Eric.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't want to be a jerk, but I think it's OK to attack ideas and poke fun. What would you accept?

I accept attacks on ideas -- provided that there's at least a semblance of informed and logical analysis involved; otherwise, it's a boring waste of time -- and poking fun.

I'm not overly fond of being myself the focus of threads (I'm not an idea), and I'm not particularly interested in lectures on my overall moral depravity, sociopathy, and psychopathology from people who've never met me.

[_Jersey Girl]

I am sorry Jersey Girl.

And I have failed to see Dan answer you, so I will abide by your "no question of mine has gone unanswered" and excuse me and forgive me.

This was poorly written and I removed the "hell" part as soon as I submitted it. I tried to state that I failed to see Dan's answers and apologize. I did and do totally deserve your rebuke. I was too tired to be on the board last night and I am too sensitive about Dan and emotional because I see my past in Eric. Dan just plain reminds me of two different Bishop's from my past and he gets under my skin too easily. I am taking a break from the board.

Jersey Girl thanks for caring enough to set me straight.

I wish everyone the best.

Pok,

I care enough to be honest with you, even when the honesty is uncomfortable. I understand how Daniel can be a symbol for people, but seriously, what damn good does it do to attack the crap out of him when it accomplishes nothing more than a temporary adrenalin rush?

And what is the cost to you, Pok? Don't let strangers who have no bearing on your life, do anything that will cost you your peace of mind. You are worth more than that.

Enjoy your break, recharge your batteries and get back here!

Jersey Girl

[_beastie]

beastie

Here’s an example of what I mean, in the context of being a bishop. Let’s say a couple came to you with marital difficulties. You refer them to the LDS counselor, but in the meantime, you’ve learned that the husband is impotent, which is contributing to their other problems. Of course, this is confidential information.

In the hallway one day after church, you happen to hear two members sharing information about this couple, and noting that they recently separated. The members were aware that there was financial stress in the family due to the recent salary cut of the husband, and speculated that this could be the reason for the split.

Would you say something like this: “While I cannot reveal the specific information due to confidentiality issues, I assure you that there is more to this story.”

DCP

And that's exactly what I would say.

I am, incidentally, neither Eric's bishop nor his family's bishop. I've been told nothing about his family in connection with my calling as a bishop. I'm under no ecclesiastical confidentiality requirement with respect to either Eric or his family.

Nonetheless, I've offered no gossip here.

I've pointed out the obvious fact that those on this board who are judging Eric's parents (rather harshly, and, to a considerable extent, on ideological grounds) have neither the duty nor the information to do so.

Every human being knows there are two sides to every story. This is such an obvious fact that it does not need to be stated. So when you imply that, due to your personal knowledge of the family, there is some sort of information that Eric has not been upfront about, you are gossiping. I’ve pointed this out to you in the past, when you’ve done it with other people. In fact, I think that hinting there is important “information” that the person is not disclosing is even more damaging than simply stating what the information is. When an individual just “hints”, then the listeners’ minds go wild with speculations. What you might view as serious, damaging information – like maybe using the F word to a parent – another person might not view as quite as serious and damaging, that it would warrant a “hint”. That listener might assume that it would have to be very serious, damaging information – like sexually predatory behavior or serious drug use – so their mind goes there instead of to the F word. In other words, you allow people to imagine the worst possible scenarios with “hints”.

It would be far kinder to just state what you know. You can pretend to yourself that just “hinting” isn’t the same as gossip, but, in reality, it is – and can be worse.

[Guest]

...I'm not particularly interested in lectures on my overall moral depravity, sociopathy, and psychopathology from people who've never met me.

How very strange.

I didn't get the sense that Ray was intending to start up this whole Eric discussion again in terms of wading painfully through all the same points again. Maybe my perception is off there though. It is interesting to analyze it all and there are some points I am revisiting again myself but the he said/he said/they said seems particularly unfruitful. We can analyze the thing to death (in fact...) but what can get lost in all the noise is that real people are hurting and while I am interested in some of the theoretical discussion around the issues I am afraid the continual rehashing has a great possibility of pouring salt in the open wound and very little chance of actually improving the situation or achieving anything positive at all. It makes me hesitate to get specific about the issue any more (unless Eric doesn't care that we keep on and on about it but somehow I think he might). I think he may have actually requested that the specific rehashes stop. Maybe there is a way to discuss the general issues without reference to the email event and the specifics of the particular situation.

