Look at how Daniel responded to KA’s post:
I dunno. We're getting a mother's reminiscence of something evidently told to her by her little girl about what a volunteer teacher once said to the little girl, which, even so, doesn't seem to be setting out the doctrine that you want to ascribe to the teacher. I would be very surprised if that teacher, asked whether she thought OCD could keep a child from the celestial kingdom, would have said Yes.
There is nothing, I mean NOTHING, in KA’s post that could reasonably be construed as meaning that someone, either her daughter or KA, ever asked the teacher if OCD could keep a child from the celestial kingdom. But it certainly is easy to show that the assertion that a primary teacher told a child or a mother that the child could not go to the CK due to OCD is a ridiculous and likely false assertion.
In contrast, KA’s actual assertion, is quite reasonable – that a primary teacher taught her class that you had to be good to get into the CK to be with your family forever. In fact, this is a simplified version of what is taught to EVERY Mormon.
It is also quite reasonable that a child with OCD or some other issue that impacted his/her ability to be “good” as the child perceived “good” to be interpreted this to mean that she/he would never be able to get in the CK and be with his/her family.
I know Daniel is intelligent enough to see the difference between these two assertions. So why did he respond to a straw man construction – ie, that a primary teacher actually told someone OCD would keep them out of the CK? Daniel, help me out here. When you read KA’s story, did you interpret it to mean that the primary teacher actually told either the daughter or KA that OCD would keep her out of the CK, or did you realize that you were slightly changing the point of the story but felt justified to demonstrate some larger point?