Carm'S Matt Slick’S Daughter Shares Her Story

[Calm]

Perhaps Brother Slick might find some comfort in considering that in the Mormon story, his daughter is not ultimately destined for hell even in the condition she is choosing now.

Somehow I doubt it. Perhaps his daughter might though...or it not comfort, than at least some pleasure?

[cdowis]

You see a connection between Catholicism and Atheism??? Okaaaaaay. Hmm. I wonder what you're seeing.

Catholics believe in salvation by works, so I suppose they are not Christian.

[cdowis]

why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?

Alex had no answer — and I realized I didn’t either. Everyone had always explained this problem away using the principle that Jesus’ sacrifice meant we wouldn’t have to follow those ancient laws. 
But that wasn’t an answer. In fact, by the very nature of the problem, there was no possible answer that would align with Christianity.



Sigh.

And Matt Slick made sure that his daughter would not find the answer.

[wenglund]

I didn't read her account of trying not to feel guilty about sleeping with her boyfriend as being at all connected with her decision to leave.

It was part of her exit narrative, and she gave the impression that her promiscuity had been going on for some time, whereas her loss of faith seem fairly recent. So, the connection seems quite clear to me. It made me wonder if it may have been the reason she and her father haven't spoken for some time. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 13, 2013 by wenglund

[Damien the Leper]

I didn't read her account of trying not to feel guilty about sleeping with her boyfriend as being at all connected with her decision to leave.

I agree. It is disappointing that many decide to project the want/need to sin by a person as the reasons/rationalizations to drop out of faith. While it may be the case for some, it is not, in my experience with countless others who have dropped out of faith, the primary reason. Asserting such as the reason in a majority type opinion is presumptuous, assinine and disingenuous. To make the situation worse is that not a single one of us, to my knowledge, have spoken to Rachel Slick personally. Therefore, casting judgement as to what her motivations were is in fact a much greater sin than her having pre-marital sex with her boyfriend. It is absolutely IMMORAL to assume anything about someone you don't know. We don't have all the facts and she didn't put it all out there. Perhaps the Pericope Adulterae is needed as a gentle and yet harsh reminder of who each of us are and where we stand before God.

[wenglund]

I agree. It is disappointing that many decide to project the want/need to sin by a person as the reasons/rationalizations to drop out of faith. While it may be the case for some, it is not, in my experience with countless others who have dropped out of faith, the primary reason. Asserting such as the reason in a majority type opinion is presumptuous, assinine and disingenuous. To make the situation worse is that not a single one of us, to my knowledge, have spoken to Rachel Slick personally. Therefore, casting judgement as to what her motivations were is in fact a much greater sin than her having pre-marital sex with her boyfriend. It is absolutely IMMORAL to assume anything about someone you don't know. We don't have all the facts and she didn't put it all out there. Perhaps the Pericope Adulterae is needed as a gentle and yet harsh reminder of who each of us are and where we stand before God.

The unwitting hypocrisy so permeates this post as to make it difficult to know where to begin explicating it--except to suggest that the over-wrought reaction to my seemingly innocuous general comment about accepting personal responsibility, and the reasonably substantiated example used to illustrate it, may have touched a raw nerve and resonated too true for comfort (as Shakespeare once penned--"The [man] doth protest too much, me thinks.")

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Something I failed to note is that Matt is a strict Calvinist, which can only leave him with two positions. She was not one of the chosen from the beginning and was ordained to hell already. This means having had debates with him on line, which means he trusts God's judgement and will continue to worship God even though his child is damned...or...he believes in "once saved always saved" so he takes comfort in that position. What I found interesting is how he taught obiedence to commandments, even with a belt (per his daughter's remarks) when he teaches openly that obiedence is not necessary for salvation. No wonder she is confused...you cannot beat or browbeat a child into faith.

[Calm]

It comes across as one doesn't have to obey God, but one better obey him (Slick) or else.

Edited August 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It comes across as one doesn't have to obey God, but one better obey him (Slick) or else.

Good point, that was a common theme, but the end result was obey me and you are obeying God's law. The need to do this through physical punishment is what I think was damaging to her. I believe in discipline of children, but there is a time an place, getting whipped for answering a question on doctrine can only lead to that child rebelling against God and not just Dad. The abuse still continues as they have never spoken again. But I freely admit, I am responding to her side of the story.

[Calm]

But I freely admit, I am responding to her side of the story.

And that may not be as accurate as she claims, of course.

