They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Beware, mms. We know that the SCMC has used DCP in the past to deal with a doubting member

We chatted for two or three hours.

The length of time of your chat is not the issue -- the issue is that the discussion occurred courtesy of the SCMC.

He talked with me of his own free will, and was at complete liberty to quit the conversation at any moment he chose.

Another red herring. The point: the discussion occurred courtesy of the SCMC.

So far as I'm aware, he survived to tell the harrowing tale. He waved goodbye when he got into his car, and seemed unharmed.

The point remains: the discussion occurred courtesy of the SCMC.

The way in which you and Master Scartch have twisted and transmogrified this harmless little story is truly a wonder to behold, and it says far, far more about the two of you than it does about me.

You were recruited by the SCMC to talk with a disgruntled and exiting member.

If you knew the situation . . . No. Never mind. If a reasonable person knew the situation, that person would feel differently.

GoodK knew the situation -- see his reaction above.

Nice to see that Bishop Dan is still in the GoodK family loop. What a friggin' busybody.

His father is a friend of mine, and has been a friend of mine for perhaps twenty years or more.

That doesn't excuse your interference.

I realize that Master Scartch may not have any friends, but I didn't realize that the concept might be strange to Mini-Scartch, as well.

I'm surprised you have any friends, given your penchant for interfering in others' private family affairs.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Stop pretending like you know some sort of damning detail or secret. You don't.

Stop pretending.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The length of time of your chat is not the issue -- the issue is that the discussion occurred courtesy of the SCMC.

And the significance of that is . . . what, exactly?

There may be a few people, even here, who don't automatically assume that everything connected in any way at all with the SCMC is evil.

A harmless chat is a chat that's harmless. This was a harmless chat. You insinuated something sinister. There was nothing sinister.

The point: the discussion occurred courtesy of the SCMC. . . . The point remains: the discussion occurred courtesy of the SCMC.

Does "the point" have any real point?

You were recruited by the SCMC to talk with a disgruntled and exiting member.

So what?

A harmless chat is a chat that's harmless. This was a harmless chat. You insinuated something sinister. There was nothing sinister.

GoodK knew the situation -- see his reaction above.

I know the situation, too.

You don't.

I'm surprised you have any friends, given your penchant for interfering in others' private family affairs.

Sending an e-mail link to an old friend demonstrates "a penchant for interfering in others' private family affairs"?

Typically Scartchian standards of evidence seem to be in play here. "All Indians walk in single-file lines. At least, the one I saw did."

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The length of time of your chat is not the issue -- the issue is that the discussion occurred courtesy of the SCMC.

And the significance of that is . . . what, exactly?

The meeting was set up by the SCMC.

There may be a few people, even here, who don't automatically assume that everything connected in any way at all with the SCMC is evil.

Other than GA's and apologists, I don't know of anyone who sings the praises of the SCMC.

A harmless chat is a chat that's harmless. This was a harmless chat.

It was hardly a "chat." It lasted 2 to 3 hours with a guy you did not know, and was set up by the SCMC.

You insinuated something sinister. There was nothing sinister.

Whatever you say, Bishop Dan.

I'm surprised you have any friends, given your penchant for interfering in others' private family affairs.

Sending an e-mail link to an old friend demonstrates "a penchant for interfering in others' private family affairs"?

You bet, given the content of the message and the author. You were meddling, pure and simple, and further damaged an already estranged relationship between father and son. It was a dickhead move ... and you know it.

[_truth dancer]

Hi DCP...

If I recall correctly, the man with whom you met at the request of the SCMC specifically did not want the SCMC involved (or said something to this effect) and you were told not to mention your involvement with the SCMC by the SCMC rep. Did the man not mention something along this line to you?

If I recall correctly you opted to not disclose that you were indeed meeting with him at the request of the SCMC?

Did the man know his wife had contacted his bishop who then contacted the SCMC who then contacted you to meet with him? Didn't this all happen without his knowledge?

If I recall correctly we had a discussion on ZLMB about this (smile).

