Why I am not a Mormon

[_Jersey Girl]

By all means, don't let that stop you from attacking a symbol of the very same authority that many of you claim has no relevance to your life and remaining silent when the bottom feeder known as Scratch spins his digusting little webs.

There is no courage in that.

Daniel is a symbol of the church's authority? He says he makes no such claim.

The only authority I allow to have relevance in my life is my bishop, and even then his authority is limited. Daniel has no authority whatsoever. Attacking him? Only after he repeatedly attacked me. I was the soul of discretion and mildness, which for me is quite an accomplishment!

I wasn't referring to any claim that Daniel has made. I was referring to the dynamic I observed after reading 26 pages of toxic absurdity, harm. Of course the solution is not to open these kinds of threads.

[_Ray A]

As I find your obstinate unwillingness to reflect critically on your beliefs and actions to be equally unbelievable (well, believable, actually, as I've met many just like you over the years).

And this from the person who is now whining about being subjected to personal attacks?

I call them as I see them Dan, and I am hardly making my conclusions sight unseen. You have left voluminous indications of your thoughts on the internet, enough, were they to be accumulated, to fill books. Were someone writing a posthumous biography of you, they would have substantial source material from the internet alone, as much or more than others have who write lengthy biographies and who draw inferences about the person's beliefs and mental activity from the records at hand. (News flash, Dan, the term 'all over the internet' was not intended as a literal statement.)

I don't claim to be the great moral thinker you think I think I am. I do, however, claim to have a broader understanding of human experience than you, not because I'm smarter than you, but because I am not constrained in my understanding by a narrow intellectual framework that requires me to interpret what I observe through a pre-determined, limited lense.

I stand by my conclusions.

But I'm willing to reconsider them if anyone can produce in one or more of Dan's thousands upon thousands of internet postings evidence of a willingness to critically reflect on his beliefs.

As to whether I'm willing to engage in critical self-reflection, the fact that I have done precisely that, and in the process completely changed how I view the world, religion, God, etc. is one big data point.

So tell us Dan, what are the great moral issues your mind turns over and what evidence can you offer that you are willing to subject your beliefs to serious, critical self-reflection?

As for being a buffoon or gasbag, I tend to disagree. I'm content to let others judge for themselves, however.

Dan has probably gone off to his conference, but may I add a few thoughts? Dan is defending what he believes, just as you are defending what you believe, or disbelieve. GoodK's actions must be judged on his experiences as an exmo. Dan's actions must be judged on his actions as a believer. If you were a believer, would you have acted any differently than Dan did? And of course he's going to defend Mormonism to his last breath. Probably because he's had spiritual experiences which he feels he can't deny, no matter how irrational it may sound to the rest of us. He's simply being true to what he feels was revealed to him. Do you expect him to deny this? I'd say that in Dan's "critical evaluation" he strongly considers what he's experienced spiritually, and maybe that's why "intellectual analysis" has little bearing in his overall evaluations. I mean, seriously Guy, did you really expect Dan to react any differently to GoodK's posted email? I fully understand GoodK's reasons for posting this, because he felt left out, the "black sheep" of his family seeking comfort in others who might understand. But was it really wise to post this email? I think not. He obviously wanted to subject his father, and "TBM" family to ridicule, which he is no stranger to himself. But he should have taken the higher ground and dealt with this privately, and not subjected his father to open ridicule, because he (his father) believes things he considers weird.

Sorry, but I don't believe anyone should "rat" on their family, and GoodK purposely exposed them to ridicule by posting that email. And who can really judge his father's motivations in posting that email, late as it was. I think this is a man who loves his son, enough to include him, albeit late ( and maybe he was in some sense respecting his son's belief boundaries), and I also think that in the end, notwithstanding religious differences, he will love his son until the day he dies. Would any parent think otherwise?

[_Trevor]

Oh my. I think this is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, an embarrassing debacle, a stunning revelation, and so forth. "Peterson threatens to murder Scratch!"

