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

[_Chap]

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.

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.

I think this man genuinely means what he says. But somehow he can't help his reassurance coming over as creepy and vaguely threatening.

I think this is part of a general phenomenon, which makes his commitment to scholarship manifest itself in what often looks like boastful provincial pedantry, and all references to his charitable actions take the form of what looks like pharisaical trumpet-sounding.

Part of the explanation of these phenomena (if there is a single explanation) may lie in the difficult circumstances of being an intelligent member of the CoJCoLDS in a world that is largely indifferent or hostile. But let's not speculate.

{Edited to add] Of course it may be that most posters on this board suffer from some kind of Novak's Law related syndrome, so that they are perversely inclined to misinterpret the best-intentioned actions of even the most saintly Saints. That's a point better judged by non-participants in this discussion. And again, it verges on speculation.

[_Yoda]

Here are the current temple recommend questions:

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other oblgations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

I'm assuming that DCP thinks that your answers to questions 4 and possibly 7 would be questionable, Harm.

I disagree because I know what your explanations to these questions are. Why don't you enlighten him?

Actually, maybe DCP can clarify the questions here, and verify whether I'm right or wrong in my assumption.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

I've been reading since well before kindergarten.

That's all it takes.

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

I've publicly revealed absolutely nothing -- not a thing -- about GoodK's private identity. As a matter of fact, I've never disclosed that his name is Eric.

I called a friend's attention to something posted on a public message board.

I realize that the consensus here is that that was a horribly despicable act. As I've pointed out several score times here, I don't agree.

[Guest]

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.

I haven't allowed anyone to know what I know.

In other words, you wouldn't have mentioned what you know, just to score a point.

You suggested that believing Latter-day Saints here, if they knew your identity, would seek to hurt you.

That's a point, is it not? You shouldn't have made it. It's not fair. It's certainly not fair with regard to me, and you know that it's not fair with regard to me.

I wouldn't have brought it up, and haven't brought it up heretofore.

You shouldn't try to make points that reflect on the characters of others and then complain that it's unfair for them to respond.

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.

And I've kept quiet.

[I think this man genuinely means what he says.

If I don't, some alternative explanation needs to be produced for the fact that I've had plenty of opportunity to do "mischief," but haven't.

But somehow he can't help his reassurance coming over as creepy and vaguely threatening.

Oh, I think it would be easy to do so.

For example, mentioning it to an audience of normal people, not on this board, who aren't predisposed to view me as mean-spirited and unethical and the Church as an oppressive and menacing tyranny, would almost certainly do the trick.

I think this is part of a general phenomenon, which makes his commitment to scholarship manifest itself in what often looks like boastful provincial pedantry, and all references to his charitable actions take the form of what looks like pharisaical trumpet-sounding.

I think "reader-response theory" would be relevant here. As Stanley Fish used to say, there is no text in the class.


.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm assuming that DCP thinks that your answers to questions 4 and possibly 7 would be questionable, Harm.

That's true.

And I would need to probe a bit about question 3, as well.

[_cinepro]

I'm assuming that DCP thinks that your answers to questions 4 and possibly 7 would be questionable, Harm.

That's true.

And I would need to probe a bit about question 3, as well.

In my last TR interview, I told the SP member that I had some testimony issues. Instead of "probing", I got a 15 minute lecture on faith, belief, doubt, and the gospel. Without asking a single follow up question, he must have assumed he had resolved my concerns and signed my recommend and ended the interview. Oh well.

[_dblagent007]

Here are the current temple recommend questions:
I'm assuming that DCP thinks that your answers to questions 4 and possibly 7 would be questionable, Harm.

Harm, what is the issue with #7? I always thought #7 was directed toward polygamists, that group in Manti, etc. Do you sympathize with them or a similar group?

I think you would also have a bit of a problem with the garment question based on what you said in another thread.

[_dblagent007]

In my last TR interview, I told the SP member that I had some testimony issues. Instead of "probing", I got a 15 minute lecture on faith, belief, doubt, and the gospel. Without asking a single follow up question, he must have assumed he had resolved my concerns and signed my recommend and ended the interview. Oh well.

Next time, just tell him you are cinepro on MDB and let him be the judge about the depth of your testimony issues. Based on your posts that I've read, I'm not sure that you believe in any aspect of Mormonism.

[_Chap]

[I think this man genuinely means what he says.

If I don't, some alternative explanation needs to be produced for the fact that I've had plenty of opportunity to do "mischief," but haven't.

But somehow he can't help his reassurance coming over as creepy and vaguely threatening.

Oh, I think it would be easy to do so.

For example, mentioning it to an audience of normal people, not on this board, who aren't predisposed to view me as mean-spirited and unethical and the Church as an oppressive and menacing tyranny, would almost certainly do the trick.

Hmmm. "I know something about you. Something you don't want people to know. But I really, really promise - cross my heart - not to tell anybody. But still I think I should tell you that I know what I know ..."

Nope. No normal person could find that creepy or threatening.

I think this is part of a general phenomenon, which makes his commitment to scholarship manifest itself in what often looks like boastful provincial pedantry, and all references to his charitable actions take the form of what looks like pharisaical trumpet-sounding.

I think "reader-response theory" would be relevant here. As Stanley Fish used to say, there is no text in the class.

I am a bit puzzled what DCP thinks he has added to what I said at the end of my post, which he doesn't quote:

Of course it may be that most posters on this board suffer from some kind of Novak's Law related syndrome, so that they are perversely inclined to misinterpret the best-intentioned actions of even the most saintly Saints. That's a point better judged by non-participants in this discussion. And again, it verges on speculation.

One does try to be fair to everybody you know ... as no doubt does DCP.

Oh I see: what he has added is the wonderful information that he is acquainted with some books on critical theory. That's really impressive. (But relevant how, in this context?)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hmmm. "I know something about you. Something you don't want people to know. But I really, really promise - cross my heart - not to tell anybody. But still I think I should tell you that I know what I know ..."


Nope. No normal person could find that creepy or threatening.

Harmony already knew that I knew what I know about her. She and I have already discussed this, privately. Quite a while ago. It was no shock or surprise to her.

So I'm plainly a counterexample to her suggestion that, if believers here knew her identity, they would seek to damage her. I do, and I haven't. And she is aware of that.

Oh I see: what he has added is the wonderful information that he is acquainted with some books on critical theory. That's really impressive. (But relevant how, in this context?)

Good grief.

I will try in my posts from now on when I post on things that have to do with you or that you might read to keep my posts to short, short words and not to point to things that you might think are too big or things that you might think are show-off things. I will try not to show that I read things in books and stuff. I will try real hard to do this so that you don't get mad or feel bad or think that I am a show-off. I hope that that will make you feel good. I want you to feel good and not to feel bad or to get mad at me. I want you to say nice things and not bad things when you post things to do with me. I hope that is good. I hope that is all right with you.