Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??

[_Daniel Peterson]

Invited to post on a subject other than me, Pokatator responds with a much lengthier post about me.

[_harmony]

I thought you would bite on the letter of the law thing, but obviously you agree with my assessment, since you didn't contradict me.

I simply don't see the point in contradicting you.

A person who's never met me offers a negative evaluation of my character before an audience that's mostly hostile to me.

You've never met me, but that doesn't stop you from calling me a nominal member, an unbeliever in the church, and that you wouldn't believe my completely truthful answers to the TRI questions.

Saying you're a "letter of the law" guy is not a negative evaluation. Following strict rules isn't necessarily a bad thing. But you think it is. Do you secretly want to be a free spirit, throwing off the white shirt and tie, and running naked on the beach? But you can't because of all the responsibilities you carry?

If you ever want to go running on the beach, you know where I am.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You've never met me, but that doesn't stop you from calling me a nominal member, an unbeliever in the church, and that you wouldn't believe my completely truthful answers to the TRI questions.

You've called me a really harsh name (at least six or eight times) and declared multiple times, for years, that I don't live my religion.

I've pointedly declined to say whether you live according to your religion, since I don't know you and am in no position to judge your character.

What I have done, though, on a message board ostensibly dedicated to expressing and discussing viewpoints, is observe your viewpoints. And I find them sufficiently problematic that they would raise issues for me in connection with several of the temple recommend questions were I your bishop. That's all I've said.

I see you as something roughly like a Bickertonite, though perhaps a bit confused.

You can call me all the names that you like, and pronounce me a poor excuse for a Christian to your heart's content, but that won't change the fact that I find your positions on certain issues sufficiently problematic that they would cause me concern were I your bishop.

Saying you're a "letter of the law" guy is not a negative evaluation. Following strict rules isn't necessarily a bad thing. But you think it is.

I've said not a word about whether I think it is or whether I think it isn't.

But I doubt that anybody who knows me would ever think to characterize me as being a particularly "'letter of the law' guy."

Do you secretly want to be a free spirit, throwing off the white shirt and tie, and running naked on the beach? But you can't because of all the responsibilities you carry?

You really don't understand me at all.

If you ever want to go running on the beach, you know where I am.

How are the beaches there? Big waves?

I like big waves. I grew up in California in the sixties. I spent a lot of time on the beach.

[_harmony]

You've never met me, but that doesn't stop you from calling me a nominal member, an unbeliever in the church, and that you wouldn't believe my completely truthful answers to the TRI questions.

You've called me a really harsh name (at least six or eight times) and declared multiple times, for years, that I don't live my religion.

I've pointedly declined to say whether you live according to your religion, since I don't know you and am in no position to judge your character.

What I have done, though, on a message board ostensibly dedicated to expressing and discussing viewpoints, is observe your viewpoints. And I find them sufficiently problematic that they would raise issues for me in connection with several of the temple recommend questions were I your bishop. That's all I've said.

I see you as something roughly like a Bickertonite, though perhaps a bit confused.

You can call me all the names that you like, and pronounce me a poor excuse for a Christian to your heart's content, but that won't change the fact that I find your positions on certain issues sufficiently problematic that they would cause me concern were I your bishop.

Are you referring to the "self-righteous arrogant prick"? That was and is an honest assessment of your on-line persona based on your posts on this and other boards we've both frequented. As was my observation that you don't always live up to the tenets of your religion (neither do I, which you've pointed out numerous times, most recently just last week). You aren't always kind, loving, charitable, or longsuffering. And if you aren't those things, you aren't living your religion. Those things are basic to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't live them well either, but I'm not in a position to hurt the church when I don't live them. You are. When much is given, much is expected. Much is not given to me; it is given to you.

I've never called you a liar, never questioned your credentials, never caused you grief in your real life. So it looks to me like we're even, Daniel.

Saying you're a "letter of the law" guy is not a negative evaluation. Following strict rules isn't necessarily a bad thing. But you think it is.

I've said not a word about whether I think it is or whether I think it isn't.

