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

[_harmony]

#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.

Try to keep the first phrase at the forefront, Daniel. You can't get around my answers, because my answers are sufficient. Were you to probe, my answers would still be sufficient. Were you to try to deny me my TR, you'd hear from my SP before the hour was out.

Two examples:

Neither of which apply.

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 am permitted to indulge in oral sex, coitus interruptus, and whatever "the like" is. I'm married. As my bishop, you don't get to tell me what to do behind my bedroom doors... or anywhere else I choose to indulge my sexuality. You would really be hearing from my SP, were you to try.

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

I'm sitting here, trying to think up a reply to this comment. My first response is: "The hell you have!" My second is: "Not me, not now, not ever..."

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.

And you know he/she means this by... what? Your seer stone? Your discernment? Your innate ability to know exactly what a person means, as demonstrated here consistently up until now?

How do you know what the individual "may mean"? He answered the question... why would you not take his word for it? Do you demand 1040 forms at tithing settlement? Do you subject your friends and family in the ward (maybe you don't have any friends in the ward?) to the same level of intrusiveness?

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.

So now you're criticizing someone else's bishop and SP, because they took this person at his word and you wouldn't have? Do you not see how fully this leads back to my first impression... that you take self-righteous prick to an entirely new level?

Good grief, Daniel! What are you doing, questioning a bishop and a SP... degrading the connection between a member and his bishop? questioning the inspiration of another local leader? And this helps the church... how?

And since you know someone who did this, you assume I do this, even though you have no basis for this, as I am not seeking employment at BYU *shudder*, nor am I in your ward, nor do you have any stewardship over me? By implication, you question the inspiration and spirituality of my bishop and my SP? And you cannot see how offensive this is?

You might want to check your Ladder of Inference, because right now, your assumptions are leaking into this conversation, and I suspect you leak regularly.

Condescension duly noted.

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

Isn't that just ducky? I wasn't interested in discussing it at all but you pushed the issue.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am permitted to indulge in oral sex, coitus interruptus, and whatever "the like" is. I'm married. As my bishop, you don't get to tell me what to do behind my bedroom doors... or anywhere else I choose to indulge my sexuality. You would really be hearing from my SP, were you to try.

I obviously had in mind an unmarried member.

And you know he/she means this by... what? Your seer stone? Your discernment? Your innate ability to know exactly what a person means, as demonstrated here consistently up until now?

I know this because he expressly told me what he meant.

I was not his bishop. But I was his close friend. I liked him, and still do like him. I believe that he felt he was answering the recommend questions honestly. He had worked out a way, acceptable to his conscience, to remain a member of the community in good standing. However, knowing what I know but what his bishop and stake president presumably didn't, I do not believe that his answer was adequate to qualify for a temple recommend.

you take self-righteous prick to an entirely new level?

Gee. Why am I not interested in discussing this with you?

What are you doing, questioning a bishop and a SP...

As if you believe that Church leaders are beyond question!

degrading the connection between a member and his bishop?

I've done nothing of the kind.

questioning the inspiration of another local leader?

I've done nothing of the kind.

I've said that, based upon what I've seen of your opinions here and elsewhere, I myself could not, in good conscience, give you a temple recommend.

Perhaps they know something I don't know.

Perhaps they don't know what I know.

you pushed the issue.

I haven't pushed the issue at all.

[_Mister Scratch]

I have a couple of things to say.

1) Harmony, Chap, and others have every right to find DCP's comments "creepy." And believe me when I tell you that he does indeed relish the thought of using a person's private information against them. For example, someone, perhaps the Mr. Itchy people, passed along a bit of gossip to him about *my* private life (it turns out that this gossip is completely wrong on a number of levels, thus proving that DCP has no problem relying upon erroneous information to taunt and attack people, but that is another issue), and he has been rather gleefully dropping little hints about it up and down the board.

So, I would be cautious if I were you, Harmony. Eventually, he may very well claim that he is "fed up," or thinks you're being "unfair," or whatever, and at that point, there is a pretty good likelihood that he would attempt to nuke your life. Hopefully, this won't happen, but I think that everyone deserves a fair warning.

2) I found this statement very revealing:

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.

In all truthfulness, I found it rather unfortunate that people picked on DCP after he announced that he would be a bishop. Yes, yes---I know. I do like to rib him fairly often and to give him a hard time. But still, I thought he deserved a fair shake this time around. Thus, I found it unfortunate when certain critics immediately began to attack him, saying that he'd be the type of bishop who would pry into his parishioners' private sex lives. Personally, I had figured that he'd be just fine as a bishop. Presumably, he'd treat people fairly (hopefully more fairly than he treats people online), and that he'd be fun and charming in his jovial, Falstaffian way. Thus, again, I thought it was a bit unfair that people assumed that he would be the kind of creepy, sickly avuncular bishop who would ask about masturbation, oral sex, and---good grief---coitus interruptus. (Under what circumstances would questions about coitus interruptus ever need to be asked??? Perhaps DCP will enlighten us.)