I know you see nothing wrong with this at all... but I believe reasonable people can find this scenario disturbing and inappropriate.

~td~

[_Daniel Peterson]

The meeting was set up by the SCMC.

So what?

Other than GA's and apologists, I don't know of anyone who sings the praises of the SCMC.

Other than a handful of critics, I don't know of anybody who mentions the SCMC.

Outside the rather weird demonology to which you and Master Scartch adhere, very few people seem to realize that Godzilla is loose in Salt Lake City.

It was hardly a "chat." It lasted 2 to 3 hours with a guy you did not know, and was set up by the SCMC.

You weren't there, Mini-Scartch.

It was a chat.

It was a harmless chat.

And it was a harmless chat even if the SCMC shared in setting it up.

IYou were meddling, pure and simple, and further damaged an already estranged relationship between father and son. It was a dickhead move ... and you know it.

I feel fine about it.

And, unlike you, I know the situation.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If I recall correctly, the man with whom you met at the request of the SCMC specifically did not want the SCMC involved (or said something to this effect)

No.

and you were told not to mention your involvement with the SCMC by the SCMC rep. Did the man not mention something along this line to you?

Yes.

If I recall correctly you opted to not disclose that you were indeed meeting with him at the request of the SCMC?

I didn't disclose it. Had he asked, I would have told him. The subject didn't come up.

Did the man know his wife had contacted his bishop who then contacted the SCMC who then contacted you to meet with him? Didn't this all happen without his knowledge?

I have no idea what he knew.

If I recall correctly we had a discussion on ZLMB about this (smile).

I know you see nothing wrong with this at all... but I believe reasonable people can find this scenario disturbing and inappropriate.

You're right. I think it's ridiculous to try to spin this into something sinister and menacing.

And, unless I'm mistaken, I'm the only one here who was actually present.

[_GoodK]

Stop pretending like you know some sort of damning detail or secret. You don't.

Stop pretending.

Man, if I ever gave you the benefit of the doubt about your other "whisper campaigns" (I did) I am beginning to think that I was horribly wrong for doing so.

I'm a nobody in the Mopologetic world - the scholarly world at that. I've never published anything related to Mormonism, yet look at you. Look at the way all three of you clowns have reacted to a few posts on the internet and some emails.

What you are doing is mean, dishonest, and immature.I'd like you stop. I don't care much for sneaky attempts to poison the well.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The meeting was set up by the SCMC.

So what?

Your response illustrates that you just don't get it or are playing dumb. I'm leaning toward the latter.

Other than GA's and apologists, I don't know of anyone who sings the praises of the SCMC.

Other than a handful of critics, I don't know of anybody who mentions the SCMC.

It was big news when the SCMC was first exposed -- a quasi spy arm of the Church to keep members in line (or at least bust them by sending a member's dossier to his/her local leader).

You weren't there, [Rollo Tomasi].

Right you are, Bishop Dan.

It was a chat.

Sure it was ....

It was a harmless chat.

Whatever you say ....

And it was a harmless chat even if the SCMC shared in setting it up.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night ....

IYou were meddling, pure and simple, and further damaged an already estranged relationship between father and son. It was a dickhead move ... and you know it.

I feel fine about it.

Of which I have no doubt.

And, unlike you, I know the situation.

As does GoodK, who has a very different view.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Stop pretending.

With all due respect, please shut up.

DCP is incapable.

Man, if I ever gave you the benefit of the doubt about your other "whisper campaigns" (I did) I am beginning to think that I was horribly wrong for doing so.

I agree that DCP's posts on this bb have exposed him for what he is -- a busybody and gossip.

I'm a nobody in the Mopologetic world - the scholarly world at that. I've never published anything related to Mormonism, yet look at you. Look at the way all three of you clowns have reacted to a few posts on the internet and some emails.

They have taken it upon themselves to attack and destroy anyone they consider an "enemy" of the Church.

What you are doing is mean, dishonest, and immature.

Along with immoral and extremely un-Christlike.