But I doubt that anybody who knows me would ever think to characterize me as being a particularly "'letter of the law' guy."

The "letter of the law" guy would deny members like me temple recommends. The "spirit of the law" guy would give them out every time, hoping that the member would use them often. On that score, based on your comments on this thread, you're a "letter of the law" guy. Your mission, according to what you said earlier, is keeping the temple from being tainted by members like me. Jason, a true "spirit of the law" guy, would do everything in his power to encourage temple attendance in members like me, hoping the atmosphere of the temple would calm troubled hearts.

Do you secretly want to be a free spirit, throwing off the white shirt and tie, and running naked on the beach? But you can't because of all the responsibilities you carry?

You really don't understand me at all.

You don't want me to. And you wouldn't acknowledge it if I did. You can't.

If you ever want to go running on the beach, you know where I am.

How are the beaches there? Big waves?

I like big waves. I grew up in California in the sixties. I spent a lot of time on the beach.

I spent last week at what I call "my beach". The hotel is built out over the water, so when I sit in the lobby, it feels like I'm floating on the water. Very soothing after multiple meetings and heavy conversations about life and death. I even walked my mile on "my beach". No big waves like California, but the scent of the water is the same.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are you referring to the "self-righteous arrogant prick"?

That's the one.

That was and is an honest assessment of your on-line persona based on your posts on this and other boards we've both frequented.

Whatever.

And the simple fact remains that I've never used language even remotely like that to characterize you -- neither in terms of sheer offensiveness nor in terms of commenting on your character, which I haven't done.

The "letter of the law" guy would deny members like me temple recommends. The "spirit of the law" guy would give them out every time, hoping that the member would use them often.

We disagree.

Your mission, according to what you said earlier, is keeping the temple from being tainted by members like me.

I've said absolutely nothing like that.

Jason, a true "spirit of the law" guy, would do everything in his power to encourage temple attendance in members like me, hoping the atmosphere of the temple would calm troubled hearts.

You don't know me.

You don't want me to. And you wouldn't acknowledge it if I did. You can't.

I have little or no idea what the last three sentences mean.

If you intend to suggest that I'm somehow threatened by you . . . Well, I'll leave it there.

[_marg]

Are you referring to the "self-righteous arrogant prick"?

I dislike your comment Harmony. I don't think you would accept being called a something or other "c.u.n.t.". It's vulgar language.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I dislike your comment Harmony. I don't think you would accept being called a something or other "c.u.n.t.". It's vulgar language.

Thank you, marg.

Especially in view of our past disagreements, I genuinely appreciate your comment here.

[_harmony]

Are you referring to the "self-righteous arrogant prick"?

I dislike your comment Harmony. I don't think you would accept being called a something or other "c.u.n.t.". It's vulgar language.

Daniel knows there is no sexuality related to that comment. It's based in LDS scriptures, specifically D&C 121:38. Daniel is being a prick, persecuting the Saints (that would be me), and fighting against God.

You really need to learn which battle to pick, marg. You don't know the scriptures and it shows.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel knows there is no sexuality related to that comment.

Daniel has always assumed that that was precisely the sense in which it was intended.

It's deeply offensive.

It's based in LDS scriptures, specifically D&C 121:38. Daniel is being a prick, persecuting the Saints (that would be me), and fighting against God.

You really need to learn which battle to pick, marg. You don't know the scriptures and it shows.

I know the scriptures reasonably well, and I've never heard anybody described as a "prick" in the scriptural sense.

I also think it's silly to claim that I'm "persecuting the saints."




.

[_marg]

I dislike your comment Harmony. I don't think you would accept being called a something or other "c.u.n.t.". It's vulgar language.

Daniel knows there is no sexuality related to that comment. It's based in LDS scriptures, specifically D&C 121:38. Daniel is being a prick, persecuting the Saints (that would be me), and fighting against God.

You really need to learn which battle to pick, marg. You don't know the scriptures and it shows.

Oi Vay, this is not a battle, you are using vulgar language, I dislike it. And I doubt very much that the D&C uses vulgar language.