Why I am not a Mormon

[_Daniel Peterson]

Goodness, Guy. He's reduced to calling you names. I think you can make bank on this one.

No rational argument is possible with this idiocy, and it's futile to attempt it.

[_antishock8]

And I hope you'll pardon me, but, if you're going to presume to lecture me, sight unseen, on my ethical shallowness, I'm just going to have to indicate that I regard you as an arrogant and presumptuous jackass.

In my experience, real learning and wisdom come from seeing the world from other points of view and making a good faith effort to understand them. Activities in which I see no evidence that you engage.

And a complacent fool.

You produce the appearance of depth by virtue of a wordy vocabulary, knowledge of esoterica, inveterate name dropping, and frequent bragging about your wonderful work and many travels, but your thousands upon thousands upon thousands of posts do not reflect a real depth of understanding of the human experience.

And a self-inflated gasbag.

You are, in other words, a prisoner of the narrow mental constructs you have created for yourself (or allowed to be created for you), despite the appearance of worldliness you try so hard to cultivate.

I'm not inclined to genuflect before your broader intellectual horizons, your superior learning, your profound wisdom, your greatness as a moral thinker, or your remarkable insight into the human experience.

I hadn't fully realized, until this post, what an utter buffoon you were. Unbelievable.

Once again Mopologia is reduced to Ad Hom dialogue. This, by the way folks, is the real reason why Mr. Peterson posts on this board... In case it hand't occurred to anyone.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Once again Mopologia is reduced to Ad Hom dialogue.

No, I just called Guy Sajer some names. I rarely do that, but he deserved it and, frankly, it was rather fun.

His letter, however, was a classic bit of ad hominem. (Try looking the concept up.)

Since personal contempt seems to be the preferred language of discourse here, I thought I'd give it a try.

I've attempted civil conversations on this board, and, for that, I've been branded with practically every kind of character defect and psychological shortcoming imaginable, as well as subjected to crude obscenities (largely by you, poor fellow).

No wonder believing Latter-day Saints are coming here in droves for respectful exchanges.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Interesting that Daniel needs to have you interpret his remarks for me.

Yes, I'm talking access. From his remarks, I thought that's what Daniel meant. Had he explained using your viewpoint, I'd have conceded immediately.

EA is close to what I meant, but not quite.

I meant that they are, by and large, accessible personalities, but also that they are, by and large, possible to gain access to. But, of course, I never meant that anybody who has a whim to talk with them is welcome to invade their hospital rooms, prevent them from catching planes, take over their daily schedules, interrupt their meetings, visit them at home at any hour of the day and night, or the like. That simply wouldn't be reasonable. I wouldn't tolerate it, and I see no reason why a member of the Twelve should have to tolerate it.

[_harmony]

Many of you folks are genuinely pathetic. You appear incapable of carrying on a civil conversation with me, without attacks on my character and personality.

Hello? Who is attacking who? A few of your words about me:

preens

ridiculous

irrelevant

absurd

incapable of following a conversation

consummately silly

complete cluelessness

like mirrors in a carnival funhouse (I take that to mean distorted)

grossly unfair

implausible

still in the carnival funhouse! look at all the distorting mirrors

eccentric absurdities

bizarre

ridiculous (again)

ludicrous


So... who is unable to carry on a converation without attacking???

[_Jersey Girl]

Once again Mopologia is reduced to Ad Hom dialogue. This, by the way folks, is the real reason why Mr. Peterson posts on this board... In case it hand't occurred to anyone.

I see you have no particular allegiance to truth.

[_harmony]

Interesting that Daniel needs to have you interpret his remarks for me.

Yes, I'm talking access. From his remarks, I thought that's what Daniel meant. Had he explained using your viewpoint, I'd have conceded immediately.

EA is close to what I meant, but not quite.

I meant that they are, by and large, accessible personalities, but also that they are, by and large, possible to gain access to. But, of course, I never meant that anybody who has a whim to talk with them is welcome to invade their hospital rooms, prevent them from catching planes, take over their daily schedules, interrupt their meetings, visit them at home at any hour of the day and night, or the like. That simply wouldn't be reasonable. I wouldn't tolerate it, and I see no reason why a member of the Twelve should have to tolerate it.

None of your paragraph is relevant to this conversation. I wasn't talking access at their homes, their offices, their cars, their doctor's offices... and you know that. You choose to exaggerate in order to slide out of taking responsibility for your own words.

You made no caveat on your words. I disagreed with them as written. My premise is that our leaders have never been accessible to the general membership at any time when they have been here. They have had numerous opportunities to meet with the Saints, the ordinary non-leader Saints, and they choose to bypass us and speed to the airport. This has happened repeatedly. We are not allowed close enough to engage in a hand shake or a short "I'm so glad you could visit us" conversation.

Either clarify your words when given the chance, or swallow them whole, when someone feeds them back to you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

ridiculous

irrelevant

absurd

consummately silly

eccentric absurdities

bizarre

ridiculous (again)

ludicrous

Every one of the items above refers to an argument you've made, or a claim you've asserted. That is not personal.

These are more personal:

preens

incapable of following a conversation

complete cluelessness

They're a bit harsh, but, to say the worst of them, they're no harsher than the things you've routinely aimed at me, both on this thread and elsewhere, for years -- even when I haven't been posting here. And they don't even begin to approach the kinds of things Guy Sajer just said about me (which he meant quite seriously), let alone the kinds of things poor antishock8 and several others say about me on a routine basis.

"Preens": I've seen you denounce Mormons for judgmentalism many times while in the very act of condemning them, or me, or Church leaders for imagined crimes and personal defects.

"Incapable of following a conversation" and "complete cluelessness": My conversation with you over the past few pages has been somewhat exasperating, as you seemed less interested in understanding what I was saying than in rebutting what you thought I had said.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You made no caveat on your words.

I didn't need to. No reasonable person would have misunderstood them as you did.

My premise is that our leaders have never been accessible to the general membership at any time when they have been here.

And I think your premise false.

They have had numerous opportunities to meet with the Saints, the ordinary non-leader Saints, and they choose to bypass us and speed to the airport. This has happened repeatedly. We are not allowed close enough to engage in a hand shake or a short "I'm so glad you could visit us" conversation.

How many apostles have you had there in the past twenty years?

[_harmony]

You made no caveat on your words.

I didn't need to. No reasonable person would have misunderstood them as you did.

You wrote them, Daniel. You might want to work on your clarity. I've had enough conversations with you over the years to have you browbeat me repeatedly for assuming you'd know what I was talking about, when I wasn't clear enough. Now you know what it feels like, to have your words spoonfed back to you.

My premise is that our leaders have never been accessible to the general membership at any time when they have been here.

And I think your premise false.

And I think you have no idea what I'm talking about, but that's never stopped you from declaring unilateral warfare before, so I don't have any hopes that things will change at this late date.

They have had numerous opportunities to meet with the Saints, the ordinary non-leader Saints, and they choose to bypass us and speed to the airport. This has happened repeatedly. We are not allowed close enough to engage in a hand shake or a short "I'm so glad you could visit us" conversation.

How many apostles have you had there in the past twenty years?

None, at stake conference. However, we've had GBH in the region twice in the last 10 years and once 20 years ago, as previously mentioned. Speeding past the stake center on the way to the airport. It wasn't exactly a close encounter. We haven't had a close encounter with a GA in my ward since La Grande Richards was here. That's my point, Daniel. So kind of you to give me an opportunity to make it once again.