They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

[_dblagent007]

Just commenting on this one thing and following that, I don't plan to further contribute to this thread.

Here's a work exmaple. A supervisor asks one employee to mentor another person who's work quality is of concern to the supervisor. The supervisor asks that the mentor does it on an informal basis and without telling this person that it was the supervisor's idea.

Good and effective mentoring relies on a solid foundation of mutual trust and respect between mentor and prot'eg'e Failure to disclose is not conducive to constructing such a foundation.

I agree. As I mentioned above, an astute supervisor would choose approach someone that the mentee already trusts (and possibly is already a mentor in a way). The mentor may be able to help the mentee with an issue without all the baggage that comes along with the supervisor approaching the mentee directly.

[_collegeterrace]

Christ like Bishop Peterson: I've been tearing the legs off of little kittens all morning, just to get in the mood!


Does your wife know that you say things like that online?

Harmony: Normally, I just ignore the feuds here, but this just didn't sit well today. I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the graphic stuff. My cat who'd been with me for the last 9 years was killed yesterday by a pack of dogs. So could you lay off the graphic stuff for a while?

B***s******g Bishop Peterson: I'm sorry about your cat. I'm fond of cats (and of dogs), and I know it hurts to lose pets. (Our little white dog, fifteen years old, died about eighteen months ago, and I still miss him.) And I'm genuinely sorry if my little joke caused you any pain.
You lie like your dead dog. It would be fruitless if we were to wring your egotistical arrogant self in search of even a drop of kindness.

Asswipe Bishop Peterson: But I shouldn't admit this publicly, since, according to the Scartchii and their tiny coterie of disciples here, I revel in cruelty.

This is quite obvious given how many members in need have been been pissed on by you.

[_collegeterrace]

I have been advised to not speak with ward members about the basis for my concerns.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Stay up in that shell long enough and it grows on you.

Right after my wife finally exited the LDS cult, the bishop quickly requested a meeting with me. Even though I had been out for quite a while and he knew of my complete and utter disdain for Mormonism.

Needless to say I dominated the conversation. Toward the end of our quick meeting he stood and said to me, "You will not talk to MY members".

Wide eyed I chuckled, "YOUR members huh?", then I stood and leaned toward him over his fake cherry wood particle board desk.

"I will not seek out members of this ward as long as you and your minions stay away from my wife and children. You don't want to know how quickly your calendar could fill with appointments from members with lost testimonies."

So far he has been smart.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Just the press reports ...

Interesting. I didn't recall that they containing polling data . . .

Do you have a link to a press report containing survey numbers?

Not that I recall. I was referring to the less formal type of survey known an observation. I have heard and read of many expressing their disgust when the SCMC (and its mission) was exposed (and since then, too). I know of no one who has praised the existence and mission of such a clandestine group ... well, other than GA's and apologists.

as well as Dallin Oaks' ridiculous spin on this "clipping service

Which included survey data indicating that "most" people were upset and "appalled"?

I was not referring to Oaks as having survey data, just pointing out his absurd public comments about the SCMC and its mission in an effort to counteract the very negative press.

or the PR department's efforts to argue that the SCMC's creation was mandated by scripture.

Which involved polling data?

No. Like my Oaks reference, I was referring to the depths the Church (via its PR dept.) was wiling to go to try and justify such a quasi-spy organization.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You should be grateful that I'm not the evil, unrestrained, and wholly uncaring person that [Rollo Tomasi] fervently imagines me to be.

Are you lobbing yet another veiled threat toward GoodK? Give it a rest, Bishop Dan.

[_moksha]

You are 100% right, TD. In a separate discussion of this series of events, DCP went on to note that the man being "interrogated" had ripped into the SCMC. The Good Professor chuckled about how "ironic" it was that, in fact, he [i.e., DCP] was there under the auspices of the very same SCMC.

Sounds like the comrade who boast of his resistance to the KGB, not knowing the KGB is listening in on him and deciding which gulag would most suit his resistance.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are you lobbing yet another veiled threat toward GoodK?

Precisely as much as I ever did.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Are you lobbing yet another veiled threat toward GoodK?

Precisely as much as I ever did.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[_Jason Bourne]

mms, if there's anything I can ever do to help you, please don't hesitate to write to me via a PM, or, perhaps better, via daniel_peterson@BYU.edu.

I'm not the monster that some here delight in portraying me to be, and I would be more than happy to help, or to try to locate help, if I'm able.

Beware, mms. We know that the SCMC has used DCP in the past to deal with a doubting member, and we all well remember how he and rcrocket ratted out an anonymous post by GoodK to the latter's father. Though a bishop who presumably understands confidentiality, DCP cannot be trusted (at least not by anyone on this bb). Be careful. Do not give DCP your in real life information ... unless you don't care if he rats you out.

Oh Come now Rollo. This is above you. I have noticed you becoming more Scratch like as of late. Too bad.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Beware, mms. We know that the SCMC has used DCP in the past to deal with a doubting member, and we all well remember how he and rcrocket ratted out an anonymous post by GoodK to the latter's father. Though a bishop who presumably understands confidentiality, DCP cannot be trusted (at least not by anyone on this bb). Be careful. Do not give DCP your in real life information ... unless you don't care if he rats you out.

Oh Come now Rollo. This is above you. I have noticed you becoming more Scratch like as of late. Too bad.

I'm sorry I disappointed you, but I was being very sincere. What I saw happen to GoodK (via DCP and rcrocket) disgusted me more than anything else I've observed on message boards. To take something posted here anonymously and show it to the poster's actual father, thereby causing even greater estrangment, is unforgivable, in my opinion. I do NOT trust DCP at all, in light of this episode (as well as past discussions regarding Quinn, etc.). That's what I was trying to get across to mms. If I'm wrong, then so be it. But after seeing what DCP did to GoodK, how could anyone (particularly a critic or doubter) trust him with in real life information?