ROFLMAO! You really beat Scratch to the punch there. I am almost certain he would have run with this... and he still may!

Actually, I simply had an image in my mind of him hopping on his little goat hoofs down the street, to the tune of bulllets from an AK-47 ricocheting off the asphalt under them. ("Dance, pardner!") Nothing quite so bloody as you suggest.

Should I hope you are a good shot? Am I a monster for considering the alternatives? How revealing this is all becoming.

[_Trevor]

Forthcoming:

Daniel C. Peterson, Offenders For A Word: Why I Now Believe Ed Decker is a Good Guy

Pure gold.

[_antishock8]

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.) <-Passive-Aggressive insult

Since personal contempt seems to be the preferred language of discourse here, I thought I'd give it a try. <-Admits to reason why he's here.

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).<- Passive-Aggressive insult

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

QFR

M.O.:

1) Responds to a thread with passive-aggressive hostility.

2) Someone returns the favor with over hostility.

3) Claims victim status, re-insults with passive-aggressive hostility.

4) Claims board is ridiculous, is leaving, etc.... Continues to post in order to engage in Mopologetics, ie, ad hominem argumentum ad nauseum.

[_guy sajer]

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.) <-Passive-Aggressive insult

Since personal contempt seems to be the preferred language of discourse here, I thought I'd give it a try. <-Admits to reason why he's here.

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).<- Passive-Aggressive insult

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

QFR

M.O.:

1) Responds to a thread with passive-aggressive hostility.

2) Someone returns the favor with over hostility.

3) Claims victim status, re-insults with passive-aggressive hostility.

4) Claims board is ridiculous, is leaving, etc.... Continues to post in order to engage in Mopologetics, ie, ad hominem argumentum ad nauseum.

Actually, Dan, it was not classic ad hominem: "a logical fallacy of ethos in which the arguer attacks the proponent of an idea instead of the idea itself."

I was not attacking any or your ideas, per se, but I was commenting on your reasoning and argumentation style. Big difference.

My conclusion is that your reasoning/argument style on the internet boards show evidence of a lack of critical self-reflection and insufficient understanding (or attempt at understanding) people who see the world very differently than you do. I base this conclusion on literally thousands of internet postings that, would they be aggregated, fill hundreds of pages of text.

I suggest that you re-calibrate your personal understanding of ad hominem.

Nor did I make a Passive-Aggressive insult: the expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive passive way (such as through procrastination and stubbornness).

I was rather upfront and assertive in my assessment.

I suggest that you re-calibrate your personal understanding of passive-aggressive as well.

No, you don't attempt to be civil. Not here, not at MAD. You engage in numerous and frequent rhetorical methods to impugn, demean, belittle, insult, and so forth. I guarantee you that how you perceive yourself is quite different from how others perceive you. (At least those who don't have their noses up your arse.)

I suggest, in addition, that you re-calibrate your personal understanding of yourself.

Now, here's what I don't get. You and your FARMS buddies (and others in the apologetic community) routinely as a matter of course in numerous polemics (many masquerading as scholarship) call into question or outright impugn peoples motives, intellect, credentials, ethics, and so forth. You are well versed in the art of personal attack, and you employ it like a carpenter employs his hammer. By your actions, you indicate that such methods are acceptable forms of discourse and critique.

Yet, when you get it back, you cry, whine, stomp your feet, play the persecution card, and repeatedly threaten to take your pail and shovel and leave the sandbox.

You are a piece of work, indeed, and an incredibly hypocritical one at that.

Oh yeah, note to Dan. That was not a Passive-Aggressive insult.

[_Alter Idem]

As I find your obstinate unwillingness to reflect critically on your beliefs and actions to be equally unbelievable (well, believable, actually, as I've met many just like you over the years).

And this from the person who is now whining about being subjected to personal attacks?

