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

[_Daniel Peterson]

You, on the other hand, are quite willing to deny me access I am eligible for, because you don't like my ideas about accountability and integrity in regards to our leaders.

That's not a fair way of casting the issue.

But I'm done discussing it with you.

The difference I see, beyond the obvious ones, is that Jason cares more about the people in the church than he does about the policies. I can't say I've observed the same from your posts here. He is more of a "spirit of the law" person; you are more of a "letter of the law" person. (no value statement attached to either, of course.)

I could put on a real show of magnanimity and caring here on this message board. I could preen and pose with the pros.

It would be worth the price of the electrons required to display it.

I'm content to be judged, as far as charity, love, and kindness go, by the people who know me, with whom I actually interact in real life, whom I try to serve in my ministry, whom I teach and mentor.

[_harmony]

You, on the other hand, are quite willing to deny me access I am eligible for, because you don't like my ideas about accountability and integrity in regards to our leaders.

That's not a fair way of casting the issue.

But I'm done discussing it with you.

Oh, so now I'm unfair? To whom? You? Or the Brethren?

Good grief.

The difference I see, beyond the obvious ones, is that Jason cares more about the people in the church than he does about the policies. I can't say I've observed the same from your posts here. He is more of a "spirit of the law" person; you are more of a "letter of the law" person. (no value statement attached to either, of course.)

I could put on a real show of magnanimity and caring here on this message board. I could preen and pose with the pros.

It would be worth the price of the electrons required to display it.

I'm content to be judged, as far as charity, love, and kindness go, by the people who know me, with whom I actually interact in real life, whom I try to serve in my ministry, whom I teach and mentor.

That stung, didn't it? Don't deny it; it's obvious from your reply.

I thought you would bite on the letter of the law thing, but obviously you agree with my assessment, since you didn't contradict me.

You think Jason puts on a show? That he's not genuine? Or are you saying we all (everyone except you, of course) put on a show? That Liz isn't the humble sweet lady she appears? That TD isn't the charming good hearted person that she appears? That Trixie's knowledge is a sham, that Roger's kindness is a facade, that we are all putting on a show just for you?

It's always good to have these kind of conversations... it helps us know where we all stand. We all know I'm a witch on wheels, so at least that's accurate!

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm sorry for lumping you with Daniel. That was not well done of me. I know you wouldn't hurt me.

Quick note in between VT day festiviteis.

Thank you harmony.

But I will say in Dan's defense I sure don't see him the way many seem to here and again, I think on this thread he has been misunderstood some.

I know a bit about Dan and believe him to be a decent and good person. He is an avid defender of the faith yes and some here may not like that.

But I have no doubt he is a good person and would do nothing malicious to you or anyone else here though I know there is disputes over that especially in the goodk deal.

I would not be truthful if I did not say that perhaps 5 or 6 years ago I may have had some of the questions about where Harmony stands in her view of things LDS and the temple. But there are many things and happenings that have perhaps modified my thoughts and attitudes towards these things. Some for the better I think though some I am sure think it for the worse. That said I don't know if even then I would want to question any other church leaders decisions. I know how tough it is to sit in some of those chairs. And one can even note that when I have heard of a bishop or SP being heavy handed I will always qualify any comments that I have about it with "I do not know all the fact nor am I sitting in that chair."


Dan and I may differ in some things sure. And while he is questioning whether HE would give you a recommend based only on what he sees here, and it seems he would be open to modify that view if he had more information in person, I do not see him condemning or judging any other leader nor do I see him wanting to hurt you or anyone else.

As for me and what I write here I am pretty transparent here, perhaps too much so at times. And I have almost become more so at times but prudence stays my hand on this. Still most of what you see from me is what I am.

gotta run now!!!

[_Mister Scratch]

In an interview a bishop is supposed to ask questions that they believe are appropriate if there is reason to believe the TR candidate my not understand what the definition of say chastity means, or if the bishop has reason to believe a person is being less than honest. For example, I know of a bishop who was bishop of a ward of single persons. He found most of his members defined breaking the law of chastity as only sexual intercourse. So what he did was before he asked the question about the law of chastity he would say "Before I ask this question let me define for you what keeping the law of chastity means." He would then give the more broad definition of what it means and then ask the question.

I agree with you (more or less), Jason, but that's not what Dr. Peterson said that he was doing. Instead, he said that he'd "encountered a couple of instances" where he "suspected" that people were evading or equivocating. Both of these words imply a deliberate attempt to deceive. You know?

I agree that generally leaders should stick to the questions and not go outside them. But there are cases where they can and indeed should. There is nothing wrong with this at all.

