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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Ray A

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

Post by _Ray A »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Here's how it generally goes for me in the relevant cases (which are seldom actually temple recommend interviews):

Interviewee: "Me and my boyfriend messed up."

Bishop: "What do you mean, 'messed up'?"

Interviewee: "Well, we were out on a date, and things got out of hand."

Bishop: "Sorry -- and I really hate to be asking such clinical questions -- but I need to know what happened."

Interviewee: "Well, we did some things we shouldn't have done."

Bishop: "Okay. Were your clothes on?"

Interviewee: "No."

Bishop: "Hmmm. Did you have sexual intercourse?"

Interviewee: "Well, sort of. I don't know. Maybe not. We, ummm, stopped. You know?"

And it goes on from there. Mister Scratch is seeking to portray me as some sort of ecclesiastical Peeping Tom, but, as always, he's wrong.


I am not criticising your methods, Dan. What you do as a bishop is your business, not mine. I only stated how I operated.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

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

Post by _Gadianton »

Professor/Bishop Peterson wrote: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


If these "applicants" have read the Review, and have generally followed apologetics at all, then how can they be faulted by a bishop/apologist for simply mastering the tools of apologetic skulduggery? shouldn't these applicants be tapped post-haste to participate in apologetic venues?

This sounds a lot like how apologists insist that the term "anti-Mormon" is narrow, technical, and devoid of any pejorative teeth. Some critics -- such as myself, for instance -- believe the term is being used evasively and further believe the critic not only has the right, but the obligation to inquire further, exposing the sinfullness that lurks behind this nasty term in the mind of the apologist. We all know what the term really means, and it's that meaning which causes great levity and high-fiving amongst the apologists as the critics become the butt of low-intelligence jokes.

This is indeed a "watershed moment" in the history of apologetics. I had not hitherto realized how wedded to "Levi loving" logic apologetics is. Let the fluids of truth rush forth.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Yoda

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

Post by _Yoda »

Ray A wrote:
liz3564 wrote:Don't you think, as a bishop, it would be better to grant someone a temple recommend, even if they had a rather unconventional type of testimony, as long as they were living the Word of Wisdom, Tithing, and Chastity standards worthily?


Not Dan, but I'd like to give my opinion. I think the only one qualified to judge a person is that person's bishop. I had this discussion with Harmony long ago, and voiced the same opinion then.

Perhaps I'm different, and maybe was too liberal, I never asked explicit questions about sexual behaviour, learned that lesson quick, nor tried to "tease" anything out of people. Would never ask about bedroom behaviour, learned that super-quick (more so after the 1982 First Presidency oral sex fiasco). I simply asked the TR questions, and let members volunteer whatever information they wanted. If they replied "yes I obey the law of chastity", that's where it ended for me. I'm sure other bishops had other approaches. Even with young boys I'd never ask "do you masturbate?". I'd ask "do you obey the law of chastity?" (If I had doubts they understood what it was I'd explain)

Sometimes I knew or believed a member wasn't paying a full tithe (from the records), but if they answered "yes" I gave them the recommend. As far as I was concerned, they had given an answer
which they felt comfortable with, and if they were lying, then "you can square that one out with the man upstairs someday". Not my business. Perhaps unorthodox.

The same with participating online. Online behaviour is still a subject of study by psychologists. People often dehave differently online than they do in real life, or, sometimes "out of character". It can be a fantasyland, and frankly I've been surprised over the years to see how many "online doubters" had temple recommends. It's a place where they can let off steam and express real doubts, misgivings, and even heretical ideas that they wouldn't express in priesthood or Relief Society. It's a sort of "escape" from the monotony of rigidity and a Peter Perfect world where no one deviates from mouthing the party line.

Hypothetically, if I was harmony's bishop, and she was living all the in real life requirements - Yes I'd give her a recommend.


Thanks for responding, Ray. It sounds like you were a good bishop. Your Ward was lucky to have you. :smile:
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

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

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Gadianton wrote:This is indeed a "watershed moment" in the history of apologetics.