I call them as I see them Dan, and I am hardly making my conclusions sight unseen. You have left voluminous indications of your thoughts on the internet, enough, were they to be accumulated, to fill books. Were someone writing a posthumous biography of you, they would have substantial source material from the internet alone, as much or more than others have who write lengthy biographies and who draw inferences about the person's beliefs and mental activity from the records at hand. (News flash, Dan, the term 'all over the internet' was not intended as a literal statement.)

I don't claim to be the great moral thinker you think I think I am. I do, however, claim to have a broader understanding of human experience than you, not because I'm smarter than you, but because I am not constrained in my understanding by a narrow intellectual framework that requires me to interpret what I observe through a pre-determined, limited lense.

I stand by my conclusions.

But I'm willing to reconsider them if anyone can produce in one or more of Dan's thousands upon thousands of internet postings evidence of a willingness to critically reflect on his beliefs.

As to whether I'm willing to engage in critical self-reflection, the fact that I have done precisely that, and in the process completely changed how I view the world, religion, God, etc. is one big data point.

So tell us Dan, what are the great moral issues your mind turns over and what evidence can you offer that you are willing to subject your beliefs to serious, critical self-reflection?

As for being a buffoon or gasbag, I tend to disagree. I'm content to let others judge for themselves, however.

Dan has probably gone off to his conference, but may I add a few thoughts? Dan is defending what he believes, just as you are defending what you believe, or disbelieve. GoodK's actions must be judged on his experiences as an exmo. Dan's actions must be judged on his actions as a believer. If you were a believer, would you have acted any differently than Dan did? And of course he's going to defend Mormonism to his last breath. Probably because he's had spiritual experiences which he feels he can't deny, no matter how irrational it may sound to the rest of us. He's simply being true to what he feels was revealed to him. Do you expect him to deny this? I'd say that in Dan's "critical evaluation" he strongly considers what he's experienced spiritually, and maybe that's why "intellectual analysis" has little bearing in his overall evaluations. I mean, seriously Guy, did you really expect Dan to react any differently to GoodK's posted email? I fully understand GoodK's reasons for posting this, because he felt left out, the "black sheep" of his family seeking comfort in others who might understand. But was it really wise to post this email? I think not. He obviously wanted to subject his father, and "TBM" family to ridicule, which he is no stranger to himself. But he should have taken the higher ground and dealt with this privately, and not subjected his father to open ridicule, because he (his father) believes things he considers weird.

Sorry, but I don't believe anyone should "rat" on their family, and GoodK purposely exposed them to ridicule by posting that email. And who can really judge his father's motivations in posting that email, late as it was. I think this is a man who loves his son, enough to include him, albeit late ( and maybe he was in some sense respecting his son's belief boundaries), and I also think that in the end, notwithstanding religious differences, he will love his son until the day he dies. Would any parent think otherwise?

It's clear you understand Goodk. But then I'm not surprised--I've always found you to be very insightful and a good judge of character.

Most have given a pass to Goodk(why am I not surprised?) for posting the email about his sick sister that started it all in the first place. Most jumped on Dr. Peterson for breaching a confidence, but completely ignored Goodk's original breach of a confidence (I don't care if it was "sent to 100 people"-they were people he had CHOSEN to share his thoughts with--and it was a breach to share it here, without permission and even worse; to do so to ridicule his father's faith!). But because he is an ex-mormon, his lack of consideration was ignored or excused.


This is a problem I have noticed among some of the ex and non-LDS on this board. They are unable to be objective when it comes to anything involving the LDS faith. In this instance, they are blinded by their own "baggage" which overrules their ability to look honestly at the actions and motivations of others.

[Guest]

Most have given a pass to Goodk(why am I not surprised?) for posting the email about his sick sister that started it all in the first place. Most jumped on Dr. Peterson for breaching a confidence, but completely ignored Goodk's original breach of a confidence (I don't care if it was "sent to 100 people"-they were people he had CHOSEN to share his thoughts with--and it was a breach to share it here, without permission and even worse; to do so to ridicule his father's faith!). But because he is an ex-mormon, his lack of consideration was ignored or excused.


