Eric.

[_Ray A]

Ray, you're completely wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.

Here are portions of the email you received from Eric's step father:

4. While I normally do not spend time in forums of this sort, I have found the experience of reading through the various posts to be both hilarious and depressing. You, Dan, are hilarious with most of the things you have posted and I have had many a laugh watching you run circles around a bunch of bitter, angry people who think they've vanquished you and yet often betray a deep misunderstanding of your wit or your point. It's also depressing to read what some would consider to be their own contributions to reasoned discourse.

I won't confess his sins in public, but at the risk of stating the obvious, let's just say that if he loved God more than the things of the world he would be a very strong Latter-day Saint. As it is, the "world" has his attention at this time. I hope he will, in time, realize the path he is on has only brought him much pain, much sorrow, and much deprivation. God is at the helm and God will not be mocked. Eventually every knee shall bow before Christ and every tongue will confess His Messiahship. And that includes my son and every self-professed atheist on this list. When he finally gets tired of sin, I think he will make the right decisions, repent, and return. And we will welcome him with open arms. And you and he will probably look back on this thread and have a good laugh together.

I'll let readers judge if I have it right. I don't envision that last sentence coming to fruition, because we know it will only happen on your terms. "Loving God" (i.e, being an active LDS in this case), is all that really matters. Eric's "sin" was that he did not, and could not believe it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You don't know what you're talking about, Ray.

And you don't understand GoodK's father, either. You've read a note from him. You still don't know what you're talking about.

[_Ray A]

You don't know what you're talking about, Ray.

And you don't understand GoodK's father, either. You've read a note from him. You still don't know what you're talking about.

And how much personal interaction have you had with Eric? It's not as if I blindly embraced what he had to say from the start. So we are equal. How about getting rid of this "black sheep" idea? The fact that if a child doesn't accept or believe Mormonism that for them it's like having to scale the Berlin Wall and run from the Gestapo? How about trying to understand children who differ, "children of a lesser God" (or no God), and letting them make their life choices without incurring the wrath of "the Church" and its defenders? How about actually trying to come to terms with the fact that some just do not, and cannot believe, and this isn't because of some character fault? Some serious disorder that needs to be rectified either by leaders or institutions, so they can "come good".

[_Daniel Peterson]

And how much personal interaction have you had with Eric?

I've offered no verdict here.

How about getting rid of this "black sheep" idea?

I've pronounced no judgment in this matter.

The fact that if a child doesn't accept or believe Mormonism that for them it's like having to scale the Berlin Wall and run from the Gestapo? How about trying to understand children who differ, "children of a lesser God" (or no God), and letting them make their life choices without incurring the wrath of "the Church" and its defenders? How about actually trying to come to terms with the fact that some just do not, and cannot believe, and this isn't because of some character fault? Some serious disorder that needs to be rectified either by leaders or institutions, so they can "come good".

You don't know what you're talking about, Ray.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I like the DCP method of debate. You just sit down in the middle of the room and pout. You are too stupid to know anything. I know anything, but I ain't tellin' cuz I am a good bishop.

You refuse to address any points. You refuse to act like a person, only an unthinking morgbot. (cue your inane embracing of the idea. Ooooh look at me, beep beep)

Drrrrrrrrrrr.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not going to feed you the gossip you so desperately crave, GP, no matter how much you insult me.

You don't need to know about the dynamics of this family, who don't post here. You don't need to judge them. And you don't know enough to do so fairly or justly.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I like the DCP method of debate. You just sit down in the middle of the room and pout. You are too stupid to know anything. I know anything, but I ain't tellin' cuz I am a good bishop.

You refuse to address any points. You refuse to act like a person, only an unthinking morgbot. (cue your inane embracing of the idea. Ooooh look at me, beep beep)

Drrrrrrrrrrr.

I'm not going to feed you the gossip you so desperately crave, GP, no matter how much you insult me.