Well, I think we both know that there are two kinds of bishops: those you keep their noses out of the members' private sexual affairs, and those who are "suspicious" that the members are "equivocating" and/or "evading." And come on, Jason. We have seen DCP go into this investigative "attack dog" mode far too many times. In essence, that is what he did to GoodK. And the pages of FARMS Review are littered with little tidbits of gossipy "dirt" about the authors on the chopping block. I think you'll have to concede that this is just a part of his personality. I characterized it earlier as "Gestapo," and maybe that is a bit extreme, but in all seriousness, I think you'll have to concede that he does seem to engage in prying, and in fooling around in people's private affairs.

Wow. No. It really seems that in some few cased when he deems it appropriate he carefully asks questions that if he did not ask he would be shirking his obligations and a judge in Israel.

I didn't read it that way at all. Rather, it seems to me that he "slipped up" and admitted that he pressures his parishioners into "confessing", and then, when I pointed it out to him, he began backpedaling furiously. Honestly, Jason: when you read his original remark, did it not strike you that he was engaging in this sort of "Gestapo" pressuring? If not, then maybe you can tell me how and why "coitus interruptus" would ever come up during a bishop's interview?

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.

Of of course you are. Another simply rather innocent item that Scratch can take, twist and distort in his continued quest to smear Dr Peterson's character.

I don't think it's all that "innocent" at all, Jason. I think you're naïve to assume that DCP is just this nice, friendly, jovial individual who treats everyone fairly. Try leveling a very fair-minded criticism against FARMS and see how long you remain on his "Friends List." I think that Harmony is far closer to the mark in terms of the type of person he is. Just my .02.

[_moksha]

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.

As Rabbi Hillel may have said, "If not here then where?". W already have our lesson plans printed and steam is not included.

[Guest]

That stung, didn't it? Don't deny it; it's obvious from your reply.

Would it somehow gratify you if I were to say yes?

I thought you would bite on the letter of the law thing, but obviously you agree with my assessment, since you didn't contradict me.

I simply don't see the point in contradicting you.

A person who's never met me offers a negative evaluation of my character before an audience that's mostly hostile to me.

Why even bother with such nonsense?

(Which, I readily grant, immediately raises the question of why I bother with Mister Scratch.)

You think Jason puts on a show? That he's not genuine? Or are you saying we all (everyone except you, of course) put on a show? That Liz isn't the humble sweet lady she appears? That TD isn't the charming good hearted person that she appears? That Trixie's knowledge is a sham, that Roger's kindness is a facade, that we are all putting on a show just for you?

I said none of this.

[_Daniel Peterson]

We have seen DCP go into this investigative "attack dog" mode far too many times. In essence, that is what he did to GoodK.

I provided an old friend with a link to a public message board regarding something about him.

And the pages of FARMS Review are littered with little tidbits of gossipy "dirt" about the authors on the chopping block.

???????

I think you'll have to concede that he does seem to engage in prying, and in fooling around in people's private affairs.

???????

it seems to me that he "slipped up" and admitted that he pressures his parishioners into "confessing"

For any non-Scratchites who may be reading this: I "admitted" no such thing. I've never done any such thing.

maybe you can tell me how and why "coitus interruptus" would ever come up during a bishop's interview?

I've already provided such a scenario, above, that I've encountered more than once.

I don't think it's all that "innocent" at all, Jason. I think you're naïve to assume that DCP is just this nice, friendly, jovial individual who treats everyone fairly. Try leveling a very fair-minded criticism against FARMS and see how long you remain on his "Friends List." I think that Harmony is far closer to the mark in terms of the type of person he is. Just my .02.

What a surprise.

[_Ray A]

That Trixie's knowledge is a sham,

Dan never said this, Harm. Maybe you should go back and check his posts.

I think it would be a good thing if you both met. I think Dan does come across a bit "stern" in his posts, sometimes. In real life, he is, truly, a very nice human being. Very engaging, and terrific conversation, on almost any subject imaginable.
>
>
>

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, Ray.

Shucks. You're almost making me blush.

But I'm really posting to say that, if reasonable people out there want to see for themselves whether my apologetic writings are, as Mister Scratch claims, crammed with gossipy "dirt" reflecting an obsession on my part with prying into details of the private lives of my enemies while avoiding actual issues, they're entirely welcome to examine those apologetic writings -- of which a representative and substantial selection are available on line:

http://farms.BYU.edu/authors/?authorID=1

[_Joey]

But I'm really posting to say that, if reasonable people out there want to see for themselves whether my apologetic writings are, as Mister Scratch claims, crammed with gossipy "dirt" reflecting an obsession on my part with prying into details of the private lives of my enemies while avoiding actual issues, they're entirely welcome to examine those apologetic writings -- of which a representative and substantial selection are available on line:

http://farms.BYU.edu/authors/?authorID=1

Still trying to promote attention to the den of obscurity!

Have reasonable scholars started paying attention to the Book of Mormon historicity works of Clark and Sorenson yet? Or are they still ignoring the den??!!