judgment on it.

Otherwise.....well, you are the one who has to look at yourself every day.

That's right. And, though I've made other mistakes and done many wrong things in the course of my life, I'm entirely serene about this particular episode.

I haven't found any of the relevant attacks and objections on this board to have any substantial merit.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I have every right to judge what you have done.

You have a right to do all sorts of stupid things, and to hold an unlimited number of foolish opinions.

When you provided that link, you ratted out somebody that was not under your "care". That is the action of a moral coward and a person lacking in honor that does not treat fellow humans as people

Bilge.

Then you condemn my judgment and withhold further information by playing the "confidence" card? Nah. So NOW you are respecting boundaries? Oh my good bishop, why?

Passing on a link to a note posted on a public message board is, I think fairly obviously, not at all the same thing as posting information on a public message board about problematic relationships within a private family that doesn't participate on the board.

If you can't see that difference, you're in no position to treat me as if I'm the one with a warped sense of ethics.

I invite you to correct me. Why did you feel justified in turning over the link? What was so bad about what he wrote? Can I see the link? If I am wrong in my judgment, and I do have the right to judge you, I will apologize publicly in any venue you choose and take you out for dinner at the restaurant of your choice.

There are several very lengthy threads about this topic. I don't think that two or three hundred additional posts are likely to change anybody's mind. My original note to GoodK's father is cited on several of them, in its entirety. I'm surprised, frankly, that you apparently haven't read it and yet still presume yourself qualified to pronounce judgment on it.

Otherwise.....well, you are the one who has to look at yourself every day.

That's right. And, though I've made other mistakes and done many wrong things in the course of my life, I'm entirely serene about this particular episode.

I haven't found any of the relevant attacks and objections on this board to have any substantial merit.

I am a stranger to you. I feel that you are a human that has some issues to work out. I feel like you are a hypocritical coward devoid of honor. I feel you are a person who is not well meaning, nor honest in analyzing the world around you or outside of you. But I am a stranger.

Why do you care what I think?

[_Some Schmo]

I haven't found any of the relevant attacks and objections on this board to have any substantial merit.

...which is why 'Denial Peterson' is so apropos.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why do you care what I think?

What makes you imagine that I do?

[_Doctor Scratch]

It may be worthwhile to point out that GoodK said that his relationship with his folks was noticeably harmed by what Professor Peterson did. Then again, I expect that DCP will just tell us that there's "another side" to GoodK's own impressions of his own relationship with his own father.

[_Ray A]

As an observer, I get a sense that there is pressure on the family and on the children within the family to conform, if you will. In an earlier post, you mentioned your disinterest in church at age 14, a preference that was honored by your parent. It seems to me that it would be very difficult for an LDS parent to honor such a thing since the congregation itself functions in such a way as to produce "life in a fish bowl". If the parent honored the child's (teen's) desire not to attend church, no doubt, the congregation (ward) members would be inquiring and "buzzing" about it. I have witnessed the "buzzing" firsthand and I tend to think it's a cultural norm of sorts. Not that other denominations don't have their nosey members, but the concept of "worthiness" takes the pressure and speculations to a higher level.

2 cents.

You can make that $100, because I think that sums it up in a nutshell. Even a non-Mormon observer of Mormonism can see this clearly.

Here is a post by Cold Steel on MAD which shows the general Mormon incapacity/inability to look at themselves. It's called The irony of proselyting:

As members of the Restored Church, we have a certain obligation to share our own faith and to act as missionaries. We don't have to baptize people, but we are held accountable for "warning" our neighbor. What easier way to do this than having someone else break the ice?

I don't know why JWs do it, but they open themselves to criticisms by branding other religions as "man made." What is man made? Do they mean Baptists, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists? Do they mean themselves? How can they claim not to be man made when their church was started by a man?

Churches are either created by men or they're not. One would think that for a church to be of God, then they should be instituted by God through the instrumentality of men. The Catholic church has a claim to be instituted of God, as does the Orthodox and...oh, yeah, us. Unless the JWs can show God's hand in the creation of their church, then it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

So it's not only the "worthiness" factor, but this is the only true Church on earth. To leave any other Church is forgiveable, and even understandable, but not this one. The same with Smith's polygamy. For anyone else it was wrong, but for Smith "God said it", therefore it was right. And those who women rebelled against it were portrayed as "prostitutes", "whores", "unprincipled", "loose", "immoral", "liars", and had their characters blackened. (Just read a sampling of why me's posts.)

Who wants to hear it, and believe, "their side"?

Not the apologists.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl:

I thought the "Not so far as I know" would have been enough. Since it evidently wasn't, I'll try this:

NO.

Stop "yelling" at me, ya ding dong. You placed your "Not so far as I know" under the chopped liver question. PhD, can't respond on point. Go figure.

Nobody around here likes you, ya know.

;-P