I do believe that parents who use physical force to an extreme (I can see some being used to restraining or teaching a child from hurting herself such as a light slap on the hand or strong one if the light doesn't work to prevent a child from sticking his fingers or something else into a plug or light socket or touching a hot stove), especially if it is not directly connected to the action (it makes no sense to be hit by a belt for arguing with one's sibling for example, on the other hand, it makes sense to have to clean the sibling's bedroom or do something else for her), set kids up for not seeing God as a loving, supportive Father, but more from the POV of punishment and wrath. It is difficult not to live in fear of God if one lives in fear of one's parents. Also if one is set up to believe one can control one's life, stop bad things from happening to one by being perfect and thus avoiding one's parents's displeasure at the end of a belt, one tends to believe that one can stop bad things happening in life by making such bargains with God (if I go to church, he will heal my son's cancer), etc.

Our involvement with our parents really defines our involvement with our Heavenly Parent imo, whether it is a continuation of the same type of relationship or in opposition to them if we come to realize that our parents were doing something wrong and are able to internalize that instead of assuming God works on the same faulty basis (and therefore does not really exist).

[TOmNossor]

Our involvement with our parents really defines our involvement with our Heavenly Parent imo, whether it is a continuation of the same type of relationship or in opposition to them if we come to realize that our parents were doing something wrong and are able to internalize that instead of assuming God works on the same faulty basis (and therefore does not really exist).

I think this is very well said and very frequently true.

As an imperfect parent who had imperfect parents (but for a long time thought my normal was “right.”), I want to mention how important it is to have a perfect Heavenly Father.

I think it is actually a minority of folks (at least in the world) who grow up with parents who succeed in sufficiently reflecting God’s love into their children’s life. Instead I think most folks are left with some want/desire that only God can fill that they can link to their parents well-intentioned but flawed parenting. I suspect this desire for God is present in folks with perfect (close to perfect) parents too, but for different reasons.

I have received much from recognizing that I have a perfect Heavenly Father who can heal me, and that my parents were well intentioned but not perfect.

Charity, TOm

[Damien the Leper]

The unwitting hypocrisy so permeates this post as to make it difficult to know where to begin explicating it--except to suggest that the over-wrought reaction to my seemingly innocuous general comment about accepting personal responsibility, and the reasonably substantiated example used to illustrate it, may have touched a raw nerve and resonated too true for comfort (as Shakespeare once penned--"The [man] doth protest too much, me thinks.")

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not at all. You made a hasty generalization wrought with I belligerent and unethical bias. As someone who has dropped out of faith, I do agree that there is responsibility that must be taken. I own up to my flawed reasoning concerning my own dropping out. But a line of thinking that says "The only reason, from which I conclude, that you no longer believe is because you want to rationalize or justify sinning." Such a position is grossly disingenuous and generally misrepresentative.

[Tacenda]

Not at all. You made a hasty generalization wrought with I belligerent and unethical bias. As someone who has dropped out of faith, I do agree that there is responsibility that must be taken. I own up to my flawed reasoning concerning my own dropping out. But a line of thinking that says "The only reason, from which I conclude, that you no longer believe is because you want to rationalize or justify sinning." Such a position is grossly disingenuous and generally misrepresentative.

Amen brother, unbelief to rationalize or justify sinning? I wish that's what I was doing, then I'd be living it up right now.

[wenglund]

Not at all. You made a hasty generalization wrought with I belligerent and unethical bias. As someone who has dropped out of faith, I do agree that there is responsibility that must be taken. I own up to my flawed reasoning concerning my own dropping out. But a line of thinking that says "The only reason, from which I conclude, that you no longer believe is because you want to rationalize or justify sinning." Such a position is grossly disingenuous and generally misrepresentative.

Such a position is also not close to what I suggested--as the key qualifier "in part" within my comment attests. Time to put away your straw and quiet your unwarranted self-righteous indignation, and get back to the discussion at hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Freedom]

It was an interesting gimps into the Slick household but I wonder how we would feel of a prominent church leader's child posted a similar blog and it got hashed around at carm. carm is not what I would consider a christian site - I just cannot stomach its rage and hostility - but I have found that people who post blogs like this one are more often trying to justify themselves than to provide an objective history. I see it all too often with similar blogs from former members. I suspect that Matt would provide quite a different perspective on things. I have never given much time to people who want to reveal all on their former friends.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Amen brother, unbelief to rationalize or justify sinning? I wish that's what I was doing, then I'd be living it up right now.