[Edited to clarify and to remove portions of commentary that were off topic for this thread]. Plus note to self: Don't get in the middle of this again, whatever it is.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I feel humbled. In sincerely apologize to you, Dan. I appreciate you participating on this board. You are brave enough to slug it out, even through personal attacks. Props to you.

[_Ray A]

Exactly. It just goes on and on and on and on and around and around and around (on some points). There is obviously no meeting of the minds and won't ever be, it seems. I get the lightning rod thing too, in addition to some of the specific issues. I didn't get the sense that Ray was intending to start up this whole Eric discussion again in terms of wading painfully through all the same points again.

Nightingale, here's what I wrote in the OP:

Eric is a painful and poignant reminder of how Mormonism can divide people. All he's asking for is to be accepted for who he is, and what he never wanted to be, and why he rebelled against efforts to shape him into what others felt he "should be". In other words, he wanted his agency, a term Mormons would grasp. The price he paid for being who he wanted to be is exclusion, and for a couple of years incarceration in a "Mormon correctional centre".

Now of course I am not naïve enough to believe that some "old ground" would not again be covered. It was also not my intention to bring up the old chestnut, "we haven't heard the other side". This is supposed to be about Eric, his feelings, his perceptions, and his experiences. It may come as a surprise to some, but DCP isn't mentioned in any of Eric's major public comments (and as destiny may yet have it, it's quite possible that when Eric's book is published Americans will know his name far more than the name Daniel Peterson, a name even Church members struggle to identify). Readers would not even know who he is, nor how Eric personally feels about him. This is about how Mormonism has forever altered the lives and beliefs of people, and how some of them pay the price for that, and in my opinion unjustly in Eric's case. He basically lost his teenage years, and some are trying to turn him into the perpetrator with a "you deserved it" attitude.

But of course DCP is deeply offended at anyone even slightly questioning the motives and deeds of faithful Mormons, and beckons all of us to "hear the other side", which as has been pointed out is strangely inconsistent with abundant Mormon hagiography. When I hear DCP say something like, "all investigators of the Church should read Mormon Enigma before baptism, so they can see both sides of Joseph Smith", I will take him seriously on this. I'm not at all impressed by his overbearing stance on this thread, which seems in effect to be "Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about!"

[_Paul Osborne]

I feel humbled. In sincerely apologize to you, Dan. I appreciate you participating on this board. You are brave enough to slug it out, even through personal attacks. Props to you.

Oh how drippy can you get? Sappy dude! If this was the telestial board I'd be telling you what to kiss.

DCP doesn't need apologies. He is in this thing for the pure sport of having fun and making mockery in his own holy way. Let's not forget that.

Paul O

[_Gadianton Plumber]

I feel humbled. In sincerely apologize to you, Dan. I appreciate you participating on this board. You are brave enough to slug it out, even through personal attacks. Props to you.

Oh how drippy can you get? Sappy dude! If this was the telestial board I'd be telling you what to kiss.

DCP doesn't need apologies. He is in this thing for the pure sport of having fun and making mockery in his own holy way. Let's not forget that.

Paul O

Whatever. I will always poke him, but I felt bad. I did what I felt was needed to restore things.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Every human being knows there are two sides to every story. This is such an obvious fact that it does not need to be stated.

Several posts on this thread are direct evidence to the contrary.

What you might view as serious, damaging information – like maybe using the F word to a parent

ROTFL.

That's really funny, beastie.

The fact remains: There are two sides to this story, beastie. Nobody here has any standing or obligation to pronounce judgment on Eric's family, nor sufficient knowledge to make such a judgment just or fair.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But of course DCP is deeply offended at anyone even slightly questioning the motives and deeds of faithful Mormons, and beckons all of us to "hear the other side", which as has been pointed out is strangely inconsistent with abundant Mormon hagiography. When I hear DCP say something like, "all investigators of the Church should read Mormon Enigma before baptism, so they can see both sides of Joseph Smith", I will take him seriously on this. I'm not at all impressed by his overbearing stance on this thread, which seems in effect to be "Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about!"

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

You simply don't.

I'm trying to warn you off, since you're actually making an unwitting fool of yourself (to be perfectly blunt) -- I don't doubt your sincere good intentions (within your ideological constraints, of course), but you really don't know enough about this and really should be a bit more circumspect -- but, if you resent the warning, there's really not much more that I can do.