This is a problem I have noticed among some of the ex and non-LDS on this board. They are unable to be objective when it comes to anything involving the LDS faith. In this instance, they are blinded by their own "baggage" which overrules their ability to look honestly at the actions and motivations of others.

I disagree. Peterson did not breach a confidence here. He stuck his nose into someone else's business. It isn't a capital offense, but it wasn't really the best idea either. From what I recall of the original posting from GoodK, there wasn't a breach of confidence there either. After all, when all of the names involved are not used, it is difficult to say that a confidence has been breached.

What it seems believers take exception to is the fact that GoodK was critical of his family's handling of his sister's illness, and that he may not have shared these feelings with his stepfather. To notify the stepfather, when the stepfather was not being called out by name, is just sticking one's nose in another's business. It is GoodK's business if he does or does not want to be frank with his stepfather about his feelings.

The problem with people, including you, is that none of us are capable of being truly objective. This includes your take on this incident, mine, and everything we think and write concerning Mormonism. Stunner.

[_Runtu]

It's clear you understand Goodk. But then I'm not surprised--I've always found you to be very insightful and a good judge of character.

Most have given a pass to Goodk(why am I not surprised?) for posting the email about his sick sister that started it all in the first place. Most jumped on Dr. Peterson for breaching a confidence, but completely ignored Goodk's original breach of a confidence (I don't care if it was "sent to 100 people"-they were people he had CHOSEN to share his thoughts with--and it was a breach to share it here, without permission and even worse; to do so to ridicule his father's faith!). But because he is an ex-mormon, his lack of consideration was ignored or excused.


This is a problem I have noticed among some of the ex and non-LDS on this board. They are unable to be objective when it comes to anything involving the LDS faith. In this instance, they are blinded by their own "baggage" which overrules their ability to look honestly at the actions and motivations of others.

For what it's worth, I've learned through sad experience that it's never good to "go public" with family issues, and I think GoodK's initial posting demonstrates that quite well. I wouldn't have done what he did, nor would I have done what Dr. Peterson did. Both acts needlessly inflamed a bad situation to the point at which a father and son are now publicly feuding through intermediaries. Neither GoodK nor Dr. Peterson seems to have thought through the likely outcomes of their actions. Both exercised poor judgment, in my view.

But there's plenty of blame to go around on all sides. And I don't think it's a uniquely ex-Mormon problem. I've seen the same thing among believers (most of us have seen the incredible lengths some have gone to in order to justify the behavior of the Pahorans, Julianns, and seleks of the world). Look at the painful efforts to criticize behavior like Will Schryver's without actually criticizing Will's behavior in particular. We're all guilty of turning a blind eye to those with whom we agree sometimes.

[_GoodK]

I disagree. Peterson did not breach a confidence here. He stuck his nose into someone else's business. It isn't a capital offense, but it wasn't really the best idea either. From what I recall of the original posting from GoodK, there wasn't a breach of confidence there either. After all, when all of the names involved are not used, it is difficult to say that a confidence has been breached.
What it seems believers take exception to is the fact that GoodK was critical of his family's handling of his sister's illness, and that he may not have shared these feelings with his stepfather. To notify the stepfather, when the stepfather was not being called out by name, is just sticking one's nose in another's business. It is GoodK's business if he does or does not want to be frank with his stepfather about his feelings.

The problem with people, including you, is that none of us are capable of being truly objective. This includes your take on this incident, mine, and everything we think and write concerning Mormonism. Stunner.

I've watched in awe as internet Mormon's like The 40-year-old-Nehor and MG object to my posting of the letter, which again, wasn't the complete letter, nor was did it include any personal names.

[sarcasm]If I didn't know better, I would say they seem upset that I mocked their foolish religion rather than that offensive email, anonymousyly.[/sarcasm]