Well, now we can see that, in fact, he views it as his obligation to pry into such matters! He has long tried to claim that he is not some vindictive, "digging through the dirt" kind of a person, but it seems to me that this remark runs contrary--remarkably so!--to his prior claims. "If a bishop suspects"? And just how, pray tell, might a "bishop suspect"? Via gossip? But then, DCP never engages in gossip! Just ask Mike Quinn.

In any case, I thought I would note how startled I was by this admission on his part. I think it reveals a great deal about his character.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have a couple of things to say.

Of course you do.

And, although I haven't yet read them, I predict that you will be stunned by revelations of my character, etc., and that you will react negatively.

Harmony, Chap, and others have every right to find DCP's comments "creepy."

Admiration, Ambrose Bierce said, is our polite recognition of someone else's resemblance to ourselves.

Mister Scratch naturally approves of anyone and anything that he can view as a fellow traveler with Scratchism. And a central dogma of Scratchism is disapproval of me and all, or virtually all, my works.

And believe me when I tell you that he does indeed relish the thought of using a person's private information against them.

Mister Scratch has never met me and doesn't actually know me, but he knows that I'm an evil and malicious person.

For example, someone, perhaps the Mr. Itchy people,

Just for the record: I've seen several references to "Mr. Itchy," but I apparently wasn't here during the Itchy era. I don't know what happened, and I don't know who Mr. Itchy is.

passed along a bit of gossip to him about *my* private life (it turns out that this gossip is completely wrong on a number of levels, thus proving that DCP has no problem relying upon erroneous information to taunt and attack people, but that is another issue), and he has been rather gleefully dropping little hints about it up and down the board.

I know nothing about Mister Scratch's private life, and don't claim to.

This situation has always been completely assymetrical: Mister Scratch eagerly gathers information about my employment, my personal finances, and the like, but I don't even know his name.

So, I would be cautious if I were you, Harmony. Eventually, he may very well claim that he is "fed up," or thinks you're being "unfair," or whatever, and at that point, there is a pretty good likelihood that he would attempt to nuke your life. Hopefully, this won't happen, but I think that everyone deserves a fair warning.

There's always a chance, too, that I'll someday grab an automatic weapon and open fire at the local McDonald's.

I know nothing about harmony's life with which to "nuke" her -- and particularly so if, as she suggests, she's been completely upfront about her beliefs with her bishop and her stake president.

I found this statement very revealing:

You find virtually everything I ever say "revealing." And never positively so.

Thus, again, I thought it was a bit unfair that people assumed that he would be the kind of creepy, sickly avuncular bishop who would ask about masturbation, oral sex, and---good grief---coitus interruptus. (Under what circumstances would questions about coitus interruptus ever need to be asked??? Perhaps DCP will enlighten us.)

I think I'm about to be portrayed as a pervert.

At least it'll be a fresh angle of attack.

Anybody who's ever been the bishop of a single's ward won't have to be told that these matters come up. They simply do.

When somebody comes in to me and says "Bishop, my boyfriend and I messed up," I have to ask "What does that mean?" I always apologize for seeking rather clinical details, and I back off as soon as I know what I need to know, but "messing up" is rather vague. Having sexual intercourse is a different thing than merely spending too much time making out, or, as one person confessed, having unclean thoughts pass through his mind when his hand inadvertently touched his date's rear end. In order to make a determination of how or whether to respond, I need to know a bit more than merely "we messed up."

Do I get some sort of charge out of talking with people about their sex lives? You can't imagine how very little charge I get out of it. I don't enjoy it even slightly. But it comes with the territory.

And, if I can credit what they say, I've been able to help quite a few kids through feelings of guilt and unworthiness -- but am only able to do so if I have a reasonably clear idea what it is that they've done.

Well, now we can see that, in fact, he views it as his obligation to pry into such matters! He has long tried to claim that he is not some vindictive, "digging through the dirt" kind of a person, but it seems to me that this remark runs contrary--remarkably so!--to his prior claims. "If a bishop suspects"? And just how, pray tell, might a "bishop suspect"? Via gossip? But then, DCP never engages in gossip! Just ask Mike Quinn.

In any case, I thought I would note how startled I was by this admission on his part. I think it reveals a great deal about his character.

Sigh.

