Eric.

[Guest]

Dan, use your sarcasm elsewhere. Don't try it on me.

Being straightforward with you hasn't worked.

You treat me as, effectively, a liar. You attribute motives to me, over and over again, that I flatly deny. And then you do it again.

You seek to portray this as a religious issue. Eric was insufficiently Mormon for his rigidly Mormon parents, and so they oppressed and punished him. Or something to that effect.

It seems a nice, neat Mormon-critical morality play, with white hats (at least one, anyway) and black hats.

I say, you don't know enough to make that judgment, and it's no business of yours to make it, anyway.

[_Jersey Girl]

Ray,

What is it that you'd like to see happen here?

[_Paul Osborne]

Screw this, I'm going to bed.

Paul O

[_Jersey Girl]

While I don't agree that Daniel should have bothered the family with the post, Eric didn't allow it to remain the scenes either. He dragged it on to this board, along with his criticisms of his step-dad and his religion and if you had any respect for Eric or his family at all, you would be telling him to stop dragging this all over the board and go work on building a relationship with his family.

This is where you don't have a very good grasp of Eric's situation, Jersey Girl. "Building relationships" is a two-way thing. When it comes to a parent-child relationship, especially when the child is only 15, who do you think should take the major role in "building relationships"? What, in your mind's eye, do you envision Eric doing, or could have done in the past, to "build relationships". He's an atheist. He does not believe Mormon doctrine. He resented being forced to read the scriptures and "toe the line".

What should a 15,16 or 17 year old do in this situation?

I read all of your replies to me, Ray, and will likely cherry pick a few items to respond to. The 15-17 year old is now in his twenties. If his relationship with his parent's is important to him, he needs to work at building it.

I was speaking in terms of the present.

[_Jersey Girl]

Eric's full name is all over the Internet and why? Because he chose to disclose his name in reference to his efforts against West Ridge.

Tell me, what the hell possible difference does all of this make now?

Had Daniel never contacted step-dad, Eric's full name would still be all over the Internet, along with his announcement on this board posted as GoodK regarding the Mormon Gulag website, and it would be no effort whatsoever to identify the posts in question as being posted by Eric Norwood regarding the family.

Okay. If a person is Gay, just as a pure hypothetical, who should tell the world he/she is Gay?

Sure, Eric revealed his real name because he had to do so for his first article. He chose to do so at that time. So is it okay for someone else to reveal who he is before that time? You are anonymous here. What if I found out your real full name, and posted it here on MDB. How would you feel about that? If you chose to later reveal your real name, it would make no difference to the fact that it was none of my business to reveal your name before you did.

I actually have an answer to that because I was confronted with that exact situation on a board.

If you were to reveal my full real name on this board without my having ever mentioned it publicly, I would immediately contact admin to have it removed. And admin would do it.

Case closed.

What I wouldn't do is make an endless pissing contest out of it by responding in kind as Eric has done repeatedly.

No one revealed Eric's name on this board but Eric. An email was posted publicly. Two posters made an attempt to alert the family in question. Eric chose to bring public attention to that himself.

[_Jersey Girl]

In your OP, you stated that someone "got wind" of the post that Eric made. DCP "got wind" of the post because he was on the distribution list for the email in question and recognized it.

That was one paragraph of my OP, and you've seen how Eric feels about DCP. That (how he feels) didn't happen by accident.

That email was not a personal/private email. It was sent to a round of contacts. When Eric chose to post it on this board, he did so knowingly taking a risk that someone here (DCP or possibly crock) would see it. Did Eric not see Daniel's email address on the list of contacts?

I don't know. There is such a thing as blind copies to recipients. But I don't know. Even if he did see DCP's name there, maybe he thought it would be beyond him to inform his father. Maybe because he was posting anonymously he felt no one would make a connection. DCP "worked it out".

I disagree with Daniel's choice to inform step-dad about the post. I stated so at the time it was brought to our attention here. I still disagree with it.

That's one of the things I like about you. I was in two minds for a while, probably because I weigh issues too much and don't see the obvious immediately. It wouldn't be the first time.

Having said that, if you are someone who respects and appreciates Eric, why the HELL are you enabling this stupid pissing contest between him and Daniel? His posts on this thread make NO reasonable sense, Ray, and yet you are content to watch this play out while he trips all over himself.