Living it up is when living as close to the commandments as possible. Just as my car runs best when maintaining my car as the manufacturer outlines. Using both examples, when I treat myself as if no consequence matters, realities teach me the truth, same with my vehicle. Right now I am paying the lesson medically for not following the advice of my wife and doctors. If I am not obeying the commandments of God the same thing will happen. I was disappointed that this girl wanted to have sex with her boyfriend without feeling guilt, due to God's law. Matt's mistake was teaching his daughter, that if a comma or timeline was wrong, all faith is wrong and all faith, because of infallibility in God's word, but anytime men get involved in the process, mistakes will occur. These mistakes do not mean there is no God, nor right and wrong. What I wish she could realize and Matt, is man's interpretation does not mean flawless means nothing at all. Edited August 15, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Damien the Leper]

Such a position is also not close to what I suggested--as the key qualifier "in part" within my comment attests. Time to put away your straw and quiet your unwarranted self-righteous indignation, and get back to the discussion at hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your pious judgementalism has been noted.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm hoping we can stay away from the arrogantly juvenile thought process that encompasses what a former LDS friends father said to him when he dropped out of faith: "You'll be so miserable that you won't know you're miserable."

[LoudmouthMormon]

Actually, I've heard similar versions of that claim applied to believing LDS folks from critics.

Apparently, I'm so used to ignoring my cognitive dissonance, I don't even know I have any. I'm so brainwashed, I think my bizarre beliefs are normal. I'm so deluded, when I talk about changing church doctrine, it sounds like a page from Orwell's 1984.

"Arrogantly juvenile" you say? Ok - I can go with that.

Edited August 14, 2013 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

Living it up is when living as close to the commandments as possible. Just as my car runs best when maintaining my car as the manufacturer outlines. Using both examples, when I treat my as if no consequence matters, realities teach me the truth, same with my vehicle. Right now I am paying the lesson medically for not following the advice of my wife and doctors. If I am not obeying the commandments of God the same thing will happen. I was disappointed that this girl wanted to have sex with her boyfriend without feeling guilt, due to God's law. Matt's mistake was teaching his daughter, that if a comma or timeline was wrong, all faith is wrong and all faith, because of infallibility in God's word, but anytime men get involved in the process, mistakes will occur. These mistakes do not mean there is no God, nor right and wrong. What I wish she could realize and Matt, is man's interpretation does not mean flawless means nothing at all.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

live it up

to have an exciting time; to do what one pleases—regardless of cost—to please oneself

[wenglund]

With as important as family relations are to me, I hope Matt and his daughter are able to reconcile in love regardless of where the road of faith may take either of them. And, I wish the same for all parents and children who experience a parting of the religious ways.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Actually, I've heard similar versions of that claim applied to believing LDS folks from critics.

Apparently, I'm so used to ignoring my cognitive dissonance, I don't even know I have any. I'm so brainwashed, I think my bizarre beliefs are normal. I'm so deluded, when I talk about changing church doctrine, it sounds like a page from Orwell's 1984.

"Arrogantly juvenile" you say? Ok - I can go with that.

It's a silly notion. I agree. I may not agree with certain LDS doctrines and the reasoning behind them but I wouldn't go so far as to say LDS are deluded. I can simply agree to disagree.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

live it up

to have an exciting time; to do what one pleases—regardless of cost—to please oneself

We don't live by McGraw-Hill's words, but by the words of life, given though the Son of God. Who's words are good and bring out the best in us, even the very words of life. I cannot pretend to have arrogance to know more than he, I am also not passing judgement, for I am not worthy. So wanting am I...I will use my own words to explain my confusion...

The Bench

I sat upon the bench one day

That I might watch the world at play.

I did not see the fading light,

Upon the bench I spent the night.

But then the day began anew,

The rising sun came to my view,

I thought that I might linger still,

Upon the bench at my own will.

But the soon the days became a week.

I could not more nor could I speak!

The weeks now months, turned to years,

I viewed the world through my own tears.

As seasons rolled on steady track,

Children brought their children back.

Yet here hope the bench I stay,

That I might watch the world at play.

All that I've seen should make one wise,

The changing world before my eyes.

But wisdoms gift, I shall not give.

Afraid of life I did not live!

William E Lee

December 1995

Copyright 1996

So I freely Amit that I am not sure what "living it up" means to another, or if her faith was lost so she could have guilt free sex, or he father teaching that one flaw made it all wrong. To give an example, I had a friend who believed (as stated in the Bible) that is the "sun did not revolve around the earth" (as in scripture states he stopped the sun,,,keeping in mind that in the BoM the earths moves) that this would mean an error in the Bible and as such, all of it was false and thus, no God!

Edited August 16, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee