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

[_moksha]

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

I was referring to Droopy and bcspace.

Harmony, my guess is Droopy and bcspace harmless except during times of a full moon. Even then, they would merely bay at Liberals in the Church.

[_Chap]

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.

I am happy to leave it to readers of Harmony's posts on this board to work out whether she is or is not happy with DCP's "I know a secret ..." messages.

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.

That sounds like a salutary exercise for DCP to undertake. He will then be following, to some extent, in the footsteps of a distinguished predecessor in his own field:

Edward Pococke
(1604-1691)
From Biographia Britannica (1760), v. 3375.

(Pococke, an orientalist of great learning, became the first Professor of Arabic at Oxford in 1636. His editions and Latin translations of various Arabic works gave him a European reputation.)

In 1643 he was presented by his college to the rectory of Childrey, a living of very good value in Berkshire; and the military state of Oxford rendering the demands of his professorship impractical set him more at liberty to attend particularly to the duties of this new relation, which he discharged with the religious care of a worthy parish priest.

Among other instances of his prudent and pious care for the religious improvement of his flock, it is observable that though he was led, both by genius and inclination, to spend his whole life in the most recondite literature, yet his sermons were always composed in a plain style upon practical subjects, carefully avoiding all show and ostentation of learning. But from this very exemplary caution not to amuse [bewilder] his hearers (contrary to the common method then in vogue) with what they could not understand, some of them took occasion to entertain very contemptible thoughts of his learning, and to speak of him accordingly. So that one of his Oxford friends, as he travelled through Childrey, inquiring for his diversion of some of the people, Who was their minister, and how they liked him? received this answer: `Our parson is one Mr. Pococke, a plain honest man. But Master,' said they, `he is no Latiner.'

I'd much rather be thought to be 'no Latiner' than be suspected of sprinkling learned references in my postings not so much to communicate as to impress people who are, on a board like this, mostly likely to be unfamiliar with the stuff he cites. No doubt in DCP's case the richness and exuberance of his learning simply overflows onto the key-board: he can't help it - he has so much to give, and should not be criticised for that. (Anyhow, he doesn't care what anybody here thinks. That's why he posts such a lot about himself here, to show he doesn't care.)

But if we didn't know what a nice, simple unpretentious person DCP is (we have his own word for that), we might think otherwise. That would be wicked and uncharitable.

[_John Larsen]

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.

But you will public question his actions, citing your own official authority on a public web site. Very interesting.

[_John Larsen]

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

I've been reading since well before kindergarten.

What a blowhard! I simply am amazed at the ego on this guy. You will actually call up your pre-school academic record to buttress your opinion. Incredible! You should all know that Daniel quit using his binky when He was only six months old, so there!

[_harmony]

I've seen enough of harmony's criticisms of the Brethren, from Joseph Smith on down, not to be satisfied with her answers as just given. I'm guessing that her bishop and stake president may not know or fully grasp her standpoint.

Harmony's theological position is, as she's explained it here and elsewhere, somewhat incoherent in my view, but it definitely casts doubt on priesthood keys, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc.

#1. From what I understand (and I'm sure you will correct me if you think I'm wrong... which is not to say that I actually would be wrong, just that you'd think I was), you don't get to probe past the standard questions if I give the standard answer. You are required to accept my answers at face value, just like you are required to accept a member's answer to the full tithe question... you don't get to require them to bring you a 1040 so you can see how much income they have and can then figure if they really paid a full tithe.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between stewardship and unrighteous dominion. You might want to get some clarification on what those two things are, in relation to your calling as bishop.

#2. I sustain my leaders... to lead. I expect my leaders... to lead. When my leaders don't rise to the level of my expectations, I comment on that. That doesn't mean I don't sustain them... that means I think they're not leading at that point.

#3. I didn't check my brain or my mouth at the door when I entered the baptismal font. I still use them both. If I disagree with my leaders, I say why. Disagreement is not non-sustaining. I can sustain and disagree at the same time. A leader who expects sustaining to be complete agreement and docile obedience is exercising unrigheous dominion. Please tell me you are not that kind of bishop, Daniel. You know what the scriptures say about priesthood holders who exercise unrighteous dominion.

Which parts of that don't you understand? I'll try to explain a bit better once you clarify what you don't understand.



.

[_krose]

Ooh! I want to take the test!

Temple license questions as posted by Liz:

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

- No.

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

- No.

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

- No.

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?

- No, no, and no.

5. Do you live the law of chastity?

- No, not as defined by LDS leaders obsessed with 'little factories.'

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

- No, I can't think of anything, unless you include abandonment of 'priesthood responsibilities.'

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?

- Yes, I do agree with many of their criticisms, plus I am one of those whose 'teachings' are contrary.

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?

- No.

9. Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

- Yes.

10. Are you a full-tithe payer?

- No, and damned proud of it.

11. Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

- Yes, almost all the time, but mostly out of habit. I'll partake if I feel like it.

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

- Not applicable.

13. If you have previously received your temple endowment:
Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

- No.

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?

- No, absolutely not (shudder).

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

- No. However, if I believed in either sin or the authority of these men to resolve it, then it would be yes.

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

- Yes, I do.

Do I get to go in now to see relatives get married? I'm not interested in participating in anything, just being there for others' important occasions.

[_Daniel Peterson]

#1. From what I understand (and I'm sure you will correct me if you think I'm wrong... which is not to say that I actually would be wrong, just that you'd think I was), you don't get to probe past the standard questions if I give the standard answer. You are required to accept my answers at face value

You're wrong.

I can't impose standards of my own devising, but I can probe to find out whether the candidate for a recommend is answering the questions in the sense they were asked.

Two examples:

An applicant might respond "Yes" when asked whether he or she lives the law of chastity, but it may turn out that the person is using a narrowly technical definition of chastity that permits oral sex, coitus interruptus, and the like. If a bishop suspects that the term may be being used in an equivocal or evasive sense, he has not only the right but the obligation to inquire further.

I've encountered one or two cases much like this.

An applicant may respond that, yes, he sustains the president of the Church as a prophet and as the sole person authorized to use all priesthood keys, but may mean by that merely that he recognizes the president of the Church as the genuine president of the Church, viewed by Church members as a prophet -- a proposition that few non-members or unbelievers or even anti-Mormons would question. And that would not be an adequate response.

I know someone, a thorough unbeliever, who managed to obtain a temple recommend (and Church employment) for several years while giving precisely that answer in precisely that sense. His bishop and stake president did not press him further, but they would have been well within their rights and obligations if they had. When I asked him whether, by his sociological standard, Muhammad and Jim Jones were genuine prophets, he responded without hesitation that, yes, they were.

Which parts of that don't you understand? I'll try to explain a bit better once you clarify what you don't understand.

Condescension duly noted.

I'm actually not interested in discussing this any further.

[_cinepro]

An applicant may respond that, yes, he sustains the president of the Church as a prophet and as the sole person authorized to use all priesthood keys,

What if the applicant wants to believe it, and did fully believe it at one time, but now has serious doubts about the claim, but is willing to live as if he were a prophet while he studies and prays about the issue?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What if the applicant wants to believe it, and did fully believe it at one time, but now has serious doubts about the claim, but is willing to live as if he were a prophet while he studies and prays about the issue?

I would probably not deny such a person a temple recommend.

Though I might well caution such a person that participating on this board is dubious and problematic.

[_bcspace]

Let me know what she says.

She actually served 92-93. It was out in the countryside where apparently they sent few elders. She does not remember you but it seems that you may have already have left by the time she got there.