This is so monotonously predictable.

Well, I didn't campaign to be a bishop. I would happily have foregone the "honor." But I try to carry out the duties of my calling in a loving and sensitive way, receptive to the Spirit. And if I'm going to be portrayed as a prying pervert and a tyrant for doing so, I'm willing to undergo that, as well.

[_harmony]

I am permitted to indulge in oral sex, coitus interruptus, and whatever "the like" is. I'm married. As my bishop, you don't get to tell me what to do behind my bedroom doors... or anywhere else I choose to indulge my sexuality. You would really be hearing from my SP, were you to try.

I obviously had in mind an unmarried member.

Oh, now I'm supposed to know what you have in mind? You constantly tell me I'm not a mindreader, so how would this be obvious to me?

And you know he/she means this by... what? Your seer stone? Your discernment? Your innate ability to know exactly what a person means, as demonstrated here consistently up until now?

I know this because he expressly told me what he meant.

So you're critical of the bishop/SP of this man because they gave him a temple recommend, based on what he told them, but because he told you something different, you think he shouldn't have had one. And so this is all the bishop's fault. He didn't question the man closely enough... even though he had no reason to question him, even though his inspiration obviously didn't tell him that your friend Washington lying... but based on your knowledge, you are critical of the bishop's allowing this man his recommend.

You just stood as "Critic" for a bishop who, in your ever so righteous judgment, didn't have the proper inspiration about a member of his ward.

And you call me judgmental. wow.

I was not his bishop. But I was his close friend.

Ah. So you feel qualified to comment on your friend's relationship with his bishop, his bishop's inspiration, his bishop's judgment in a matter over which he was entitled to divine revelation and you were not.

And you don't see the conflict this inspires? You criticize me for criticizing my leaders... but you just criticized your friend's leaders.

I liked him, and still do like him. I believe that he felt he was answering the recommend questions honestly. He had worked out a way, acceptable to his conscience, to remain a member of the community in good standing. However, knowing what I know but what his bishop and stake president presumably didn't, I do not believe that his answer was adequate to qualify for a temple recommend.

And you base this belief on what? Your divine right to inspiration about your friend? (you don't have that) Your excellent judgments in the past? (CFR) Some stewardship the rest of us don't have? (you have none).

Perhaps it would behoove you (and the rest of us) to allow your friend's bishop and SP to exercise their stewardship, their inspiration, and their good judgment... and assume they are receiving something you are not. After all... isn't that how stewardship is supposed to work?

you take self-righteous prick to an entirely new level?

Gee. Why am I not interested in discussing this with you?

Spade... meet Spade. You can dish it, but now you can't take it?

What are you doing, questioning a bishop and a SP...

As if you believe that Church leaders are beyond question!

I am not you; I am not a bishop; I do not hold stewardship over anyone.

We aren't talking about me... we're talking about you. What are you doing, questioning the judgment of a bishop and SP? Trying to usurp their stewardship? If I questioned your judgment in matters of your ward members, you'd be all over that like a hammer on a nail. So why shouldn't I point it out when I observe you doing the same thing... to some other poor schmuck of a bishop?

degrading the connection between a member and his bishop?

I've done nothing of the kind.

You've certainly tried. Did you tell your friend that you wouldn't have given him the recommend? Did you support his bishop's judgment?

questioning the inspiration of another local leader?

I've done nothing of the kind.

Do I need to quote it? (stupid question... of course I do)...

I do not believe that his answer was adequate to qualify for a temple recommend

You just questioned the judgment and spirituality of a man you don't even know. You come unglued when I do it to you, but you just did it to a fellow bishop.

I've said that, based upon what I've seen of your opinions here and elsewhere, I myself could not, in good conscience, give you a temple recommend.

I, on the other hand, were I in your shoes, and knowing what I know about you, would strive to rise above that knowledge... and give you the recommend, hoping you would learn the basics of the gospel which you so obviously don't know now.

Perhaps I understand gospel basics in ways you never will.

Perhaps they know something I don't know.

They obviously know a great deal more than you do. About many things, including the hearts of their ward family.

Perhaps they don't know what I know.

Well, since they don't have degrees in Arabic, I suppose that's possible.

you pushed the issue.

I haven't pushed the issue at all.

You've pushed it clean into the next county.

[_Mister Scratch]

Mister Scratch naturally approves of anyone and anything that he can view as a fellow traveler with Scratchism. And a central dogma of Scratchism is disapproval of me and all, or virtually all, my works.

That's not true at all. 100% of my comments are directed at your Mopologetics and your online antics. I never have anything to say about your academic work, your family life, your hobbies, or anything of that nature. But feel free to keep exaggerating.