I've already stated my view, and my disappointment that his has become all about the DCP/Eric episode. I've already stated above that DCP is in fact a minor player and latecomer in Eric's experiences, and that none of his public comments about the Gulag have any reference to DCP (such as the article that originally appeared in Orato). That is an MDB focus, and Google doesn't even pick up all the discussions here. I'm not going to try to control threads, and I think you know that, but I also felt I had to report this aspect of Eric's negativity towards DCP, and the reason why he stopped posting here. I would like to see him come back without some Mormons shouting him down and saying "you don't know what you're talking about!" And continually, and disrespectfully trashing him to discredit him with "there's another side". Sure, there's another side to Joseph Smith too, but Mormons still adore him. I've defended DCP more times than I care to count. Here, and on MAD. In fact I recently had some exchanges with Doctor Scratch, wondering why there was so much focus and obsession with DCP. Maybe you missed that. It's not as if I'm batting in a biased way. But in view of this thread, it's not hard to see why there is so much (negative) obsession with DCP. He virtually invites it, and perhaps even relishes it. And he will not have his Church attacked without a reply. That's fair enough. But it doesn't need to dominate to the point where Eric is virtually drowned out altogether. There's a reason he stopped posting here, and the reason was that every time he said something the apologists (and some others) would jump him, and metaphorically speaking bash the s*** out of him. That's not my idea of fairness. That's not my idea of justice. It was the continual hounding that drove Eric away.

Is he wrong in some areas? Of course. I tried through several emails to persuade him not to pursuit a lawsuit against DCP. And now Eric can barely make a comment without DCP jumping in and interjecting, "but there's another side!" Hell, man, we all know there's another side to everything. This is like a Newflash: "Rudolph Valentino Dies".

I'll continue later.

If this goes up with the quote box restriction, it'll be a small miracle.

Eric didn't stop posting here on account of DCP, Ray. Check his last exchanges as GoodK. Eric stopped posting here because he was asked by admin to remove an avatar which was a photo of crock and his wife. Eric refused. Admin removed the image and Eric took off.

Eric stopped posting here because he doesn't like being told what to do.

Still like me?

[_Ray A]

Eric stopped posting here because he doesn't like being told what to do.

Still like me?

You make it sound like you just discovered the New World.

No, this is something about you I don't like - your vanity.

[_Ray A]

It seems a nice, neat Mormon-critical morality play, with white hats (at least one, anyway) and black hats.

I say, you don't know enough to make that judgment, and it's no business of yours to make it, anyway.

That's not my general position, Dan. I never said that the Book of Mormon would be a fraud if it's not historical. For the record - you did. And it seems to permeate your thinking. If you were a "Liahona", or a "liberal" in thinking, not a stitch of this fracas with Eric would have occurred. It's because you're so rigid in your religiosity, and so insistent that everything can be neatly defined as "those who serve God", and "those who don't". "Goodies and Baddies." And Eric is a "baddie". You haven't said anything to convince me otherwise.

[_Jersey Girl]

Eric stopped posting here because he doesn't like being told what to do.

Still like me?

You make it sound like you just discovered the New World.

No, this is something about you I don't like - your vanity.

Thanks for sharing. Now how about you reply to what I stated instead of characterizing it?

The fact is that he used an avatar that was an image of crock and his wife. He was asked to remove it and refused. Admin removed it and he didn't like that. He left because he doesn't like being told what to do.

The evidence of that are in his last exchanges on this board and I didn't discover the New World, I simply read his posts.

Vanity, my ass.

[_Nightingale]

...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. ... 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, ...

I think I understand where you started from with this Ray. The general issues are often discussed by exmos who have similar experiences and thoughts on the unfortunate clashes and relationship difficulties that often arise in part member families. It is obviously very difficult as a teen if you don't believe but still live at home. As if the coming of age phase of life isn't difficult enough.

Perhaps it's too soon, at least on this board, to discuss the specifics re Eric and his situation. It's too raw. I do understand how frustrating and hurtful it is to feel unheard and to have one's own experiences denied. In some ways that happens to many former Mormons when they try to explain their negative experiences in the Mormon Church and their reasons for leaving. That's why it's good to talk it through and hope that people on both sides can learn from the discussions.

When you are no longer anon, though, and it gets personal, it can quickly cease to be helpful in some venues.

Unfortunately, I don't think you are going to get near being able to have an objective discussion here about the general issues and making it specifically about Eric's situation, past and current, is likely doomed to be another painful rehash of old ground.

I agree with your comments about what happens in some Mormon families when one decides to leave Mormonism. Relationships fracture. Pain ensures. Minds don't meet. That is an area that isn't fully acknowledged or understood, it seems, and where I wish the church leaders would be more vocal and present in trying to smooth troubled waters. It's sad to see relationships broken over differences in religious belief. I understand why it is so. I just wish it were different.