Spoken like a true Scratchite, Gadianton Scratch!
_Ray A

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

Post by _Ray A »

liz3564 wrote:Thanks for responding, Ray. It sounds like you were a good bishop. Your Ward was lucky to have you. :smile:


Liz, I made mistakes as a bishop. Every bishop makes mistakes, as they learn. I recall one time when I, at the constant urging of my counselors, excommunicated a brother and sister. He was a new member, and held the Aaronic PH, so he came under my jurisdiction. They were living together, and one of my counselors discovered this as he was her home-teacher. I wanted to leave them alone, because how many inactive members live "in sin", yet we never pursued them. It seemed to me like only the active ones, "living in sin", were pursued.

Ain't that strange? What's the message here? If you want to live sin - don't come to church! It's almost laughable.

So a bishop's "court of love" was convened. They were given an ultimatum - stop living together, or face excommunication. They refused to stop living together, and were excommunicated.

He never returned to the Church. Years later, long after I was released, I saw her at a sacrament meeting, standing in the foyer. I felt too ashamed to approach her and shake her hand, so I avoided her. She left after about 20 minutes, never to return.

Of course, in retrospect, as an exmo, I thought maybe that wasn't such a bad thing (she's probably very happy now). But if I was a concerned member, I'd be worried about the devastating effect that court had upon them. We virtually drove them away, when, if we had just let it be, maybe she would have returned to full activity. And no one knows how much the daunting task of rebaptism might have made her feel.

A whole family was lost, and from my perspective now it really doesn't matter, because as I said, she may be very happy. But from the Church point of view - decisions like this can have catastrophic long-term effects, for generations.
_Yoda

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

Post by _Yoda »

Mister Scratch wrote:
1) Times when you, as bishop, "suspect" that an interviewee isn't being entirely forthright in answering questions about the Law of Chastity;


DCP wrote:I've had a few of those. It's been pretty obvious when people weren't being forthright.


Dan, when you say that it was obvious the person wasn't being forthright, was it obvious based on confirmation of the spirit, or were you basing your assumptions on what someone else in the ward had told you about the person?

The reason I ask is that it bothers me when a bishop holds much credence to gossip. I'm not saying that you do. As a matter of fact, I have always assumed that you don't. I suppose that's why this phrase troubled me, and I would like some clarification.

We had a situation in our ward with my daughter which was rather devastating for her. She is a very pretty girl, and has always had plenty of attention from the boys at school. The girls in her mutual class were jealous of her, and one of them, particularly so. She went to the bishop and told the bishop that my daughter was sleeping around with several guys in her school class.

Nothing could have been further from the truth. She had not even dated yet. She had a "boyfriend" of sorts....but it consisted of her talking on the phone to him, and the two of them spending time here, at the house playing video games, always with either me, or her 6'4 275 pound father here.
_Yoda

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

Post by _Yoda »

Gad wrote:I had not hitherto realized how wedded to "Levi loving" logic apologetics is. Let the fluids of truth rush forth.


ROTFLMAO! Thanks for the new sig, Gad! :lol:
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

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

Post by _bcspace »

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?


You need to go back and read what he said. He was talking about those who would equivocate and try to define such as not having sex. This whole conversation reinforces in my mind the notion that antiMormons within and without the Church have this little sex fetish along the lines of "use it or lose it or be damned". They erroneously believe someone is going to come along and take away their ability to have sex so they must have sex to reinforce that they are still able. What a joyless life!
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

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

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

liz3564 wrote:Dan, when you say that it was obvious the person wasn't being forthright, was it obvious based on confirmation of the spirit, or were you basing your assumptions on what someone else in the ward had told you about the person?

I have never, not once, pressed anybody for details based on gossip.

Scratchite demonology notwithstanding, I despise gossip.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

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

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Gadianton wrote:
Professor/Bishop Peterson wrote: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

If these "applicants" have read the Review, and have generally followed apologetics at all, then how can they be faulted by a bishop/apologist for simply mastering the tools of apologetic skulduggery? shouldn't these applicants be tapped post-haste to participate in apologetic venues?

Thanks, Gadianton, for the best laugh I've had all week! So very, very true.

Dr. Peterson, surely you found Gadianton's post at least a little bit humorous, didn't you?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
Post Reply