I don't care about gossip. I think I am reeling with the idea that you are in any kind of position of authority in the church. You hurt this young man, pretend you know stuff you don't and then feel offended when people with souls react to your cruelty. Come on, come out of the corner grow of pair and talk like a man.

Stand on those hooves.

Come on, some part of your DNA remembers what it is to be a hominid.

[_Ray A]

I've offered no verdict here.

You've not offered to try to understand his point of view either.

I've pronounced no judgment in this matter.

None is necessary. We already know how some unbelieving children feel like "black sheep" because they are different.

You don't know what you're talking about, Ray.

You don't know what you're talking about.

In regard to how Eric feels, and what motivates him, I'm quite sure you don't know what you're talking about either.

Here was marg's earlier assessment:

It is obvious Dan was not interested in helping your father further understand you. He viewed your post as "mocking" your dad. He even distorted what transpired by failing to mention that you were posting anonymously to a very small group of people of little significance. Had Dan given your father the proper context of the post, he'd have a leg to stand on in defence of his stated intent. But no, the wording in Dan's letter makes it sound like it is just so horrendous what you've done that even though your dad was going through a very stressful time, he needed to know about this "mocking" to the world you were doing of him, and it couldn't wait. Dan apparently agonized over it before acting. So what exactly did Dan think he was going to accomplish? Did he really think that a highly religious parent such as your dad was going to understand you better? Dan already knew your views are atheistic and knew your dad knew so that wasn't news. No if anything Dan was quite aware that revealing that post and not giving it the proper context would only serve to drive a wedge or perhaps deepen it between you and your dad. He was in effect protecting the interests of his tribe.. Mormonism and totally unconcerned about protecting and strengthening the relationship between you and your dad.

I don't often agree with marg, but I think she got this one incisively right.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You've not offered to try to understand his point of view either.

I've said nothing about his point of view. I've said nothing about his parents' point of view.

I've pronounced no judgment in this matter.

None is necessary. We already know how some unbelieving children feel like "black sheep" because they are different.

And that equips you to pronounce judgment in this particular case?

In regard to how Eric feels, and what motivates him, I'm quite sure you don't know what you're talking about either.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

You don't actually know what I know, or what I think, because I haven't said.

Here was marg's earlier assessment:

It is obvious Dan was not interested in helping your father further understand you. He viewed your post as "mocking" your dad. He even distorted what transpired by failing to mention that you were posting anonymously to a very small group of people of little significance. Had Dan given your father the proper context of the post, he'd have a leg to stand on in defence of his stated intent. But no, the wording in Dan's letter makes it sound like it is just so horrendous what you've done that even though your dad was going through a very stressful time, he needed to know about this "mocking" to the world you were doing of him, and it couldn't wait. Dan apparently agonized over it before acting. So what exactly did Dan think he was going to accomplish? Did he really think that a highly religious parent such as your dad was going to understand you better? Dan already knew your views are atheistic and knew your dad knew so that wasn't news. No if anything Dan was quite aware that revealing that post and not giving it the proper context would only serve to drive a wedge or perhaps deepen it between you and your dad. He was in effect protecting the interests of his tribe.. Mormonism and totally unconcerned about protecting and strengthening the relationship between you and your dad.

I don't often agree with marg, but I think she got this one incisively right.

I don't often agree with marg, either. She's almost always wrong. She was wrong again here, and you're wrong in agreeing with her. You don't know what you're talking about.

I simply sent a link to Eric's stepdad, along with a very brief note, two or three sentences long. I said very little at all. I didn't need to provide "context." Eric's stepfather is a very bright fellow. By clicking on the link, he was easily able to see for himself what the context was (e.g., that Eric was "posting anonymously to a very small group of people of little significance").

You don't know what you're talking about, Ray.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

"What me? I said and did nothing! You don't know anything and you are all idiots."

Drrrrrrrrrrrrr.

ETA: Come on. Contribute something. You aren't in a vacuum. You did something. Man up and own it!