And believe me when I tell you that he does indeed relish the thought of using a person's private information against them.

Mister Scratch has never met me and doesn't actually know me, but he knows that I'm an evil and malicious person.

You've never met me and know even less about me than I do about you. But you know that I'm "insane," "malicious," "malevolent," "obsessed," and so on.

passed along a bit of gossip to him about *my* private life (it turns out that this gossip is completely wrong on a number of levels, thus proving that DCP has no problem relying upon erroneous information to taunt and attack people, but that is another issue), and he has been rather gleefully dropping little hints about it up and down the board.

I know nothing about Mister Scratch's private life, and don't claim to.

That's not what you told another member of this board, Dan. In fact, you told this person that I "deserved it," and that you were giving me a taste of my own medicine. Feel free to continue peddling your lies.

I know nothing about harmony's life with which to "nuke" her -- and particularly so if, as she suggests, she's been completely upfront about her beliefs with her bishop and her stake president.

Right. There we go. Yet another veiled threat. You "won't" try to contact either her stake president or her bishop. (This after just revealing that you would deny her a TR if you were her bishop.)

When somebody comes in to me and says "Bishop, my boyfriend and I messed up," I have to ask "What does that mean?" I always apologize for seeking rather clinical details, and I back off as soon as I know what I need to know, but "messing up" is rather vague. Having sexual intercourse is a different thing than merely spending too much time making out, or, as one person confessed, having unclean thoughts pass through his mind when his hand inadvertently touched his date's rear end. In order to make a determination of how or whether to respond, I need to know a bit more than merely "we messed up."

The exact phrase you used was coitus interruptus. "Messed up"? Again I ask: why on earth would this appear during the course of a bishop's interview? Did the interviewee "accidentally" confess to coitus interruptus? Or was that something you were just curious about?

Do I get some sort of charge out of talking with people about their sex lives? You can't imagine how very little charge I get out of it. I don't enjoy it even slightly. But it comes with the territory.

Look: I sympathize. I wouldn't want to be asking about this stuff. In particular, I wouldn't want to be asking people whether or not they had engaged in coitus interruptus, since I cannot imagine how that would be relevant in any way whatsoever.

And, if I can credit what they say, I've been able to help quite a few kids through feelings of guilt and unworthiness -- but am only able to do so if I have a reasonably clear idea what it is that they've done.

And what did you tell these kids? "Try using Kleenex"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Spade... meet Spade. You can dish it, but now you can't take it?

I've never called you nor anybody else the kinds of names you're calling me.

Harmony, I'm not interested in discussing this with you.

And I'm certainly not interested in dealing with all of your illegitimate elaborations on the very simple position that I stated.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But you know that I'm "insane," "malicious," "malevolent," "obsessed," and so on.

I don't know for certain that you're mentally or emotionally troubled, that you're obsessed with me, and that you're malevolent with regard to me.

But, based on the nature of your unceasing multiyear fixation on me, I strongly suspect it, yes.

That's not what you told another member of this board, Dan. In fact, you told this person that I "deserved it," and that you were giving me a taste of my own medicine. Feel free to continue peddling your lies.

Could you please supply the exact quotation of what I said, and provide a source?

Right. There we go. Yet another veiled threat. You "won't" try to contact either her stake president or her bishop.

A rather odd "threat," that.

The exact phrase you used was coitus interruptus. "Messed up"? Again I ask: why on earth would this appear during the course of a bishop's interview? Did the interviewee "accidentally" confess to coitus interruptus? Or was that something you were just curious about?

It's come up several times -- and no, not because I was "curious" about it.

The new campaign to portray me as a peeping pervert is coming along nicely, I see.

Why do I even bother here?

[_harmony]

Spade... meet Spade. You can dish it, but now you can't take it?

I've never called you nor anybody else the kinds of names you're calling me.

Harmony, I'm not interested in discussing this with you.

And I'm certainly not interested in dealing with all of your illegitimate elaborations on the very simple position that I stated.

Baloney! You called me a nominal non-believing member. You questioned my bishop's integrity and inspiration. And then you gave another example of doing the same thing to someone else's bishop.

I never called you a name. I labeled your behavior. And I tested your thesis... which incidently, didn't hold up.

But it might be a good idea for you to abandon this discussion, since it's obvious (ah! that word) that you aren't going to ascend to heaven on the basis of your inspiration in this thread.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You called me a nominal non-believing member.

No I didn't.

You questioned my bishop's integrity and inspiration.

No I didn't.

And then you gave another example of doing the same thing to someone else's bishop.

No I didn't

I never called you a name.

Right.