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

[_krose]

However, this jovial camaraderie almost makes me a bit jealous, and I wonder if Tarski and I may have been laboring in the Nagoya environs 15 years too early.

I don't know the answer to that. From my own experience, the members and, more especially, my fellow-missionaries "made" my mission. The camaraderie was like nothing I ever experienced before or since. No, not even my stint in the Marines gave me anywhere near the sense of family like the mission did. Everyone fully united in a common cause--it was cool. Are you saying that it wasn't the same when you were there?

Naw, I was just attempting humor (and saying I've had little contact with former companions, but would like to). We had our share of abrasive or arrogant jerks who made life difficult, of course, but by and large my experience was much like what you describe. As for members, I corresponded with several from different areas for a while after returning, but sadly, I can no longer read all their letters (I was once quite proficient at writing, but it's mostly gone now).

By the way, krose, what do you think of this page?

Yeah, that's our Pres. Tanaka reunion site. I knew a lot of those people. You notice I didn't submit a bio myself, just a list of places served. You're in Utah, aren't you? Did you see local news anchor Bob Evans is a fellow Nagoya alum?

[_Dr. Shades]

You're in Utah, aren't you?

Yes.

Did you see local news anchor Bob Evans is a fellow Nagoya alum?

I never watch the news. What channel is he on, and when was he there?

[_krose]

Did you see local news anchor Bob Evans is a fellow Nagoya alum?

I never watch the news. What channel is he on, and when was he there?

Channel 13 since 1995, channel 2 some time before that.

[_moksha]

In this case, however, I specifically had in mind my knowledge of harmony's identity and approximate whereabouts.

Is the BYU Security Force satellite tracking her implanted GPS chip right now?

[_The Nehor]

In this case, however, I specifically had in mind my knowledge of harmony's identity and approximate whereabouts.

Is the BYU Security Force satellite tracking her implanted GPS chip right now?

We're ready to detonate the cortex bomb if she strays much farther from her programming.

[_harmony]

My TR is as good as yours, and that causes some folks who frequent this place a considerable amount of angst...

It causes me no angst, but, were I your bishop, I probably wouldn't have given you one.

My comment was not directed at you, Daniel. And since I can't see you ever being my bishop, it's definitely not anything to lose sleep over.

I regard you as a nominal member of the Church, and as, in a certain sense, still affiliated with the Restoration generally, but not as a believing Latter-day Saint.

And you can "see" all this from online conversations? Wow. It's good to know that one seer stone works, even if all the rest are just stones on the beach.

You might want to go back and read some of your responses to my comments about you... and change the pronouns. You don't know me; you know nothing about me, yet you feel qualified to judge me as 'nominal' and 'not believing'. I guess that validates my judgment of you as a self-righteous arrogant prick.

As you know, I'm a counterexample to that.

If you really were the counterexample of that, this sentence would not be on this thread.

[_harmony]

In this case, however, I specifically had in mind my knowledge of harmony's identity and approximate whereabouts.

This sentence is not designed to ease any fears I might harbor. Were you really concerned that I feel safe, this sentence would not be on this thread.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And you can "see" all this from online conversations?

Yes, and without any difficulty.

You've expressed plenty of opinions about LDS history, the LDS scriptural canon, LDS leaders, and etc.

I don't presume to judge your morality, honesty, or character, but you've scarcely made any secret of your views.

You don't know me; you know nothing about me, yet you feel qualified to judge me as 'nominal' and 'not believing'.

See above.

I guess that validates my judgment of you as a self-righteous arrogant prick.

No. But it reflects my awareness of the questions that are asked in interviews for temple recommends, and my judgment of the gap between the answers you would give to several of them and the answers that I would regard as minimally acceptable for receiving a recommend.

I'm not your bishop, and I don't judge him. Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances that he's taking into account. But if I were your bishop, and if you answered those questions along the lines of the opinions you've expressed here, I would find it extremely difficult to endorse a recommend for you.

You may well be one of the great saints of our time in all other respects -- I have no idea one way or the other about that -- but there are several questions that I do not believe you could honestly answer in such a way that I could grant you a recommend. Unless, that is, the opinions you've expressed here have not represented your genuine views.

If you really were the counterexample of that, this sentence would not be on this thread.

I'm afraid that makes little or no sense to me.

As you know, I know something about you. As you also know, because I sent you a personal message to this effect, I have no intention of ever using it "against" you and will never do so. And, as you know, I haven't.

[_Pokatator]

My TR is as good as yours, and that causes some folks who frequent this place a considerable amount of angst...

It causes me no angst, but, were I your bishop, I probably wouldn't have given you one.

I regard you as a nominal member of the Church, and as, in a certain sense, still affiliated with the Restoration generally, but not as a believing Latter-day Saint.

Your powers of discernment are impeccable, do you get that with the second anointing?

enough, that if they knew my real name, they'd seek to cause mischief in my real life.

As you know, I'm a counterexample to that.

Meaning you're safe Harmony, your name isn't Eric and he probably isn't friends with your father.

[_harmony]

And you can "see" all this from online conversations?

Yes, and without any difficulty.

You've expressed plenty of opinions about LDS history, the LDS scriptural canon, LDS leaders, and etc.

I don't presume to judge your morality, honesty, or character, but you've scarcely made any secret of your views.

None of which contradict the TRI questions. Please quote the questions you think I could not answer appropriately.

But it reflects my awareness of the questions that are asked in interviews for temple recommends, and my judgment of the gap between the answers you would give to several of them and the answers that I would regard as minimally acceptable for receiving a recommend.

Which questions are you referring to? And what words would you be putting in my mouth as answers?

I'm not your bishop, and I don't judge him.

Try to remember that. He's a good man, and he knows me, respects me, and loves me as you never will. And because of that, I return that respect... for him, and even for his office, when it is appropriate.

Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances that he's taking into account. But if I were your bishop, and if you answered those questions along the lines of the opinions you've expressed here, I would find it extremely difficult to endorse a recommend for you.

You would have a difficult time not giving me a TR, were my SP still my SP. You would, perhaps, have some 'splainin' to do.

You may well be one of the great saints of our time in all other respects -- I have no idea one way or the other about that -- but there are several questions that I do not believe you could honestly answer in such a way that I could grant you a recommend.

Which?

Unless, that is, the opinions you've expressed here have not represented your genuine views.

Which opinions would those be?

If you really were the counterexample of that, this sentence would not be on this thread.

I'm afraid that makes little or no sense to me.

As you know, I know something about you. As you also know, because I sent you a personal message to this effect, I have no intention of ever using it "against" you and will never do so. And, as you know, I haven't.

If you were a true counter-example to the type of person who would work mischief in a stranger's life just to stir up trouble, you would be a gentleman and not allow anyone to know what you know. In other words, you wouldn't have mentioned what you know, just to score a point. You'd have kept that which is private... private... without telling everyone who reads here that you know something that could hurt me, but you're keeping it private. That's what gentlemen do. They know when to keep quiet.